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

[JIM]

Do toddlers, as soon as they become verbal begin breaking God's law by hollering "No!" in disrespect of God's law to honor your father and mother?

One could only thing that if they knew absolutely nothing about children and raising them.

(Before anyone jumps to a conclusion, I am not saying that toddlers are condemned by God for that lawbreaking specifically.

Obviously, the child before he can know and understand what lawbreaking even means is not guilty of lawbreaking. That would seem to be another weakness found in the Reformed Theology.

 

[Josheb]

Obviously, the child before he can know and understand what lawbreaking even means is not guilty of lawbreaking. That would seem to be another weakness found in the Reformed Theology.

Lawbreaking is not dependent on knowledge or understanding. Ignorance of the law is no excuse (or defense).

 

[JIM]

Lawbreaking is not dependent on knowledge or understanding. Ignorance of the law is no excuse (or defense).

That is a terrible view of God. Even moral humans do not hold the mentally incapable or infirm accountable for their actions. God says, "sin is not counted where there is no law". Where in all humanity do you not find law. It likely is not the law of Moses, but even there, God says, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Rom 2:14-15). There is no law specifically for the very young or the mentally deficient. And for them there is no sin.

 

[Josheb]

That is a terrible view of God.

No, it's not.

 

[Josheb]

Even moral humans do not hold the mentally incapable or infirm accountable for their actions.

That is incorrect.

 

[JIM]

No, it's not.

That is incorrect.

Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people,
Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

 

[LeviR]

The flesh is not a separate part of a human from who he is. If we are sinful, all of our being and person is sinful. The flesh does not act on its own.

Do you think God's law consists only of the SInai covenant legal code? Or is being created in his image and likeness also implicit law? DId Adam break God's law?

Do toddlers, as soon as they become verbal begin breaking God's law by hollering "No!" in disrespect of God's law to honor your father and mother? (Before anyone jumps to a conclusion, I am not saying that toddlers are condemned by God for that lawbreaking specifically. Scripture does tell us that he is patient with us and remembers that we are made of dust.) I am simply making the point that since what I state is the case concerning even a two year old, would it not seem to you that it is somehow in our very nature to rebel against the law of God?

Then, see above.

The flesh has desires of its own. Not all desires of the flesh a bad, many are. We call the bad desires of the flesh as “the works of the flesh”.
They are called the works of the flesh because that’s exactly what they are. The flesh operating on its own desires.

5 - For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Rom 8:8 - So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Living according to the flesh is simply walking after the desires of the flesh.
The fleshly minded person is enmity against God and not subject or submissive to the law of God….nor can it be, indeed.
The flesh cares nothing for the law of God. The flesh only wants what it wants.

This is the war we are under. We war against our own desires of the flesh.

Adam was created of the same flesh. It never changed. His desire overcame him, and he ate the fruit. This is the real,devil.

 

[Josheb]

God says, "sin is not counted where there is no law".

Yes, and it also states sin reigned during the time between Adam and Moses when the Law of Moses had not yet been given. The verse to which you are appealing is also written within the context of there being another law besides the Law of Moses by which any and all could be accounted. It also occurs alongside the statement death came to all because all sinned (which would include infants - whether their sin was accounted for or not).

In other words, you've been selective with the text and misused it.

The fact is you are going to have a lot of difficulty appealing to scripture to make your case because scripture is overwhelmingly written about adults, not infants. The same holds true for the other side of that discussion. Only the verses applicable to infants can be used. There's also another fallacy to your argument because suggesting that a sin that is not counted is not a sin.

The sinner has sinned whether the sin has been counted or not.

And whether or not the sin is counted is first predicated on God's grace, not the existence of some law by which the sin might be measured and counted. Paul makes this clear when he states he would not know what coveting is had there not been a law prohibiting coveting. He'd have still been covetous; he simply would not know it.

In other words, there are multiple flaws in Post 163.

 

[Josheb]

Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people,
Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not infants can be sinners. If the children in Matthew 18:3 were old enough to be verbal, then they had told their parent "No!" in a rebellious manner and your entire protest has no foundation. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. The word "all" means all.

 

[Arial]

One could only thing that if they knew absolutely nothing about children and raising them.

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.

Obviously, the child before he can know and understand what lawbreaking even means is not guilty of lawbreaking. That would seem to be another weakness found in the Reformed Theology.

The law of God does not change. His law is him. Have you never heard and agreed with the secular expression, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."? How much more so when it comes to the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth! It is a strength of Reformed theology which is God centered as it should be, but FYI it is also a doctrine of Christianity----period. Just as potent and necessary for correct BIble interpretation as the Trinity, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension of Christ. Without it there is no foundation and truth is difficult to find and very spotty.

But you missed the point, or didn't miss the point, but ignored it by blaming first the parents and then Reformed theology. Does that sound like a reasonable argument against something?

 

[LeviR]

Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people,
Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

The kingdom of God doesn’t belong to infants or minors. It belongs to those who are like them. Those who aren’t prideful and think they know it all.

 

[Josheb]

@JIM,

Why, according to scripture, are people condemned?

 

[JIM]

And whether or not the sin is counted is first predicated on God's grace, not the existence of some law by which the sin might be measured and counted. Paul makes this clear when he states he would not know what coveting is had there not been a law prohibiting coveting. He'd have still been covetous; he simply would not know it.

You didn't finish what Paul said there.

Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

When was Paul once alive apart from the law? Specifically when he was too young to know and comprehend the law. When did the commandment come? Specifically when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law. When did he die? When sin came alive, i.e., when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law.

 

[Josheb]

You didn't finish what Paul said there.

Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

When was Paul once alive apart from the law? Specifically when he was too young to know and comprehend the law. When did the commandment come? Specifically when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law.

I did finish it. Think it through because you're making the case for @Arial and I and undermining your own argument. Sin produced the covetousness, not the law. His being alive did not mean he wasn't still a sinner. Paul was never alive apart from all laws. What you're arguing would mean no Gentile anywhere could ever be deemed sinful (no Mayan, no Aztec, no Polynesian cannibal, no idolatrous pagan anywhere could or would have sin imputed to them). No pagan could ever be held accountable for his/her idolatry and no pagan could ever be held to the two greatest commands: Love God and love others.

When did he die? When sin came alive, i.e., when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law.

There is no scripture assigning an age of accountability to sin. That is an entirely man-made position. Even rite-of-passage rituals that moved a child or adolescent into adulthood never held the child was sinless.


Leviticus 5:17
Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment.

Is the irony of that verse understood? The Law held that the Law itself was not applicable because sin (and guilt) could occur unawares (in ignorance).

Luke 12:48
The one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

It is not an Old-Testament-only teaching. There was a sacrifice for the unknown sins for the community, and Christ covers all those sacrifices in his own. The community included its children (no matter how young).

 

[Arial]

That is a terrible view of God.

Our view of God should not be one we build according to what we like or desire him to be. Our view of God should be the one he gives to us by grace. We do not, as humans rise up to God. That is never a possible starting point. He stoops down to us and brings us up in Christ. Grace! You get the cart before the horse there, and it will stay in that untenable position through all the rest of one's theology and understanding of Scripture.

 

[Arial]

When was Paul once alive apart from the law? Specifically when he was too young to know and comprehend the law. When did the commandment come? Specifically when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law. When did he die? When sin came alive, i.e., when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law.

That is absolutely read into the scripture.

 

[Arial]

Adam was created of the same flesh. It never changed. His desire overcame him, and he ate the fruit. This is the real,devil.

It most certainly did changed. He now had in his flesh (which includes all of him---his mind, his will, his spirit, everything that makes up a human who was created very good, from the dust.

What he was forbidden, that is what he did. And that tree was not just any old tree. It was a tree that had something that Adam and Eve did not have already, a knowledge they did not have. The knowledge of evil right along side the good that he did have. He ate it. He consumed it. It went into him. It became a part of him that was not a part of him when he was created. Every human born is born with that same knowledge in them----look around if you do not believe me.

So, all the distractions aside, what do you have to say about even toddlers expressing rebellion as quickly and easily as breathing, or eating, or sleeping or anything else?

 

[Josheb]

Ten people died and found themselves standing before the pearly gates awaiting admission into heaven. Peter came out and spoke to them saying, "Jesus will be out shortly to greet you all. Please have a seat until he arrives." So, they all took seats, but Jesus did not appear in what they considered a timely fashion so the ten began to discuss themselves, sharing the stories of their lives and how they'd died. When Jesus finally did arrive he found the ten lined up in a single line and the one closes to Jesus approached him and said, "Lord Jesus, while we waited for your arrival, we discussed out lives with each other and we have ordered ourselves from best to worst, depending on our own report of how we lived in comparison with each other. If you would just tell us where the dividing line occurs, then we will know who gains admission through the gates and who does not."

In reply Jesus said, "While I appreciate the effort, you have all operated on a false assumption."

"How so, my Lord?" was the response.

"You do not get measured against one another. You get measured against me, and every single one of you fails. Blessedly, it is by grace a person is saved so I welcome all of you into my kingdom in spite of yourselves."




Ultimately, there is a sort of red herring to the entire debate because no one gets measured just by laws of God. Thinking sin is measured and held in account solely by the Law is part of the problem to be solved.

 

[LeviR]

It most certainly did changed. He now had in his flesh (which includes all of him---his mind, his will, his spirit, everything that makes up a human who was created very good, from the dust.

What he was forbidden, that is what he did. And that tree was not just any old tree. It was a tree that had something that Adam and Eve did not have already, a knowledge they did not have. The knowledge of evil right along side the good that he did have. He ate it. He consumed it. It went into him. It became a part of him that was not a part of him when he was created. Every human born is born with that same knowledge in them----look around if you do not believe me.

So, all the distractions aside, what do you have to say about even toddlers expressing rebellion as quickly and easily as breathing, or eating, or sleeping or anything else?

The fact that their flesh did not change is proved by their desiring of the fruit.
When the flesh desires something forbidden it is called covetousness.
And that’s the word used to describe Eve’s desire. She coveted the fruit.
This proves that their flesh was more powerful than the law.
And that’s why it’s said that the law is made weak by the flesh.

The fact that people deny this truth is because they want someone or something else to blame other than themselves for sin.

 

[Josheb]

The fact that their flesh did not change is proved by their desiring of the fruit.
When the flesh desires something forbidden it is called covetousness.
And that’s the word used to describe Eve’s desire. She coveted the fruit.
This proves that their flesh was more powerful than the law.
And that’s why it’s said that the law is made weak by the flesh.

Oooo.... I'm not sure that is wholly correct. Would you also say desiring something that is not yours to own or have, whether prohibited or not, is also covetousness?

Keep in mind the tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and the fruit was desirable to make one wise. It was a good fruit (Genesis 1:31). Eve's perceptions were correct. The observations reported are not, in and of themselves, sinful in any way. It is also important to note Eve was deceived when she disobeyed God. Like the appeal to "mental incapacity," Eve's not going to be representative of the whole population of sinners so she is not, therefore, going to be a logical foundation for understanding all scripture has to say about sin and salvation.

The fact that people deny this truth is because they want someone or something else to blame other than themselves for sin.

That is certainly true, and that is definitely the case in Genesis 3 (see verse 13). However, scripture provides a much more holistic explanation; one that needn't involve the appeal to shifting onuses.

John 3:18-20 NIV
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. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.


It's the fear of exposure that prompts some to blame others (and make things worse). That goes all the way back to Eden.