No. Unfallen anything (angels and humans) naturally have the potential to sin. Once that potential is actualized, you have a fallen being.
Yes, exactly as I stated in the sentence above.2. Angels do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God.
Do you agree with that?
All humans die into sin once they sin. We are not born fallen. But we are born into a fallen world.The point I was making was
1. All humans have a sin nature and already exist in a fallen state.
2. All angels do not naturally have a sin nature.
- Unfallen angels in service to God do not have a sin nature.
- Angels who have rebelled against God are in a fallen state do have a sin nature.
No one naturally has a sin nature. A sin nature is obtained by the being who obtains it.
I'm in agreement with your last two sentences.
I disagree. If an angel has unnatural/sinful desires, it means there's an angel that's thinking about falling.Therefore if an angel has unnatural and sinful desires, then that by definition means that the angel in question already exists in a fallen state.
I packed my interlinear bible and am loosing internet in hours due to an agents mistake of cancelling it today instead of Thursday. I'd like to give this a reasonable response but don't have the tools to do so until later this week. (I just keep running into hiccups!)Here is the text of Job 2:1...
Is anyone in the meantime able to respond in defense that son of God in Job refers to satan?
This is incorrect. What backs up your reasoning?Unnatural and sinful desires are a function of a being that is already in a fallen state (whether those beings are human or angels).
We have sinful desires because we have a will that can choose which good for ourselves to actualize. And, unfortunately, we all choose the lesser goods (which in reality is evil), and therefore we all sin.We humans have sinful desires because all humans are fallen and all humans have a sin nature.
I agree with this, but it contradicts what you been saying?...
But once that being (human or angel) rebels against God, then by definition that being exists in a fallen state...
Not interested in the NT. DB, we don't need the NT to understand what the OT is saying. And you're wrong to draw that conclusion as Luke 3 is not quoting Genesis.I disagree...
I believe the "sons of God" (ie God's covenant people) were introduced in the previous chapter (Genesis 5). And this premise is supported Scripturally by Luke 3 which specifically refers to Adam as a "son of God".
So you have two groups of people in in Genesis 6. The sons of God (God's covenant people from Genesis 5) and the daughters of men (the wicked indigenous population of the land/erets).
Where in Genesis 5 is the son of God defined? I'm not seeing it? What I am seeing is the line of Adam explained. And you have that term in Genesis 6, it's actually 'adam'.
*Edit: And I'd like to see why you equate the 'daughters of men' to the 'wicked indigenous population of the land/erets'. I don't see that in the text anywhere. That is totally injected.