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

[Josheb]

Yes, but I am not condemned for that. Adam wasn't condemned for that. He was condemned because he disobeyed. And we, before being born again, are condemned because we disobeyed, not because we were born human beings.

Which goes back to the question I asked earlier (which I believe has yet to be answered). What does scripture say are the reasons a person is condemned?

The classic idea of "the fall" is just plain wrong.

A very poor job of proving that has occurred. The arguments presented have many flaws.

 

[Arial]

in a criminal matter it is the "intent" or guilty mind....which is why children are often seen as not culpable. They simply lack the mental capacity to form the intent to do something wrong.

In a criminal matter the intent and motive are not excused but the punishment is measured accordingly.

When a parent asks a child to do something and they stand with arms crossed, perhaps stomp a foot, give to their parents an angry scowl and say "No!" they know they are doing something wrong. When they get into the forbidden chocolate and have it smeared all over their face and Mommy asks, "Did you get into the chocolate?" and they answer "No. The dog did." they know they are lying. What he can't compute is that Mom can see the chocolate on his face, even though he can't see it.

 

[JIM]

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. It has been claimed young children do not and cannot do anything wrong. That claim contradicts the facts of reality. Children do things wrong all the time, every day, all day long. Likewise, the argument has been made they are not responsible or culpable but both responsibility and culpability are irrelevant if no wrong has been done. In other words, merely by arguing against responsibility and culpability the wrongdoing has been implicitly acknowledged. There'd be nothing for which to hold them responsible or culpable of nothing had happened. So, the minute either of you guys assert the premise of culpability you've contradicted yourselves! It cannot be said "now wrong is possible," and then argued, "There's no culpability." Then there is the problem of using earthly legal jurisprudence as an analogy for sin. It's a flawed analogy. It's built on the premise some law and its legal system are the only means of identifying sin and that premise is not scriptural. 1 John 3:4 is not the only verse in the Bible that defines sin and, as has already been demonstrated, sin existed prior to the giving of the Law of Moses. There'd be no talk of accountability if it did not exist! Then there's the matter of disciplining children. Either children did, in fact, do something wrong and are therefore in need of correction, training, rebuke, and discipline, or there is no warrant or need for ever disciplining any child. On every occasion when a no-sinful-kids person even admonishes a child with a single word they have contradicted themselves.

So, once again, there are many flaws, not just a single flaw, in this idea children are not sinful. Add all those flaws to the list I posted earlier, and the premise being argued became more untenable, not more viable.

No Josheb. Most of that is just wrong. The newborn and the very young are not doing wrong. They can do no wrong. They may not respond as their parents want them to, but that is not a wrong. They just have not learned yet that they should obey. They may learn early on that they need to obey, otherwise their parents will [may] punish them if they do not. But even at that point they likely do not know and understand the right or wrong of anything. And even when they begin to realize that there is a "right and a wrong" associated with obeying their parents, there may not yet be an understanding of God's "right and wrongs".

 

[Josheb]

In a criminal matter the intent and motive are not excused but the punishment is measured accordingly.

When a parent asks a child to do something and they stand with arms crossed, perhaps stomp a foot, give to their parents an angry scowl and say "No!" they know they are doing something wrong. When they get into the forbidden chocolate and have it smeared all over their face and Mommy asks, "Did you get into the chocolate?" and they answer "No. The dog did." they know they are lying. What he can't compute is that Mom can see the chocolate on his face, even though he can't see it.

I am reminded of a Facebook meme I saw recently in which a young child (I'd say 3 years old) has a face covered in chocolate and the maternal voice off camera asks, "Did you wash your face?" and the child answers "Yes, I got ramen noodles all over it and washed it off with chocolate."

ROTFLMBO!

Nooooo, that child doesn't know.

 

[Arial]

Only Adam was condemned when Adam sinned.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

It would go far better if scriptures were applied to what the Bible is applying them to instead of applying them to something the Bible is not applying them to. Those scriptures are not speaking of Adam or original sin and therefore cannot be used to either affirm or deny original sin. (Original sin does not refer to the first sin but to the result on humanity of the first sin. We all became sinners because of it.) None of us have access to the tree of life until/unless we are spiritually speaking, reborn into Him. who is life. "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

 

[LeviR]

(josh pulls up chair to watch)

Yeah, @JIM, you're guilty of the same nature as Adam (without eating the fruit ) and that's our misfortune . LOL

@LeviR, you might want to clarify that. I, personally, don't feel misfortuned by JIM's nature at all . I suspect you mean it is humanity's misfortune to have been adversely affected by Adam's disobedience. Merely telling JIM that won't work. He denies the premise. How is it humanity's misfortune to have experienced adverse effects of Adam's disobedience.

From dust you are and to dust you shall return. Whether you like it or not. That is our destiny.

 

[Arial]

The newborn and the very young are not doing wrong. They can do no wrong. They may not respond as their parents want them to, but that is not a wrong.

If it weren't wrong then why is discipline and training applied by the parents?

They just have not learned yet that they should obey. They may learn early on that they need to obey, otherwise their parents will [may] punish them if they do not. But even at that point they likely do not know and understand the right or wrong of anything. And even when they begin to realize that there is a "right and a wrong" associated with obeying their parents, there may not yet be an understanding of God's "right and wrongs".

That would mean that nothing is wrong and therefore requires no teaching or discipline.

 

[JIM]

Which goes back to the question I asked earlier (which I believe has yet to be answered). What does scripture say are the reasons a person is condemned?

Condemnation results from disobeying the law (Rom 2:12ff)

 

[Josheb]

No Josheb. Most of that is just wrong. The newborn and the very young are not doing wrong.

Then why correct them?

They can do no wrong.

Then why ever correct them?

They may not respond as their parents want them to, but that is not a wrong.

Why would they need to respond at all if the parents never corrected them?

They just have not learned yet that they should obey.

Obey what? Is it being implied they have disobeyed something?

They may learn early on that they need to obey...

Obey what?

, otherwise their parents will [may] punish them if they do not.

Punish them for what? They've done nothing wrong.

But even at that point they likely do not know and understand the right or wrong of anything.

That is incorrect, but let's say it's true. A child who smacks another child has still done wrong whether they understand it or not. And what you're suggesting is that the child who gets smacked doesn't understand the smack is wrong.

And even when they begin to realize that there is a "right and a wrong" associated with obeying their parents, there may not yet be an understanding of God's "right and wrongs".

Which would be wrong!

Every single word of Post 263 undermines sinless-child position and makes the case for post-Genesis 3:6 inherent sin.

 

[Josheb]

Condemnation results from disobeying the law (Rom 2:12ff)

And what else does scripture state causes condemnation?

 

[JIM]

If it weren't wrong then why is discipline and training applied by the parents?

Wrong as defined by parents may have nothing whatsoever to do with obeying the law which if not obeyed results in eternal condemnation.

That would mean that nothing is wrong and therefore requires no teaching or discipline.

No it doesn't mean that at all.

 

[JIM]

And what else does scripture state causes condemnation?

You tell me.

 

[JIM]

It would go far better if scriptures were applied to what the Bible is applying them to instead of applying them to something the Bible is not applying them to. Those scriptures are not speaking of Adam or original sin and therefore cannot be used to either affirm or deny original sin. (Original sin does not refer to the first sin but to the result on humanity of the first sin. We all became sinners because of it.) None of us have access to the tree of life until/unless we are spiritually speaking, reborn into Him. who is life. "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

And your definition of Original Sin is a false theological doctrine. So of course those scriptures are not speaking of original sin, whatever the definition is. It is speaking of the culpability and responsibility applied to the human being.

No we do not become sinners because of anything that Adam has done. We become sinners because of what we have done. That is the message loud and clear of Ezekiel 18 and the rest of the entire word of God.

 

[Josheb]

Wrong as defined by parents may have nothing whatsoever to do with obeying the law which if not obeyed results in eternal condemnation.

No it doesn't mean that at all.

Hmmm...

Job 8:1-7
Then Bildad the Shuhite answered, "How long will you say these things, And the words of your mouth be a mighty wind? Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert what is right? If your sons sinned against Him, then He delivered them into the power of their transgression. If you would seek God And implore the compassion of the Almighty, if you are pure and upright, surely now He would rouse Himself for you and restore your righteous estate. "Though your beginning was insignificant, yet your end will increase greatly.


Is Bildad wrong? Does that verse apply only to adult sons, and not young sons and children?

 

[JIM]

Hmmm...

Job 8:1-7
Then Bildad the Shuhite answered, "How long will you say these things, And the words of your mouth be a mighty wind? Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert what is right? If your sons sinned against Him, then He delivered them into the power of their transgression. If you would seek God And implore the compassion of the Almighty, if you are pure and upright, surely now He would rouse Himself for you and restore your righteous estate. "Though your beginning was insignificant, yet your end will increase greatly.


Is Bildad wrong? Does that verse apply only to adult sons, and not young sons and children?

I applies to any sons who sinned against Him. Obviously, newborns and the very young cannot, by definition, sin against Him.

 

[Josheb]

You tell me.

I will take that as a silent admission of ignorance and a willful act of avoidance. If the answer was known, then just post it and stop playing the shifting onus game. Come right out and say, "I do not know."

Let's start with John 3.

John 3:17-18 NIV
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

People are condemned simply for not believing in Jesus. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Law. NOTHIING!!!! This adherence to a single definition of wrongdoing or sin is part of the problem to be solved. This idea condemnation comes ONLY from disobeying the Law of Moses is part of the problem to be solved. I have provided two other means by which scripture measures sin and, as far as I know, they're both sitting silent in the thread unattended.

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

It's the failure to attend to actual post content that indicates it was ignored.

Any and all unrighteousness is sin. Likewise, anything not done in faith is sin. Righteousness and faith are not measured ONLY by the Law of Moses. Neither is sin. Right at the nucleus of the sinless-child position is a horrible, wholly unscriptural falsehood = the Law is the ONLY measure of sin. The variation on that falsehood that says the only means by which condemnation occurs is disobeying the law is equally untrue. 1 John 3:4 and Romans 2:12 do not define the entirety of scripture on the matter.

A person is condemned simply for not believing in God's resurrected Son . Those who do not believe stand condemned.... already.

 

[Josheb]

I applies to any sons who sinned against Him. Obviously, newborns and the very young cannot, by definition, sin against Him.

It's not obvious. It is a whole eisegetic addition to scripture. Job's sons were young and old and there's no caveat given for young children in Bildad's words.

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 29:15
The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

Those are both nonsensical statements if a child is incapable of wrongdoing.

 

[Josheb]

Please keep in mind that the grave "wrong" considered at that time was a child saying "No" to a parent. If a child doesn't have the capacity to understand the concept of parent-child can you legitimately say the child disrespected his parent?

I am not making another poster's argument, so please do not conflate everyone's posts. A child does have the ability to understand right and wrong at a very young age, but understanding is a red herring because ignorance is not justification.

 

[JIM]

I will take that as a silent admission of ignorance and a willful act of avoidance. If the answer was known, then just post it and stop playing the shifting onus game. Come right out and say, "I do not know."

Take as you like. But it was not related at all with "I do not know".

Let's start with John 3.

John 3:17-18 NIV
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

People are condemned simply for not believing in Jesus. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Law. NOTHIING!!!!

And that only tells me that you don't know what believing in Jesus means. You can't believe in Jesus and be ignorant of the law.

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

You can't believe in Jesus and not know the very reason that He came.

 

[JIM]

It's not obvious. It is a whole eisegetic addition to scripture. Job's sons were young and old and there's no caveat given for young children in Bildad's words.

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 29:15
The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

Those are both nonsensical statements if a child is incapable of wrongdoing.

The whole concept and basis for the Augustinian view of original sin is bound up in the eisegesist addition to Scripture. And that is the very basis for the entire Reformed Theology version of soteriology.