In another post, Bro. Garry said:
I have stayed away from this topic only because I have not found enough definitive scripture one way or the other to dogmatically state whether the "sons of God" were men or angels. I just put this with the LONG list of questions I will ask my Lord when I see Him in heaven. I do tend to "lean" towards their being angelic beings but the questions and complications that brings up are many. Such as, if they are offspring from an angelic being, they would have no imputed sin from Adam. It is clear however, that angels are capable of sin since Satan (who was NOT an angel but a cherubim) was able to take away many angels that fell with him. It is also clear that the offspring were evil continually in their thoughts, imaginations and actions since they were destroyed with the flood.
Maybe as a topic of another thread, would be the question "Is man sinful and commit sins solely because of our imputed sin from Adam giving us a sin nature by default, or does man, separate from any influence from Satan have it within himself to be sinful?" I sometimes wonder if God's purpose for binding up Satan for a 1,000 years during the millennial reign, isn't a proof that even with Satan's influence upon man taken away (Flip Wilson: "the devil made me do it") that man still can chose and commit sin of his own accord. Please don't answer this question on this thread! Let's open another thread if you think this is a worthy topic of discussion.
I thought this worthy of conversation, and as he requested, I have brought it here.
inherent sin from the line of Adam not being passed by the sons of God, if they were, indeed, angels, is a compelling thought. One that I don't believe has been brought up. Would a fallen angel, IF able to successfully copulate with a human female, pass on their particular sin as the sin of Adam is passed from father to child? Would it be, like super-sin? Or, another question to bring to the table, to angels, fallen or otherwise, even in bodily form, have blood? If not, how could they reproduce, since a majority of the male, um, fluid, is made up of blood cells?
Concerning the evil thoughts continually, however, this was spoken specifically about men, not any half-angel offspring of whose reality we discuss. As well, the Lord sad, after the flood, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." (Gen 8:21). So even after the flood, man's imagination was evil from youth, really no different than it had been before the flood.
Now, the issue of Satan being cast 1,000 years into the bottomless pit, I see it like you do: Man has blamed Satan for his sin for thousands of years, (Like Flip Wilson, as you said). We know that Satan initially induced man to fall and brought sin upon mankind, but it was MAN that fell, and man could have chosen NOT to fall. And I suspect, had that been the case, Lucifer would possibly have been judged then and there and his influence would have been removed. Just my thought-not doctrine. But since sin is IN man now, as you infer, I believe that as natural man continues in sin, even with Jesus ruling in perfection upon the earth, and even after 1,000 years without Satan's direct influence, (nor, I suspect, his angels, though again, just speculation), that man will turn to Satan in droves when he is released, will be primarily to allow no excuse for man when they are judged in their sin. No blaming anyone: even with God on earth, even with the wicked one removed, they still continue in sin and rejection.