The fall and sin nature...Theo-Evoism style..

[-57]

Within several threads i've tried to get the Theo-Evoism crowd to explain the fall and subsequent sin nature of all humans.

Who fell?
When did they fall?
Why did they fall?
Where did they fall?
What were the results of the fall?

When did God give mankind a spirit?

Any from the Theo-Evoism crowd have any answers?

 

[-57]

You got answers every time. You just didn't like what you learned. You can't admit it, of course.

The reason why you can't is pretty obvious. Your pride is hurt; I get that. But reality doesn't consider Your feelings.
Here it is, again:


396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man's first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

You can't accept this, because it doesn't fit your new doctrines. That doesn't matter, either.

Your cut and paste post from the RC play book doesn't really answer the questions.

Lets start with the first sentence...God created man in his image...explain what is meant by man.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe you'd do better if you just told us what you think, instead of inventing ideas for other people. Do you have any idea what it looks like when I show you what the largest group of Christians think, and you deny that they believe it?

You'd get more respect if you accepted the facts and just told us what you think.

Worth a try?

 

[-57]

Maybe you'd do better if you just told us what you think, instead of inventing ideas for other people. Do you have any idea what it looks like when I show you what the largest group of Christians think, and you deny that they believe it?

You'd get more respect if you accepted the facts and just told us what you think.

Worth a try?

Evolutionism is part of this...

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,

 

[hedrick]

Who fell?
When did they fall?
Why did they fall?
Where did they fall?
What were the results of the fall?

There was no Fall, in the sense of an event where perfect humans suddenly become imperfect. We were always fallen in the theological sense.

When did God give mankind a spirit?

I have no idea. Gen 2:7 talks about the breath of life, but that's not the same as spirit. The same phrase is used in 1:30 of many species.

Obviously humans have a different kind of mind and spirit than animals, but that could have developed gradually.

To answer the obvious question about God's role. The Fall doesn't in any way save God from responsibility for our state, if you assume that God is omnipotent. Whether people evolved to be imperfect or fell from a perfect state, God was in control either way, and presumably was OK with people being sinful.

It is an inherent property of humans that we learn from experience, which includes making mistakes. Those include moral mistakes. As long as we are humble, and repent when we sin, this doesn't cause a problem between us and God.

 

[-57]

There was no Fall, in the sense of an event where perfect humans suddenly become imperfect. We were always fallen in the theological sense.

Thanks for replying....but I have to disagree.

In the theological sense Adam and Eve were not created in a fallen state. There was a change that happened to them when they disobeyed.
What changed? Amongst the changes is their eyes were open....they were naked...they understood good and evil to a much fuller extent...they were cursed, pain in child birth, they would die and return to the dust. That is what the Bible teaches and Theo-Evoism can't and doesn't teach.

I have no idea. Gen 2:7 talks about the breath of life, but that's not the same as spirit. The same phrase is used in 1:30 of many species.

I would imagine there are several takes on what the breath of life here is....one thought is that it's kinda like slapping a newborn baby on the rear. The Bible follows that up with..."and the man became a living being." Adam went from being a shaped pile of dust...into flesh and blood...seen as a dead corpse...to becoming a living being.

Obviously humans have a different kind of mind and spirit than animals, but that could have developed gradually.

I suppose evo-theory might suggest the slow gradual evolution of the spirit....but it doesn't seem to be what the Bible teaches.

To answer the obvious question about God's role. The Fall doesn't in any way save God from responsibility for our state, if you assume that God is omnipotent. Whether people evolved to be imperfect or fell from a perfect state, God was in control either way, and presumably was OK with people being sinful.

When I read statements such as..."Whether people evolved to be imperfect or fell from a perfect state,"...I find objection because the Bible tells us man fell from the "perfect" state and no where tells us man evolved to an imperfect state. If man evolved to an imperfect state then Genesis is wrong.

It is an inherent property of humans that we learn from experience, which includes making mistakes. Those include moral mistakes. As long as we are humble, and repent when we sin, this doesn't cause a problem between us and God.

Yes, as humans we can make mistakes....but often our mistakes are a choice to commit sin. Adam and Eve didn't make a mistake...they choose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since that event sin has become an inherent property of humans.

 

[hedrick]

I would imagine there are several takes on what the breath of life here is....one thought is that it's kinda like slapping a newborn baby on the rear. The Bible follows that up with..."and the man became a living being." Adam went from being a shaped pile of dust...into flesh and blood...seen as a dead corpse...to becoming a living being.

Gen 1:30 suggests that the breath of life refers to being alive, and that it applies to all animals. That's consistent with becoming a living being.

If man evolved to an imperfect state then Genesis is wrong.

Yup, Genesis is wrong. Being a Christian means we follow Christ, not that we limit ourselves to what people in the Biblical times knew.

 

[-57]

Gen 1:30 suggests that the breath of life refers to being alive, and that it applies to all animals. That's consistent with becoming a living being.

On day 5 the fish and birds became alive...prior to day 5 they didn't exist. On the next day the other animals God just created would have became living beings.

Yup, Genesis is wrong. Being a Christian means we follow Christ, not that we limit ourselves to what people in the Biblical times knew.

Well, it's hard to argue with a person who believes in a fallible bible. In this case if it doesn't agree with Neo-Darwinism then it's wrong.

As I have stated before the Theo-Evoism crowd has to change a lot of Genesis, write much between the lines to force the word of God to align up with evolutionism.

Verses in the Bible present Genesis, people of Genesis, events of Genesis as literal and historical. Paul even based a rule upon Genesis.

 

[hedrick]

On day 5 the fish and birds became alive...prior to day 5 they didn't exist. On the next day the other animals God just created would have became living beings.



Well, it's hard to argue with a person who believes in a fallible bible. In this case if it doesn't agree with Neo-Darwinism then it's wrong.

As I have stated before the Theo-Evoism crowd has to change a lot of Genesis, write much between the lines to force the word of God to align up with evolutionism.

Verses in the Bible present Genesis, people of Genesis, events of Genesis as literal and historical. Paul even based a rule upon Genesis.

I don’t believe in twisting Genesis to make it consistent with what we know. Genesis reflects the thoughts of a prescientific people. Although they experienced God, they were wrong about many things.

 

[-57]

I don’t believe in twisting Genesis to make it consistent with what we know. Genesis reflects the thoughts of a prescientific people. Although they experienced God, they were wrong about many things.

So, mans science trumps Gods Word?

Perhaps you're right...in doing so I can claim that Jesus didn't come back to life on day 3. Science says if you die you can't come back to life on day 3.

Science says Jesus didn't have the ability to make Adam from the dust and Eve from Adams rib. Some Christ followers tell me Genesis got that part wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

Gen 1:30 suggests that the breath of life refers to being alive, and that it applies to all animals. That's consistent with becoming a living being.

Yup, Genesis is wrong. Being a Christian means we follow Christ, not that we limit ourselves to what people in the Biblical times knew.

Is Exodus wrong, too?
Modern "science" says the Exodus didn't happen.
Jesus says that it did. (John 5:46)

Who do we believe? A council of men who change their stories every generation, or the Lord and Savior of the world? Hmmmm, tricky decisions...

 

[hedrick]

So, mans science trumps Gods Word?

Perhaps you're right...in doing so I can claim that Jesus didn't come back to life on day 3. Science says if you die you can't come back to life on day 3.

Science says Jesus didn't have the ability to make Adam from the dust and Eve from Adams rib. Some Christ followers tell me Genesis got that part wrong.

Fortunately we don't reach the question of science vs God's Word. There is no reason whatever to identify the Bible with God's word. God's word is primarily Christ, and secondarily revelations he gives to others such as the prophets.

 

[lifepsyop]

There is no reason whatever to identify the Bible with God's word.

I think that says it all right there.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe you'd do better if you just told us what you think, instead of inventing ideas for other people. Do you have any idea what it looks like when I show you what the largest group of Christians think, and you deny that they believe it?

You'd get more respect if you accepted the facts and just told us what you think.

Worth a try?

Evolutionism is part of this...

But "evolutionism" is your invention, so it's your problem, not ours. If you stopped trying to invent ideas for other Christians and just explained your own, you'd do much better here.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no reason whatever to identify the Bible with God's word. God's word is primarily Christ, and secondarily revelations he gives to others such as the prophets.

Bibolaters everywhere are shrieking and rending their garments.

I believe the Bible is God's word, but the Bible is not God, and it's wrong to worship it or even claim that it is the only source of truth about God. In fact, the Bible itself says it's not.

 

[-57]

Maybe you'd do better if you just told us what you think, instead of inventing ideas for other people. Do you have any idea what it looks like when I show you what the largest group of Christians think, and you deny that they believe it?

You'd get more respect if you accepted the facts and just told us what you think.

Worth a try?



But "evolutionism" is your invention, so it's your problem, not ours. If you stopped trying to invent ideas for other Christians and just explained your own, you'd do much better here.

Thing is...you apparently don't know what you think. You surely haven't presented it n these treads.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thing is...you apparently don't know what you think. You surely haven't presented it n these treads.

For example, I just reminded you again, (with the math) why a new mutation in a population increases information. You keep forgetting.

It's not that you're a heretic for denying what most Christians think about it. You just have a minority view that's a bit different than the usual Christian take on things.

 

[-57]

For example, I just reminded you again, (with the math) why a new mutation in a population increases information. You keep forgetting.

It's not that you're a heretic for denying what most Christians think about it. You just have a minority view that's a bit different than the usual Christian take on things.

It's east to copy and paste....you're good at it.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's east to copy and paste....you're good at it.

I showed you how to apply the equation to an example I made up for you. If you would like to see a more complicated example, feel free to give me the numbers. It will always come out with the same result; a new random mutation in a population will increase information.

Try to find a way to live with it.

 

[-57]

I showed you how to apply the equation to an example I made up for you. If you would like to see a more complicated example, feel free to give me the numbers. It will always come out with the same result; a new random mutation in a population will increase information.

Try to find a way to live with it.

I've already dismissed your equation....

NEXT