Evolution and total depravity.

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How does evolution produce Total Depravity ....radical corruption?

Evolution doesn't produce depravity, as this is a non-material concept. The prescription, theologically, for describing total depravity would be the same regardless of the cosmological theory which serves as its backdrop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Evolution doesn't produce depravity, as this is a non-material concept. The prescription, theologically, for describing total depravity would be the same regardless of the cosmological theory which serves as its backdrop.

Those that propose Thiestic Evolutionism tell us we are here because of descent with modification. How would that theory of human origins create Total Depravity to the human race?

It's really not that hard of a question...I see no need for you to try and confuse it.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Those that propose Thiestic Evolutionism tell us we are here because of descent with modification. How would that theory of human origins create Total Depravity to the human race?

It's really not that hard of a question...I see no need for you to try and confuse it.

As I mentioned before, assuming a framework of total depravity, the mechanism would be the same in either scenario. Since sinfulness isn't strictly biologically heritable (otherwise, Christ would have been sinful...or at least half-sinful), the origin of the human species really isn't that important in the discussion as the trans-physical, trans-biological transmission of sinful nature could be easily applied to any formulation of human origins that you'd like to propose.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As I mentioned before, assuming a framework of total depravity, the mechanism would be the same in either scenario. Since sinfulness isn't strictly biologically heritable (otherwise, Christ would have been sinful...or at least half-sinful), the origin of the human species really isn't that important in the discussion as the trans-physical, trans-biological transmission of sinful nature could be easily applied to any formulation of human origins that you'd like to propose.

That's what the discussion is about. If mankind evolved as the Theo-Evos claim....then how did the sinful nature come about?

If Theo-Evoism is true then it's obvious mankind didn't receive their sin nature in a garden called Eden when two people named Adam and Eve disobeyed their creator. So, how did mankinds sinful nature come about?
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's what the discussion is about. If mankind evolved as the Theo-Evos claim....then how did the sinful nature come about?

If Theo-Evoism is true then it's obvious mankind didn't receive their sin nature in a garden called Eden when two people named Adam and Eve disobeyed their creator. So, how did mankinds sinful nature come about?

How did Adam and Eve receive it? What was the mechanism? Could it be reproduced a laboratory? You speak as if the events recorded in Genesis explain, philosophically and phenomenologically, how the sinful nature arose within human persons. However, it does nothing of the sort. All that the narratives of Genesis say about the sinful nature is that it related to self-willing and disobedience to God; both of which are easily integrated into a evolutionary framework. In fact, if we replace the archetypes of Adam and Eve with "humanity", the conclusions we would reach regarding the problem and nature of human sinfulness is not fundamentally different.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How did Adam and Eve receive it? What was the mechanism? Could it be reproduced a laboratory? You speak as if the events recorded in Genesis explain, philosophically and phenomenologically, how the sinful nature arose within human persons. However, it does nothing of the sort. All that the narratives of Genesis say about the sinful nature is that it related to self-willing and disobedience to God; both of which are easily integrated into a evolutionary framework. In fact, if we replace the archetypes of Adam and Eve with "humanity", the conclusions we would reach regarding the problem and nature of human sinfulness is not fundamentally different.

alexandriaisburning, In you reply you said " if we replace the archetypes of Adam and Eve with "humanity", the conclusions we would reach regarding the problem and nature of human sinfulness is not fundamentally different."

What you have done is proven my point. In order for Theo-Evoism to work the bible needs to be changed.

The bible must also be changed once again where Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
We see it again in Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man... The one man statement by Paul must be edited to fulfill evolutionary language.

Your word replacement theology must also change 1 Cor 15:21 which says...For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Perhaps you're willing to reform scripture to fit a view of humans origins...but I'm not willing to change the inspired Word of God to make it say what it doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The more complex the organism, the more freedom, the more choices it has; hence, the possibility for evil greatly increases. Chances for good overlap with chances for evil. Piano wire was a great invention, designed to help make the piano more beautiful, but it also can be used to kill people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The more complex the organism, the more freedom, the more choices it has; hence, the possibility for evil greatly increases. Chances for good overlap with chances for evil. Piano wire was a great invention, designed to help make the piano more beautiful, but it also can be used to kill people.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The more complex the organism, the more freedom, the more choices it has; hence, the possibility for evil greatly increases. Chances for good overlap with chances for evil. Piano wire was a great invention, designed to help make the piano more beautiful, but it also can be used to kill people.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The more complex the organism, the more freedom, the more choices it has; hence, the possibility for evil greatly increases. Chances for good overlap with chances for evil. Piano wire was a great invention, designed to help make the piano more beautiful, but it also can be used to kill people.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The more complex the organism, the more choices, the more freedom, hence the more chances for evil. Changes for good overlap with chances for evil. Piano wire can be used to kill people. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says Adam was perfect or that our nature is corrupted through and through.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The more complex the organism, the more freedom, the more choices it has; hence, the possibility for evil greatly increases. Chances for good overlap with chances for evil. Piano wire was a great invention, designed to help make the piano more beautiful, but it also can be used to kill people.

I wonder if dolphins need a savior.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes. I believe all things, in every aspect of themselves, consist of souls. So, yes, there is a dolphin heaven. Hell? No. I believe God is loving, and when you love others, you don't condemn them to eternal torment.

That's a "nice" thought....but it's NOT biblical. Many people will die and go to hell. Perhaps you erased those verses from your bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What you have done is proven my point. In order for Theo-Evoism to work the bible needs to be changed.

What have I changed? Nothing at all. I'm merely offering a different interpretation of the narratives in Genesis. Does my interpretation "change" what you *think* the Scriptures say? Perhaps. But then, based on the other interpretations that you have offered, perhaps such a change is welcome.

The bible must also be changed once again where Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
We see it again in Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man... The one man statement by Paul must be edited to fulfill evolutionary language.

Why does it have to be changed? I would argue that Paul's utilization of Christ in this passage is thoroughly typological--the point of the passage, as I interpret it, is the not the historical correspondence of a singular, historical person to another singular, historical person, but rather the correspondence and difference between the type/anti-type, between Adam as the type of the origin of human sinfulness, and Christ as the type of culmination of human sinfulness.

Besides, if the historical correlation is absolutely necessary in order to interpret this passage correctly, how come Paul doesn't bring Eve into this? Why wasn't there a correspondence for her? Why can sin enter through two people (Adam & Eve, the co-bearers of the imago dei), but be dealt with by only person? Even your literal interpretation breaks down if we ignore all the bad presuppositions that you bring to the text.
 
Upvote 0