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

[CrowCross]

I can only speculate why Adam went along with it.

Male serpent I always heard.

Some say Adam ate because he knew of the fate Eve would be subject to and didn't want to see her do it alone. As i said, speculation.

 

[CrowCross]

Not that I ever heard of but angels did.

Where do you think Lucifer got his? Isaiah 14: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

If Lucifer obviously had a sin nature and 1/3 of the angels who chose to follow him seemed to then mankind certainly has.

I would tend to disagree. Sorry. I don't think angels were created with a sin nature.

 

[JIM]

Adam obtained a sin nature after eating from the tree.

Who gave it to him?

 

[Arial]

Not that I ever heard of but angels did.

If they had a nature to sin they would all be sinners sinning.

Where do you think Lucifer got his? Isaiah 14: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Lucifer was created. If God created him with a sinful nature then God created a sinful nature? If God created a sinful nature then God would have to possess sin himself. Lucifer got his sinful nature the same way Adam did, and by tempting Eve with the very same thing. An effort to be like God in equality and power, and wisdom. Sin is not a "thing". It is an action that falls short of the glory of God.

If Lucifer obviously had a sin nature and 1/3 of the angels who chose to follow him seemed to then mankind certainly has.

False equivalence fallacy. There are other options. Lucifer was not obviously created with a sin nature, only that when we first hear of him he did have one. He too fell. Following him does not mean that all angels have sinful natures or that any were created with a sinful nature. What is true of angels does not make it also true of humans. None of the above solidifies the claim that angels or men or anything, was created with a nature to sin.

 

[Arial]

No, but Jesus did. It’s actually called sinful flesh, not nature. Something everyone ought to know.

To be made of flesh and blood is part of the nature of human beings. Do you think flesh and blood are sinful as some of the ancient gnostics believed? Flesh and blood in the Bible is not a synonym for sinful. It is often used to express the natural, unregenerate person, but it is not stating that the flesh and blood of humanity in and of itself is inherently evil.

If Jesus had a sinful nature he would not have qualified as our redeemer---our substitute.

 

[Arial]

Especially since it is Reformed Theology, and I can get that just from reading what is mostly posted here.

The sin nature----or the nature of man to sin---is something that belongs to Christianity as a whole. It is not exclusive to Reformed theology.

 

[LeviR]

So then if Jesus likewise partook of the same [flesh and blood], does that mean He also took on the "flesh of sin" or "sinful flesh"?

Absolutely. There is only one kind of flesh of man. Sinful flesh. Made so by the law.

 

[LeviR]

Yup, and trees and animals don't sin.

Then again if you back up a few verse you'll see after the animas were created, and trees...everything was pronounced as simply...good.
it wasn't until after Eve was created was the creation presented as VERY GOOD. Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.

Now you're playing word games.

Adam obtained a sin nature after eating from the tree.

That’s too funny. You are saying that after Adam sinned his nature became sinful.
No, he sinned because his nature was sinful.

 

[LeviR]

To be made of flesh and blood is part of the nature of human beings. Do you think flesh and blood are sinful as some of the ancient gnostics believed? Flesh and blood in the Bible is not a synonym for sinful. It is often used to express the natural, unregenerate person, but it is not stating that the flesh and blood of humanity in and of itself is inherently evil.

If Jesus had a sinful nature he would not have qualified as our redeemer---our substitute.

Jesus is not a substitute, he’s a representative.

 

[Arial]

Sorry, but mankind has not been corrupted any more than Adam was corrupted. There is nothing in the scriptures that says otherwise.

Then why does Paul say in 1 Cor 15:54 But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory.

Why would man put on incorruption if he had not been corrupted?

Do you not think sin is corruption? If so, that may be the problem that prevents from seeing these things in the Scripture and saying because you can't see them, that they are not there.

 

[Arial]

That’s too funny. You are saying that after Adam sinned his nature became sinful.
No, he sinned because his nature was sinful.

I think those who argue like this have no knowledge of what the nature of a thing means or is. As though they had never even heard the secular expression human nature. As though such a thing does not exist even though they readily enough recognize that everything else has a nature. They easily see that the nature of a dog is quite different from the nature of a bird. And would never quibble over that.

So, hmmmmm-------

If God created Adam with a sinful nature----from where did God get this sin to put into the nature of man? Stop treating sin like it is a "thing". It is not a thing it is an action.

 

[Arial]

Jesus is not a substitute, he’s a representative.

A representative of what?

 

[LeviR]

I think those who argue like this have no knowledge of what the nature of a thing means or is. As though they had never even heard the secular expression human nature. As though such a thing does not exist even though they readily enough recognize that everything else has a nature. They easily see that the nature of a dog is quite different from the nature of a bird. And would never quibble over that.

So, hmmmmm-------

If God created Adam with a sinful nature----from where did God get this sin to put into the nature of man? Stop treating sin like it is a "thing". It is not a thing it is an action.

It is the law which exposes sinful flesh.

 

[Arial]

I don't subscribe to the Calvinist notion of a "sin nature".

It is not an exclusively Calvinist "notion." It is a part of Christianity. It is biblical. It was taught by the apostles and has always been a part of Christianity----long before the reformation.

 

[Carbon]

That’s too funny. You are saying that after Adam sinned his nature became sinful.
No, he sinned because his nature was sinful.

It doesn't matter what you think, what matters is what scripture teaches. Instead of laughing maybe you should really think about what @CrowCross is saying.

 

[LeviR]

It doesn't matter what you think, what matters is what scripture teaches. Instead of laughing maybe you should really think about what @CrowCross is saying.

It matters what you think.

 

[Carbon]

It matters what you think.

Well, thank you. Thanks very nice of you.

But it does not matter what I think either, it matters what scripture teaches.

 

[Josheb]

Well technically, there would have been no fall. I mean, what could they have fallen from? There would be no moral law. The world would be full of liberal democrats.

Mob Rules!!!

Ding Ding Ding Ding!​

^^^^^ Give that man a prize!^^^^^

 

[Rella]

Sin nature means flesh of sin or sinful flesh. Truth get lost when translators add their own ideas.
It’s not something that enters into man that causes him to sin, but the very desires of his flesh.

Could we simplify it further by saying temptation.

 

[Rella]

I can only speculate why Adam went along with it.

Some say Adam ate because he knew of the fate Eve would be subject to and didn't want to see her do it alone. As i said, speculation.

Did Eve eat first? And then got Adam to? Or did they both eat about the same time.?

3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’ ”

4 aThe serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!

5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and ayou will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

I think Adam ate because he saw her still alive and maybe a bit wiser...................