If Adam and Eve were a product of "evolutionism"....when, how and why did mankind fall?

[JIM]

I posted scripture. I did not add "interpretation" to it (like you've repeatedly done).

Any time that you provide more than just the actual quoting of a passage, you are adding "interpretation". I would expect you to understand that.

I have either quoted or cited scripture that plainly states the flesh God made was good. I didn't add any spin to, Gnostic or otherwise. I have also quoited or cited scripture that comes after Genesis 3 that plainly states the flesh is sinful.

That is spin. The flesh didn't become sinful. The man Adam become a sinner. The flesh didn't change. In fact what actually changed in Adam was that he became dead in his spirit.

Yes, Jesus did come in flesh and blood, but he came in sinless flesh and blood, not sinful flesh and blood. In him was no sin and he knew no sin. He did not know it cognitively, he did not know it behaviorally, he did not know it ontologically. He was pre-Genesis 3:6-7 flesh and blood, not post-Genesis 3:6-7 flesh and blood. He is the last Adam.

We all come in "sinless flesh and blood". We come into this world with a clean spirit. We just like Adam become dead in our trespasses and sins when we disobey God.

Throughout this discussion I've posted the facts of scripture and most of it has been ignored.

Josheb, that I disagree with your interpretation of scripture does not mean that I have ignored your interpretation of scripture.

 

[JIM]

Prove it.

Prove it.

Fallacious appeal to ridicule noted. Now prove your own claims and stop attacking others for what you think is an incorrect view of God or children. Do it with plainly read scripture, not scripture in which sinlessness is eisegetically assigned.

You are the one who claims that the spirit in the newborn child is dead in trespasses and sins. You prove it.

I have to leave now, but I will come back later. And I am enjoying our interchange.

 

[Josheb]

Human flesh sins.

Human flesh existed at Genesis 1:26 and was declared good at Genesis 1:31. At Genesis 3:17, three chapters later, Adam disobeyed God, acting unrighteously and faithlessly, and sinned. There was a period of time between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:6-7 when human flesh did not sin, and was not sinful.

Adam sinned. That means his flesh was sinful. Nothing could be more obvious.

His flesh, the flesh that God Himself had declared was "very good," became sinful. God did not originally make it that way. God does not call sin good, and He does not have kind words for those who do so, either.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!


It's not okay to call the pre-disobedient, pre-Genesis 3:6-7 flesh sinful or evil.

 

[Josheb]

You are the one who claims that the spirit in the newborn child is dead in trespasses and sins. You prove it.

Already done.

Josheb, that I disagree with your interpretation of scripture does not mean that I have ignored your interpretation of scripture.

It is the ignoring of content already posted, like the proof infants are sinful, that means my posts have been ignored.

I have to leave now, but I will come back later. And I am enjoying our interchange.

Give the posts another perusal when you get back. Blessings

 

[LeviR]

Human flesh existed at Genesis 1:26 and was declared good at Genesis 1:31. At Genesis 3:17, three chapters later, Adam disobeyed God, acting unrighteously and faithlessly, and sinned. There was a period of time between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:6-7 when human flesh did not sin, and was not sinful.

His flesh, the flesh that God Himself had declared was "very good," became sinful. God did not originally make it that way. God does not call sin good, and He does not have kind words for those who do so, either.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!


It's not okay to call the pre-disobedient, pre-Genesis 3:6-7 flesh sinful or evil.

I think you’re missing the fact that flesh is not sinful where there is no law. When the law came, Adam died.
The law condemns the flesh of man.

 

[LeviR]

The RCC does not know the truth. And that’s why they invented a doctrine called “immaculate conception”.
Jesus’ flesh was not immaculate. And neither was his mother’s.
If it were, God could not condemn the sin in the flesh by the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus had the same flesh as all of us.

LOL! You have argued the flesh that sins is sinful. If Jesus had the same flesh as us then Jesus was sinful in his flesh.

If that flesh is called “nature” and that nature is sinful, then Jesus shared it.

God made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf.


Hebrews 7:26
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.

If his flesh was sinful, sinful exactly like the flesh of those who sin is sinful, then Jesus was not undefiled. He is called the holy and righteous one for a reason. He could not be called that if he was like every other human.

Are you JW or LDS?

 

[LeviR]

LOL! You have argued the flesh that sins is sinful. If Jesus had the same flesh as us then Jesus was sinful in his flesh.

God made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf.


Hebrews 7:26
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.

If his flesh was sinful, sinful exactly like the flesh of those who sin is sinful, then Jesus was not undefiled. He is called the holy and righteous one for a reason. He could not be called that if he was like every other human.

Are you JW or LDS?

Hebrews 7:26 is speaking of Jesus after he was raised from the dead to die no more. He no longer shares the natural flesh nature but the divine nature. The nature that is not subject to sin or death.

God made Jesus, who did not himself sin, to be of the same nature as us so that that nature could be condemned enabling a change of nature for himself and us.

He earned eternal redemption for both himself and us.

 

[Arial]

Jesus had the same flesh as all of us. If that flesh is called “nature” and that nature is sinful, then Jesus shared it.
He was not made immortal because in Adam all die. When death was pronounced upon Adam and all of his posterity, Jesus was included.
But Jesus never sinned himself. And that’s why God accepted his sacrifice.

How does sinful flesh not sin? It is sinful to have sinful flesh. It is sinful to say that God created man with sinful flesh.

If you have been reading the posts I have posted to you, you would surely have noticed that I never said Adam was created immortal. He was created mortal. Mortal does not mean sinful. It means subject to death----able to die. He had access in Eden to the tree of life. As long as he had access to that tree and ate of it, he would not die.

If he ate of the forbidden tree that would give him the knowledge of good and evil (a tree he was commanded to not eat of) then he would die, if he did not also have access to the tree of life. Which is why he was barred from the Garden. The reason Jesus died is because he had the mortal (able to die, not sinful. Don't use them as synonyms.) flesh and blood, and he gave his mortal body as a substitute for those born in Adam. That same flesh and blood body was raised to life immortal. The first fruits of those who would also be raised from the dead, immortal.

Now answer me this. If Adam and Eve gained something from eating of the forbidden tree, that they did not have before (the knowledge of evil as well as good) does he and all of mankind after him, now have this knowledge of what is not good, and therefore the desires for it residing in that flesh and blood? And if that is so, has the very nature of a human being changed? If you still insist the answer is no, then I would expect that to be explained with something other than what has already been stated. IOW you would need to support your claim with scripture accompanied by exposition of those scriptures. Ideally you would then find if it contradicts anything else on the subject in scripture, and if it does, find a way to explain away the contradiction.

You do not have to do this of course. I am not demanding it of you. I am saying that if you can't do that, there is no basis for a discussion.

P.S. If nothing changed about the very nature of mankind because of the fall, why would it be necessary to ban them from the tree of life? And take note too, that there were no humans left in the garden so none had access to the tree of life.

 

[Arial]

He earned eternal redemption for both himself and us.

If he had no sin he did not need to be redeemed. That is a terrible thing to say. But aside from that Scripture tells us that salvation is by grace (it cannot be earned) through faith. That faith is in the person and work of Jesus. So was Christ's faith in himself?

 

[CrowCross]

I'm an old-earth creationist who accepts evolution. So, yes, I believe the earth is old and animals evolved.

I am not an evolutionist, however, theistic or otherwise. I am a creationist.

You do see my problem....you said..."I believe the earth is old and animals evolved"...which I take as darwinian style evolutionism....then you claim you're not an evolutionist.

But, you wanna play games...OK. Why can't you man up and simply present your view without being so wishy washy?

 

[LeviR]

How does sinful flesh not sin? It is sinful to have sinful flesh. It is sinful to say that God created man with sinful flesh.

If you have been reading the posts I have posted to you, you would surely have noticed that I never said Adam was created immortal. He was created mortal. Mortal does not mean sinful. It means subject to death----able to die. He had access in Eden to the tree of life. As long as he had access to that tree and ate of it, he would not die.

If he ate of the forbidden tree that would give him the knowledge of good and evil (a tree he was commanded to not eat of) then he would die, if he did not also have access to the tree of life. Which is why he was barred from the Garden. The reason Jesus died is because he had the mortal (able to die, not sinful. Don't use them as synonyms.) flesh and blood, and he gave his mortal body as a substitute for those born in Adam. That same flesh and blood body was raised to life immortal. The first fruits of those who would also be raised from the dead, immortal.

Now answer me this. If Adam and Eve gained something from eating of the forbidden tree, that they did not have before (the knowledge of evil as well as good) does he and all of mankind after him, now have this knowledge of what is not good, and therefore the desires for it residing in that flesh and blood? And if that is so, has the very nature of a human being changed? If you still insist the answer is no, then I would expect that to be explained with something other than what has already been stated. IOW you would need to support your claim with scripture accompanied by exposition of those scriptures. Ideally you would then find if it contradicts anything else on the subject in scripture, and if it does, find a way to explain away the contradiction.

You do not have to do this of course. I am not demanding it of you. I am saying that if you can't do that, there is no basis for a discussion.

P.S. If nothing changed about the very nature of mankind because of the fall, why would it be necessary to ban them from the tree of life? And take note too, that there were no humans left in the garden so none had access to the tree of life.

Again, you are missing the point that the law makes the flesh sinful.

After Adam ate the fruit, he realized he was naked and sinful. He now had the knowledge that God was good and he was evil.

This is not a change of nature but a knowledge of it.

Adam was banned from the tree of life because he was a sinner and was not therefore allowed to freely eat of the tree.

Just as Adam knew he was naked after he ate, all people are morally naked. Some know it, others don’t.

 

[LeviR]

If he had no sin he did not need to be redeemed. That is a terrible thing to say. But aside from that Scripture tells us that salvation is by grace (it cannot be earned) through faith. That faith is in the person and work of Jesus. So was Christ's faith in himself?

He needed to be redeemed from death because of Adam’s sin.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, and it also states sin reigned during the time between Adam and Moses when the Law of Moses had not yet been given.

Amen!

 

[Arial]

He needed to be redeemed from death because of Adam’s sin.

So he was redeeming himself in his death? How does that acquire salvation (redemption) for anyone else?

 

[Arial]

Again, you are missing the point that the law makes the flesh sinful.

What law are you referring to?

After Adam ate the fruit, he realized he was naked and sinful. He now had the knowledge that God was good and he was evil.

Do you think he was brain dead before that and didn't know God was good? Besides, it doesn't matter what he knew. He was under the Kingship of his creator to obey him. He was morally innocent until he sinned---and then he was no longer morally innocent ---he was changed by eating what was forbidden.

This is not a change of nature but a knowledge of it.

Which automatically changes Him---the whole Adam, not just his flesh and blood.

Adam was banned from the tree of life because he was a sinner and was not therefore allowed to freely eat of the tree.

Yes. But you have yet to prove that God created him as a sinful being. God himself would have to possess sin in himself to do so in which case there would be no such things as sin. Sin is not a thing. It is an action.

Just as Adam knew he was naked after he ate, all people are morally naked. Some know it, others don’t.

You miss something very important there. There is nothing inherently wrong with being naked. Being naked is not inherently a sin. So the idea here is, that it became sin to the sinner. And the point of it is the very essence of saved by grace through faith and the substitutionary death of Jesus, who clothes those who the Father has given him in his robes of righteousness. It takes God to remove our sin. Not another creature.

But Levi, as far as I am concerned this has gone on long enough. It is just now bickering and bantering. If you want to keep on go right ahead until the thread is locked in order to shut it down. It is unsightly.

 

[LeviR]

So he was redeeming himself in his death? How does that acquire salvation (redemption) for anyone else?

Because God accepted his sacrifice to atone for sin.

 

[JIM]

Already done.

It is the ignoring of content already posted, like the proof infants are sinful, that means my posts have been ignored.

Give the posts another perusal when you get back. Blessings

You haven't proved anything. You have done nothing except express your opinion on various things. Your opinion is not proof. You should know that but it appears you do not.

Infants cannot sin. It is not possible.

 

[JIM]

It has nothing to do with the parents. (I take it you have never raised children.) Go ask your parents, or if they have already gone to glory, anyone in your church, if one of your very first words, or that of their children, wasn't "No!". There are probably a lot of parents laughing right now and astonished at the instant rush to judgement.

It probably galls the daylights out of you but saying "No!" to you is not a sin. You child could be 15 years old and say "No!" to you and it is not sin. Hey, even I can say "No!" to you and it is not sin. Saying "No!" to you is not a sin. I am seriously beginning to wonder if either you or Josheb really knows what sin is. There are probably a lot of parents right now who actually know what sin is and are shaking their heads in complete disbelief.

And by the way, I have raised two sons and they both know what sin is.

 

[Arial]

It probably galls the daylights out of you but saying "No!" to you is not a sin. You child could be 15 years old and say "No!" to you and it is not sin. Hey, even I can say "No!" to you and it is not sin. Saying "No!" to you is not a sin. I am seriously beginning to wonder if either you or Josheb really knows what sin is. There are probably a lot of parents right now who actually know what sin is and are shaking their heads in complete disbelief.

And by the way, I have raised two sons and they both know what sin is.

It gets tiresome, people refusing to see the point.

The sin in a child defying their parents is the sin of not honoring them. Whether they know it is a sin or not, it is still a sin. God does not work around us. He is who He is. If God does not count that sin against them it is MERCY.