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

[JIM]

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.

As I have received often here at the forum: Prove it.

 

[Arial]

And your definition of Original Sin is a false theological doctrine.

You have not, in all your posts, been able to show that that is true. You merely give you interpretation of a verse or verses without tying them into either the context from which they are taken or the entire teaching on the Bible on the subject. It also goes against a very foundational teaching of historic Christianity. What you teach is a heresy that was condemned way back in Augustines time. That of Pelagianism. You will disagree with that statement of course, but before you do you need to find out why I say that. It has been posted in a video on that board titled "Introduction to Reformed Theology." To deny something before finding out if it is actually true is not good for you. The fact that the title has Reformed in it and is by someone who is Reformed should not be something that stops you from watching it. You do not have to agree with Reformed theology before or after watching it. I am suggesting only that before saying your belief is not Pelagian you check to see if that is actually the case or not. It comes up early in the video and is brief.

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.

If they are not speaking of original sin as you correctly say, why are you using them to disprove original sin? Original sin does not teach that individuals are not culpable for and responsible for their own sins. Original sin is about how they came to be sinners.

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.

No it is not the message of EZ 18. Ez 18 is about God---his judgement and the way in which he metes it out---not whether or not original sin is true or not. He is saying he will not exact judgement on a son for what his father had done. For example he will judge the one who commits adultery for adultery. He won't judge the son by the fathers adultery. That is all post fall and it is not addressing how man came to be sinner, but that he is one.

 

[JIM]

You have not, in all your posts, been able to show that that is true.

I have on numerous occasions here since I first came on board. It is readily apparent in Romans 5, but too many are so devoted to having something to blame for their own sinning, they refuse to see and understand.

 

[Arial]

The whole concept and basis for the Augustinian view of original sin is bound up in the eisegesist addition to Scripture.

Such as? You cannot just say that and not show where the eisegesis is that Augustine committed. Maybe we should see Augustine's work on the matter or at least some of them. When I get time I might do a search and come up from direct material of the man. I know a lot of it was produced in his disagreement with Pelagius, who taught as you do. That there is no original sin. Adam's sin is not imputed to all mankind and since that is the case, man can be sinless without any help from God. And by extension, we can come to faith in Christ without any help from God.

 

[Simons]

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

No, it doesn't work that way. Without the element of mens rea, the accused will not be found guilty. Actus reus and mens rea are both required. It doesn't get to sentencing.

.... they know they are doing something wrong.

sounds like you are saying that the kid had the capacity to form the intent.

 

[Arial]

It has been posted in a video on that board titled "Introduction to Reformed Theology."

@JIM Correction. It is on the video board Intro to RT but it is part 2 "What is Total Depravity."

 

[Arial]

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.

It is the sola gratia of Reformed theology. And it is based on exegesis of the Scripture---an exegesis that starts with what it should start with, and consistently stays with what it should stay with. God. Who God is as revealed by God. It does not start with mankind as your view does.

I am curious as to where you get this teaching of no original sin from? Is it something you surmise on your own or is it a denominational teaching? If the latter, what denomination is that?

 

[Josheb]

The whole concept and basis for the Augustinian view...

I haven't once mentioned Augustine. While I am familiar with Augustine's argument it has nothing to do with what I have posted so would you please no longer conflate my posts with Augustine? Neither have I appealed to Reformed Theology so would you please not conflate my posts with RT? Thx. My posts stand on their own and I have appealed to scripture plainly read, wherever possible and basic logic. I'd like them treated accordingly.

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

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.

Wow. The eisegesis just won't be seen. If that interpretation were true then every single person ever saved would first have to learn, know, understand, and take self-responsibility for the Law. Matthew 5:17 does not state Jesus can't be believed in while ignorant of the Law. It does not state the Law must be known and believed before belief in Jesus can exist. No Gentile could ever be saved if that were the case. Every missionary to Polynesia would have to first teach the law before he could ever evangelize. Furthermore, because it is clear from scripture no one comes to the Father but by His Son, the appeal to that interpretation of Mattew 5:17 would mean no infant could come to the Father unless he knew the law! That's one more blatant internal contradiction within the sinless-child position. On one hand children cannot do wrong because the law doesn't apply to them but, supposedly, no one can believe in Jesus and be ignorant of the law. Next, I'll be reading infants get into heaven apart from Jesus.

That protest fails on its face.

As I have received often here at the forum: Prove it.

Already done. It's silently sitting in the thread... ignored.

So....

Because this has now become a matter of shifting onuses and neglected content, and anything I might post after this will likely be a repetition of what's already been posted I will take my leave of this conversation. In summary....


I reiterate the fact two imperfect creatures do not procreate perfect progeny. Logically, perfection cannot come from imperfection. The flesh was once good and sinless, but it has become not good and sinful. Both points are plainly stated in scripture; they're not matters of interpretation. The word "all," means all so everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Scripture does not state "All but little children" have sinned. It says "all," and "all" means all. Scripture plainly state sinned reigned from Adam to Moses, necessarily meaning it existed, whether accounted for by the Law of Moses or not, simply because it is not logically possible for anything to reign if it does not exist. Furthermore, the Law is not the only means of measuring sin and thinking it is means an incomplete definition of sin is asserted by the dissent (and the additions/alternatives ignored). Likewise, the Bible states condemnation comes for things that don't have anything to do with the Law. Salvation is through faith, not the Law. Likewise, condemnation is through the lack of faith, not just the lack of obedience to the law. Fundamentally, ignorance is no excuse or justification, and this is made clear in the Law itself when a sacrifice was made for unknown sins. No one - not even and infant - can stand before God and say, "I did not know." The fact they think knowing is germane is part of the problem to be solved. Any and all protests about children not being responsible, accountable, or culpable fail prima facie because they implicitly acknowledge the child's wrongdoing. It cannot be argued they can do no wrong and then argued they're not culpable for wrongs they did. The entire sinless-child position doesn't just contradict scripture; it contradicts reality. Children are selfish and foolish and must be trained to be otherwise.

 

[Simons]

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.

The principle of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” has been written into secular criminal codes, but it presumes that the lawmaker has done an adequate job of promulgating the law. There are twin duties involved: the citizen has a duty to inform himself of the laws within the areas of his activity, but firstly the lawmaker has a duty to make the laws widely known to its citizens. If the lawmaker fails to fulfill its duty, then (pursuant to the principles of natural justice) the citizen will be excused for ignorance of the law.

Scripture seems to recognize these principles…..see Romans 2: 12-16 where it talks about those who have the law being judged by the law and those without the law still having a law written on their hearts.

Turning back to the considering infants and young children: 1. when have they developed the capacity to then have a duty to inform themselves? and 2. when and what law has been written on their hearts?

….because you would need one of those two things before you can properly apply the “ignorance of the law is no excuse principle.”

 

[Arial]

No, it doesn't work that way. Without the element of mens rea, the accused will not be found guilty. Actus reus and mens rea are both required. It doesn't get to sentencing.

mens rea

noun​

1. A guilty mind, a conscious knowing by the perpetrator that the act s/he committed was illicit.
2. (law) criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal); often at issue in murder trials.

Actus reus

1. A physical act that attracts criminal sanctions.
2. Activity that transgresses moral or civil law.

But why are you equating criminal law with God's law. Why are you saying that a person's culpibility in order to be sin against God is dependent on and governed by human law?

sounds like you are saying that the kid had the capacity to form the intent.

If he committed the act he had to have had the capacity to form the intent?

 

[Simons]

But why are you equating criminal law with God's law. Why are you saying that a person's culpibility in order to be sin against God is dependent on and governed by human law?

I am not...I asked you if mens rea was required for sin....and it went from there

If he committed the act he had to have had the capacity to form the intent?

this view is way to simplistic....let's say I run a red light and cause a collision wherein someone dies... did I have the intent to kill someone? Or, a 3 year old is left alone in a car, puts it in gear and drives over someone, by your logic he had the capacity to intend to drive and the capacity to intend to kill someone based solely on the fact that he performed the act?

 

[Simons]

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."

maybe it would help if you watched more courtroom dramas....I could kill someone and still not be guilty of murder, but I would hope society would properly investigate my possible guilt (my possible culpability for a death). It is possible that the death was wrongful, in which case I would be culpable in some way. See all those words and no contradictions. Go figure.

Then there is the problem of using earthly legal jurisprudence as an analogy for sin.

Agreed it isn't perfect...but weren't you the one who brought up: Ignorance of the law is no excuse (or defense)?

 

[JIM]

I am curious as to where you get this teaching of no original sin from? Is it something you surmise on your own or is it a denominational teaching? If the latter, what denomination is that?

Romans 5

 

[JIM]

I reiterate the fact two imperfect creatures do not procreate perfect progeny.

I agree; but procreation has nothing to do with the spirit of mankind. The spirit of man comes from God.

 

[Arial]

Romans 5

So your saying it is your own interpretation alone? What denomination or non-denomination are you associated with? It is a simple question. Two in fact neither of which were given a direct answer. Is there a problem with being direct?

 

[JIM]

So your saying it is your own interpretation alone? What denomination or non-denomination are you associated with? It is a simple question. Two in fact neither of which were given a direct answer. Is there a problem with being direct?

I just got called out for naming a "denomination" and not going with the interpretation given by the poster. Now I am being called out for not naming a "denomination" and going with my own interpretation.

But for what it is worth, we, in my congregation, claim to be nondenominational. It is based upon the Restoration Movement. You can read a summary about it here:

Restoration Movement? - The Christian Restoration Association

The Christian Restoration Association - A Helping Hand to the Churches

thecra.org

I would not declare that I am lock step with all that is said there, or with others of similar beliefs, but I think the differences have little if anything to do with soteriology.

 

[Arial]

I am not...I asked you if mens rea was required for sin....and it went from there

Mens rea is a term in the secular criminal code. When it comes to falling short of God's call to perfect moral holiness (and everything less is sin---thus the need for a divine redeemer (according to the meaning of redeem and ransom and atonement) is sin. It does not require the knowledge of its being sin in order for it to be sin.

this view is way to simplistic....let's say I run a red light and cause a collision wherein someone dies... did I have the intent to kill someone?

Did you commit an act of disobedience by running a red light? If you had not run the red light would that someone have been killed. It would not be classified as first degree murder, but it would be taken to court for a ruling and judgement for a lesser crime. Criminal homicide, or criminal manslaughter. So what exactly is your point?

If one breaks a commandment of God they have sinned. Whether they know it is a sin or not. It is simple..

Or, a 3 year old is left alone in a car, puts it in gear and drives over someone, by your logic he had the capacity to intend to drive and the capacity to intend to kill someone based solely on the fact that he performed the act?

Oh come on! That is not anywhere close to my logic. I never said anything remotely close to that accusation. The three year old is not sinning when they put the car in gear---it has nothing to do with God's commands. I will tell you though, that if such a thing happened the parent who left the child alone in the car was breaking a secular law and if someone was killed, the parent would be held responsible. So why don't we take the secular out of it, stop misrepresenting another poster just to keep a ludicrous argument going, and face the fact that sin is sin, it is against God and requires no knowledge of its being sin in order to be sin. Let's just either be quiet or submit to the truth of the matter, according to Scripture, that toddlers sin quite naturally.

I will be locking the thread if it doesn't change by the time I have to go off line.

 

[Arial]

I just got called out for naming a "denomination" and not going with the interpretation given by the poster. Now I am being called out for not naming a "denomination" and going with my own interpretation.

I do not know what the first is referring to and I am not calling you out about anything. I asked questions and you made no direct answer.

Restoration Movement? - The Christian Restoration Association

The Christian Restoration Association - A Helping Hand to the Churches

thecra.org

I would not declare that I am lock step with all that is said there, or with others of similar beliefs, but I think the differences have little if anything to do with soteriology.

Thank you.