Was it only Adam who brought sin into the world?
Adam alone?
Was it Adam alone who brought sin into the world? Was it Adam alone who was kicked out of the garden?
These are some of the issues about “Adam alone” that have brought some lively discussion on another post at https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/ and since the comments are now at 446, I am going to move our discussion over to this post so that we can continue with what will likely be many more passionate arguments and comments here. For those want to follow the original source of the discussion that pertains to this new post, the comments from #238 and on at the above link start the movement towards questions and comments about “only Adam” and these thoughts are important for what will continue here on this post.
145 thoughts on “Was it only Adam who brought sin into the world?”
gengwall said:
I agree that “adam” was the class but not the “name” that God called the woman. When God is specifically talking to the woman, the Bible never calls her “adam” but “the woman”. She is called this even before Adam affirms her identification with himself as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. God said that He created “the woman” who was “(hu)man”.
I have lots more comments to come throughout today as I respond to Susanna’s comments posted on the original article on the topic of “head”.
Susanna,
You said:
We can agree that Genesis 1:26 & 27 show that both man and woman were created in the image of God. The issue of God only “calling” Adam is not that God only talked to Adam, but that God called Adam to account first which has no relevance at all on their argument that Adam was a “ruler” of Eve. My argument has nothing to do with the comp’s argument. I do not disregard a position because it might have an impact on the comp position. I am way more interested in truth and what the passage actually says than I fear giving a foothold to the comps. This is because I do not have a parochial mentality. All I want is truth and I want to be able to understand the passages without contradiction.
The fact is that God “called” Adam first to account. We know that not just because he called out to “the human” but because He said “you” (singular). If He was calling to both of them, He would have used the plural form of you.
The fact that God called to Adam first is not a problem. In fact it would be abnormal for God to have called to the woman first. God gave a responsibility to Adam before Eve was created and that was of guarding the garden. To the one whom much has been given, much will be required. God called Adam to account first because He had more to account for. He was the first created and He was responsible for the safety of the garden as the one who was there when the garden was created. He was the one who saw the tree of life created as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was privileged to see God’s creation and as the watchman of the garden, he had a responsibility to be faithful to God as the watchman on the wall.
I will continue answering your comments throughout today as I get time. I will be in and out today so will address bits and pieces until I get the whole thing answered. Thanks for your patience while I attend to matters of the funeral for tomorrow.
Susanna,
I should also comment that I didn’t think your comments to gengwall were intended to be unkind. I was certain that you have a good heart and were passionately fighting for your point of view. Sometimes it is easy to feel frustrated when it doesn’t appear that we have agreement. I understand and I think gengwall understands too. Thanks for your gracious response.
Everyone, my head is spinning! Can anyone sum up for me in posts of less than 1000 words 🙂 the issues that gengwall and Susanna are addressing?
Cheryl, I’m having trouble with this statement:
“God gave a responsibility to Adam before Eve was created and that was of guarding the garden. To the one whom much has been given, much will be required. God called Adam to account first because He had more to account for. He was the first created and He was responsible for the safety of the garden as the one who was there when the garden was created. He was the one who saw the tree of life created as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Isn’t’ that exactly the basis of the comp argument that Adam was the leader and therefore men are to be in charge?
What am I missing? Please help me understand!
Yes Lmb, I think I can sum it up pending Susanna’s confirmation.
The discussion is around the Hebrew word ‘adam and it’s definite form ha’adam. Specifically, Susanna sees the definte form ha’adam (literally, “the human”) as primarily representing a collection of humans – “humanity”, if you will. That collection could be all humans over all time or a subset of humans, specifically, in Genesis 1-3, the subset consiting of Adam and Eve. She only views it as representing a definite, specific, singular instance of that collection – i.e. “the human being” or “that human” – if there are other words in the text which support the isolation or decollectivization of ha’adam.
My view grammatically is basically the opposite. I believe a specific human is in view when ha’adam is used unless there are defining words that indicate the collective is the usage.
Scripturally, many verse have been covered but the immediate discussion revolves around the uses of ha’adam in Genesis 1-3 in general, and specifically in Genesis 1:26-27, Gen 3:9, and Gen 3:24-4:1 (with the repeat of the creation story in Gen 5:1-2 rolled in by implication).
The ramifications of the usage of ha’adam affect both the inter-egalitarian debate of the fall and, subsequently, the egalitarian arguments against complementarian views of male authority. (Well, I don’t think the inter-egalitarian dust up impacts egal/comp arguments at all.)
Cheryl – I sure hope I am not dragging you kicking and screaming into an exegesis you are uncomfortable with. In sticking to my guns, I am straying pretty far from normal translation on some of these verses (Gen 5:1 is a prime example). On the other hand, Susanna isn’t exactly true to translational tradition on quite a few others so I guess picking sides is kind of like deciding which rebel faction to join. What I suspect you are MOST uncomfortable with is blind acceptance of traditional translation (knowing its roots), so I guess maybe this is not such bad company to keep.
Thanks, Gengwall. That helps. Now could you also summarize the implications of the two different views? It seems that you each think that the other’s view will lead us into hierarchicalism. I’m still shaking that dust off my feet and don’t want to go back :-).
Just a clarification – I do not believe that either view directly tips the scale toward hierarchalism. I don’t know exactly if Susanna does. I do know her anxiety level about the resolution is far greater than mine.
There is only one negative implication to Susanna’s view in my mind. Susanna’s view leads to the inevitable conclusion that both Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden by God in Gen 3:24. I fear that may leave complementarians with a flanking manuever – Eve was just as much a cause of sin as Adam. Even then, I don’t think that argument has much weight. So in the long run, I am not too worried about hierachy being “proven” either way. My persistence in this debate is simply due to the fact that I think my gramatical view is correct. But I don’t fear that complementarian philosophy will win the day if I’m wrong. Frankly, at the risk of being redundant, I don’t think the resolution to this debate has any impact at all on the hierarchy debate.
I don’t want to speak precisely for Susanna but I will sumarize her fear to the best of my knowledge. I believe she thinks that the complementarian arguments about order of creation, and even more so, order of interrogation, have significant weight in proving hierarchy. Or maybe more precisely, I believe she thinks that if my view of ha’adam were accepted, it would at least enbolden comps and at worse, give them offensive ammunition for their arguments. She can (and has) provide much more substance and focus to that summary.
I should back off even more on the last paragraph and not speak for Susanna so much. What I know is that she is passionate about this issue and her passion extends beyond a love of grammatical correctness. She has real fear about the ramifications of this debate for the broader debate against heirarchy. I will let her articulate those fears.
Ok, thanks. I suppose since the hier. group does tend to shout “first! first!” when it suits them (creation, primogeniture, interrogation) and ignore it when it doesn’t (first message from the angel, first at the tomb, first to betray was a man) mean that at least considering the question of “order” and having a reply is worth the effort.
gengwall ,
”Their proper name was not “Human”. Their categorical name was “human” just as the catagorical name of deer is “deer”. “
Right. There were no “names” given anywhere yet. But, clearly God called THEM adham, Human. He had no other choice as there were no proper names given yet.
”Verse 7 and 8 refer repeatedly to Adam and Eve together as a couple. “eyes of them both”, “they knew”, “they sewed”, “they heard”, “the man and his wife hid themselves”. If they still are in view in the next verse, if God is calling to “them both”, “Adam and his wife”, why would the author not put it that way?”
Why would Moses say things differently? Well, he’s Hebrew, comes to mind. Plus, he may be trying to be more explicit on what was actually said. Can you imagine God saying , “Hey, human and woman”. Seems more reasonable since God named THEM Adham/Human, that since there were not any ‘first’ names given yet, that God would just call out Human (which included a plural) and wait for them to answer. And really there are no qualifications that God was speaking to ONLY the man. Why would God do that since both disobeyed Him. ??? I don’t know. This makes sense to me.
It is…to a degree. Since the “first! first!” argument results in a logical fallacy, we need not be afraid of it. Moreover, at least in terms of creation (interrogation is part of this debate), it is a simple biblical fact. We can’t argue away that Adam was created first denying the testimony of Genesis 2 and 1 Timothy 2:13. So, we have to accept at least one “first!” as being a fact. What we don’t need to accept without support is that “first!” of any kind equals “leader” or “authority”. Since there is no proof of THAT synthesis in scripture, the “first!” argument fails regardless of the factual reality of the “first!” in question.
Susanna,
You said:
I think that it is very helpful to understand that we can argue our point of view without supporting their error. If it can be shown that my point of view completely supports the egalitarian understanding by tying in the OT and the NT without contradiction, would you be willing to entertain the view?
I am going through your comments one by one and I haven’t read through them all yet, but I assume that you haven’t dealt with the fact that God called “the human” as the one man Adam, first by saying “Where are you” You is most definitely singular. The grammar makes it impossible to argue that God called both Adam and Eve but only Adam answered. God was speaking to one person at a time and it appears that both Adam and Eve knew which singular “you” God was referring to, even if we don’t have the name that God called him as we just have the question.
Of you points 1 – 4 above, the first three points of the comp position are easily shown to be additions to the text. The fourth point is therefore an unspoken and faulty conclusion based on reading into the text and prejudice against women.
I didn’t say that ha’adam refers only to the first man. I did say that unless there is a plural construction, the default position of the definite noun with singular pronouns is that it is referring to the first man Adam. The plural pronouns make it very clear that “man” (without the definite article) in Genesis 1:26 is “them” male and female and not just the one man. Man without the definite article can be a particular man, all of mankind, or a particular group of people. The context and the pronouns are essential for us to understand the meaning.
In Genesis 5, God did not name male and female “the man” but simply “man” which is the generic term for human. The context is mankind in verse Genesis 5:2.
What is the context of “man” in verse Genesis 5:1? It is not plural but singular. Is God telling us that this is a history of the descendants of mankind (general) or of the descendants of one man? Genealogy is always specific to the person.
The Amplified Bible renders Genesis 5:1 this way:
The term Adam is used for one person and man is used for mankind.
The Word Biblical Commentary shows that Adam the personal name is the intention of Genesis 5:1 and I agree:
So in Genesis 5:1 “Adam” is a specific human (singular) and in verse 2 “man” is plural as male and female. In verse 3 “Adam” is singular again (without the definite article) yet it is also clearly referring to one man, Adam as he is named as a “father” and in verse 5 his age of death is given. These things can only be said about the one man Adam and not about Eve the woman.
I agree that it isn’t easy because the Hebrew goes back and forth between the singular and the plural, but we can follow it through by the context. Even though Adam (the first man) is said to be in the image of God in Genesis 5:1, he is not the only one who is in the image of God since Genesis 1:26 has already told us that God originally planned to create “them” in His image.
I will carry on in the next comment.
“Why would Moses say things differently? Well, he’s Hebrew, comes to mind. Plus, he may be trying to be more explicit on what was actually said.”
How is being more cryptic being more explicit? “The man and his woman” and “both” are explicit references to Adam and Eve. There is no other construction we could derive from that. “ha’adam”, as we have been discussing here, variety of meanings. The immediate context both before – where it was NOT used to describe them both – and after – where it is used to describe just Adam (vs. 12) – plus the fact that Adam alone responded is substantial evidence that it means just Adam in vs. 9. If it doesn’t, Moses is confusing the situation by using ha’adam in vs. 9, not making the situation more explicit.
“Can you imagine God saying , “Hey, human and woman”. Seems more reasonable since God named THEM Adham/Human, that since there were not any ‘first’ names given yet, that God would just call out Human (which included a plural) and wait for them to answer.”
You continue to treat Genesis 3:9 as a quote from God. It is not. It is a description of God’s action. We have no idea what God’s words were. We also are not privy to any direct conversation God had with Adam where God uses ‘adam in any form, so we don’t know if God had yet used it as a proper name. Frankly, we have no idea how God addressed the first couple either individually or together.
“Seems more reasonable since God named THEM Adham/Human, that since there were not any ‘first’ names given yet, that God would just call out Human (which included a plural) and wait for them to answer.”
OK – if this is how God addressed them as a couple, how did he address them individually? If he were calling out to just Adam, how would he do it?
And really there are no qualifications that God was speaking to ONLY the man. Why would God do that since both disobeyed Him. ??? I don’t know. This makes sense to me.
But there are – all the surrounding text. There is qualifiaction that God was not speaking to them as a couple because in 3:9 Moses doesn’t use “couple” grammer as he did in 3:7-8, and because Adam responds and nothing in the text indicates that his solo response was unexpected or inappropriate. Yours is an argument from silence.
And although both disobeyed Him, they did not disobey Him in the same manner or degree. As has been discussed here at length, Adam’s was a direct, intentional act of disobedience. Eve’s was a coerced act of disobedience. Plus, as Cheryl points out above, Adam was the watchman who failed at his post. What makes sense to me is that God would approach the one who failed more seriously and did so more deliberatly first. Consider if these were your children. Which would you question first in a similar circumstance? If this were the army or a business, I can assure you that Adam would be called on the carpet first.
Susanna,
You said:
Adam in Genesis 1:26 is matched with the plural pronoun so we can be assured that it is meant as mankind. Adam in Genesis 5:1 can only refer to one man since he (singular) is matched to his genealogy, Adam as father and his death. Verse 2 is again attached to the plural with male and female. This is why we need to follow the Hebrew grammar with close attention because ‘adam has several meanings and when the Hebrew goes back and forth between these several meanings it can get confusing.
Again this is about the switch between the one man and between the meaning of mankind. We must follow the switch between the pronouns to understand what is being referenced.
I disagree. In Genesis 1:26 God made His intention known that the image would be in “them”. With this understanding we then go to the image in the man and the image in male and female. The female is in no way left out of the image of God.
No it does not always mean humankind. It can and often does mean a specific person. Let me quote from a few commentaries to show that Genesis 5:1 is talking about a specific man.
I think that should be sufficient to show that ‘adam in Genesis 5:1 is referring to the one man Adam.
You said:
“The human” is Adam. Eve is never called “the human” but “the woman”. To say that “the Adam” is not one particular man but just “a human” seems to me that you are trying desperately to deny that Adam can be a term for one man. I wonder why you have to deny that?
The fact that God called only the man here cannot be used to prove that God gave only the commandment to one person since Genesis 1 proves that He spoke to “them”. Are you denying that “the human” is Adam and “you” is singular not plural?
When God responded to Adam’s words He asked is Adam had eaten from the tree that God had commanded him (you singular) not to eat. Even though God first of all talked to Adam and called him to account first, does not mean that the commandment was given to Adam alone since Genesis 1 clearly states that God spoke to “them”. However God is specifically speaking to Adam here and Adam first heard the commandment alone. It isn’t a contradiction at all.
My internet was down for awhile. I wasn’t able to see the other comments sent to me. I will address them now instead before going on with Susanna’s comments.
lmb,
You said:
No, there is nothing in the account that says that Adam was the “leader”. However before Eve was created Adam needed to understand that he needed a flesh and blood mate who was like him so that he would accept her as as his own and not a separate creation from him. If God had made Eve out of the dirt at the same time as Adam, I believe that many men would declare us of a different sort than they are and not equal to them as humans. Sigh(!)
The fact is that while Adam was going through the process that would enable him to see Eve as his equal, God did some acts of creation before Adam’s eyes that protected Adam from believing the lie that they could become “like” God as Creator. Adam was responsible for this knowledge and God made him the protector of the garden as Adam was the only human ever to have witnessed the creative acts of God. Adam’s knowledge made him more responsible but it didn’t make Eve to be created a follower and Adam to be created a leader. That is foreign to the account.
Does this help? If you don’t have a copy of my DVD set, the first DVD sets this point up visually to show that more knowledge = more personal responsibility. More knowledge does not equal rulership over others.
gengwall,
You said:
Me? Having to go kicking and screaming into an exegesis? LOL! No, just the opposite, I believe that the fact that Adam alone was kicked out is essential to some other specific points that Paul makes and shows that Adam was not “the leader” by virtue of his maleness nor that Eve was disallowed to take a rulership or disallowed to be a teacher because she was a female. We can hold strong to our guns and keep faithful to the text without giving an inch to the error of the comp view.
gengwall,
You said:
I agree. Also I haven’t even finished reading all the views as I was busy responding to Susanna, but I do think that Susanna’s concern can be dealt with to allow her to see our point of view in no way diminishes the view of the equality of women. When I am done presenting my view, if Susanna still has an anxiety about this, I would sure like to know why. I see no conflict at all and I am not in the least bit concerned that either view leaders toward a hierarchy for males.
gengwall,
This is exactly how I think and this view causes problems with the New Testament. I will explain more, but it looks like you and I are on the same page. Twin minds think alike again?
gengwall,
You said:
I am sure that we can help Susanna forgo those fears by the time we are through. I do understand Susanna’s concern, but I think that she is only concerned because she has not heard my complete argument yet. I would be very surprised if she is still concerned when she hears the connection to the new testament that I haven’t shared yet.
TL,
You said:
Check out the grammar and you will see that “you” is singular. When Eve quotes God in chapter 3 saying that “You are not to eat…” the “you” there is plural. But God doesn’t call out to “you” plural, but “you” singular. Why is that? Because God knows that they have sinned and He is calling out to the watchman on the wall first. Where is the Watchman? Hiding!!! What a shame. God deals with the most responsible one first since the Watchman has failed in his watch.
gengwall,
Excellent insights! I could have said that same thing, but you beat me to it!
gengwall,
Excellent, excellent work! I have to leave now for further preparations for the funeral but I can see that I am leaving things in your capable hands. We must view the account as inspired by God and not just changed by a man. What is written is what God wanted and none of it contradicts.
Carry on…I’ll be back.
Cheryl said “more knowledge = more personal responsibility. More knowledge does not equal rulership over others.” And gengwall said “What we don’t need to accept without support is that “first!” of any kind equals “leader” or “authority”. Since there is no proof of THAT synthesis in scripture, the “first!” argument fails regardless of the factual reality of the “first!” in question.”
Ha! OF COURSE (yes, I’m shouting with joy 🙂 ) I do know that. I ought to know that. When you say it I know it’s true.
So why do I still react to those old first-equals-best-equal-leader ideas? even when you’re not saying them? Sometimes it’s hard to get free of the old clothes even when they don’t fit!
Thanks for supplying the scissors to cut away the restricting bands of those old garments.
We are conditioned both personally in our own lives and through the testimony of cultural history to believe those things. One of the things I point out in my blog entry on equality in the original marriage design is that both the “first” and the “naming” arguments rely solely on the traditions of man, not the teaching of God. Ah but those traditions! Susanna shows in her book how long some of those traditions have held sway over us. We are slowly shedding their influence but old habits (and beliefs) die hard, especially if they have been passed down by those we love and trust (although they themselves are victims of the same conditioning). And so, even though we hear the truth a number of times, it makes us uncomfortable because we find comfort in the familiarity, stability, and apparent trustworthyness of our traditions. Hang in there Lmb – soon the new garments will help you forget the old worn out tatters of patriarchal tradition.
“Check out the grammar and you will see that “you” is singular.”
I went looking for that when I saw you write it, Cheryl. But couldn’t find anything I have to show sing. or pl. What do you use that shows that?
Susanna said:
I agree that the woman’s testimony was that God gave her the command and in Genesis 1, God speaks to “them”. However I do not agree that God called both humans yet only the man answered. God specifically said “you” singular.
Why do you think there are only two options? Would you consider this an option?:
3. God knows what has happened and he calls the man to explain where he is (hiding) and why (the cowering Watchman is a traitor). The Watchman of the garden must answer to God first. Since we know that God spoken to both of them (Gen. 1) and Eve’s testimony is that “God said…” we know that God picking Adam to be called to account first is not an indication that He only ever spoke to one man.
Is this anything wrong with this option?
Eve is not excluded later when God speaks to her, but yes, she is excluded as the initial “rubber meets the road” first one accountable is called on the carpet.
Susanna,
You said:
Then could you explain to me if you understand that only Adam was made from the ground, why you believe that Eve is part of “the Adam” in Gen. 3:22-24 when the one who is spoken of is said to be sent out to till the ground that he was made from? Where is Eve in this? What isn’t it plural and why isn’t Eve said to be sent out to till the ground that Adam was made from? Do you see how this causes problems to your view?
The hard work was a punishment because of the curse on the earth. It doesn’t mean that the woman cannot work with the soil but that the primary hard work dealing with the curse that he caused was put onto the man not the woman.
While this may be correct in the original perfect and weedless earth, the place of hard work amongst the weeds was specifically only forced upon the man.
You said:
No, I do not agree. To see no distinction between Genesis 1:26 and 27 one must make the singular and plural to be the same thing and this is linguistically in error. I choose to not deny the inspired grammar but to embrace it as correct and work with it as it is. My interpretation must submit to the grammar, not force the grammar to fit into my exegesis by equating a singular pronoun to be the same as a plural one. I think that would be torturing the text and cutting off what it actually says instead of taking the natural grammar as accurate.
Genesis 5 has the singular and plural only because it is talking about one person and then two persons. Genesis 5 never makes a singular to be the same as a plural. Rather it is singular + another singular = plural.
First of all I am not saying that ha’adam refers only to the first man and I am not saying that ‘adam refers always to mankind. ha’adam can be plural when plural nouns are used and ‘adam can be singular when a single human is meant or when a collective singular unit is meant. I think you are misunderstanding my position and this is why you are having a hard time with this.
In Genesis 1:27 the term is “the man” and the definite with the singular pronoun is one man. I would call them to account with the exact grammar as I have with you.
What I would like to know if how God could have written the grammar if He really did only mean one man? How would He have written it differently?
How did you come to the conclusion that I would have no defense?
1. Man is never called to “lead”
2. God did give the command to Adam before Eve was created but He gave it again once she was created (Gen. 1 & Gen. 3)
3. No command to teach or not teach is in the Genesis account
4. God called both to account for what they each did and neither was called to account for the other person.
5. God didn’t say that Eve “should” follow Adam out of the garden. He only said that she “would”.
6. God did not say that Eve had not sinned or that being deceived made her innocent or that she wouldn’t die for what she did.
I fail to see how you connect the teaching of the comps that they add to the Scripture without a single piece of evidence on their side, to the fact of the Hebrew grammar that God kicked out the one guilty of deliberate treachery who was the only one with the rebellious sin nature. The one who was now a slave to sin was the one who was in danger of re-offending over and over again.
So if I exegete Scripture so that the comps don’t have a false security thinking that we agree with them, then I have to attribute to God the charge that He treated the deliberate sinner and the deceived sinner in the same way. I would have to agree that God cursed the earth on her behalf and sent Eve to force her to also work on the cursed earth while having all her babies. Does that not make God to be an unfair dictator who treats all sin the same without a care about the intent of the heart? You may be able to do that, but there is too much in the Scripture that shows that God deals individually and looks on each heart and each motive. I cannot make God out to be unkind, unfair and to place far more on the woman than God said.
gengwall,
You said:
I am just getting through the posts now and again I think you are spot on. I think that we must pay attention to the inspired grammar and I can see that you are doing that.
TL,
Here is a screen shot from my Bible program.
what’s your program??
That will be on my wish list. 🙂 Could have saved a lot of discussion.
TL,
I have Logos 4 platinum http://www.logos.com/platinum There are other Logos versions that are less expensive but I find that in my work I need the best tools I can get. I also have additional Jewish resources beyond Logos Platinum as I do a lot of study in the historic Jewish traditions and the Jewish law.
I’ll have to wait for the Logos to get the MAC platform ready. And start saving now. 🙂
TL,
You had asked on the previous post:
I do not think that Eve was prone to deception any longer. She had her eyes opened and she was not suffering from a sin nature of rebellion as Adam was. Her deception was in essence an “immunization” to any further deception and we have no indication from the Scripture that she continued a pattern of being deceived. I believe that if she had stayed in the garden, she would have been obedient to God. But she was “one flesh” with the man and her desire was to be with him.
I believe that God knew He could trust this formerly deceived woman to be obedient. She could have stayed in the garden and the Messiah could have come through her directly as no man was needed for His birth. But God knows the future and He knew she would leave of her own (with or without Adam’s coercion).
Exactly! Adam’s deliberate treachery had serious consequences in his entire line of descendants. It is only the promise of the Messiah through the woman that gave mankind hope.
Cheryl & TL,
Such wonderful toys…uh er umm, I mean tools – you all are making me drool again. Sshhhh.
Cheryl, you know I’m starting to get the “picture” of sin being passed down through the male – something that I have not been able to determine. I had not absolutely come to determine for myself in the past whether it is scriptural or not…, but now the scriptures are “coming alive” piece by piece as I put them all together… I still have alot to “get” and scriptures to learn, but something is definately developing… and I’m very excited cause I’ve wanted to know if it were true ever since I read a post(s) on the topic of yours! Step by step I go… 🙂
Very important!
I disagree. If Adam alone were forced out of the garden, responsible alone for sin coming into the world, the ground being cursed, and was a failed watchman, evrything negative (!) the comp hierarchal argument in Essence crumbles. In the comp argument, Adam is given rulership over Eve – “a glory” if you will… So it’s the (scriptural) light shown on Adam that changes everything hierarchal. The Adam placed above the woman in the scriptures is not the same glorified Adam placed above woman in comp doctrine. What Genesis tells us about the individual Adam has impact on the way the average church goer views the “comp position”…
Sorry if that was confusing…was coming from my opponents perspective… Point is, Adam (the comp leader or federal head) looks quite different when viewed through what the scriptures say – Gen 3:22-24.
How does Gen 3:22-24 affect the comp doctrine of federal headship?
anti-spam = fall
Essential indeed!
What is this about gengwall?
Looking at scripture4all I see God speaking in 3:9 “and he is saying” and then the man in 3:10 speaking next in response to God, “and he is saying”.
LOL! gengwall ;P
Can’t wait!
Below are the important connections to Adam that are brought out by Paul. We are going to note several important things. First we are going to pay attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar. Secondly we are going to observe where Paul got his argument and his information from to make his observations. I will make several comments to keep these ideas in a more concise fashion that will be easier to follow.
Note that Paul doesn’t just say “man” as in “humankind” but “one” man (a particular man, just one man).
If sin came through “mankind” then the numeral “one” is unnecessary. Then Paul would have said “therefore just as through mankind sin entered into the world…” But Paul didn’t say that. Paul said that sin entered this world through one man.
We also should note that the sin that entered this world through one man and then spread to all (mankind). One man caused this spiritual disease and the disease was spread to all.
Where did Paul get this from? We will be looking at this shortly.
The next thing that we learn from Paul is that there is a specific offense of “Adam” (the one man).
Notice here that Paul says that death came from Adam even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam had sinned. What is the offense of Adam that is different than the offense of Eve? And where will we find this located in the Old Testament? Again we will be looking at this one shortly.
Paul doesn’t just call Adam’s sin as “the offense of Adam” but he also says that it is the “transgression of the one”:
So there is a transgression of the “one” (just one) and because of this transgression of the “one” there is a judgment that came about.
So from “the one” came “one” transgression and this “one” transgression resulted in “condemnation”. Where will we find this information in the Old Testament? What does the Scripture say?
The next thing that we note from Paul is that death “reigned” through the “one”:
How did death reign? It was through one transgression and this transgression resulted in condemnation to all.
Lastly Paul says that it is one man’s disobedience that resulted in our being made sinners.
So we will be looking for the disobedience of the one and the condemnation of the one that Paul referenced. Where is it found?
I am off to a funeral now so I won’t be able to finish this until later.
Last thing that Paul says about Adam is in 1 Cor. 15. “In Adam” all die.
Now let’s take a look at Genesis to see where Paul got all of this information.
The curse on the earth comes directly because of Adam’s sin.
This is judgment and condemnation because of the one man. God says “because” Adam listened to the voice of his wife (his silent listening was the watchman doing nothing) and then the designated watchman on the wall not only failed to sound the alarm but also openly participated in a rebellious act. Because of this act, God has pronounced judgment on the whole earth because of the one man’s sin.
The next question is how the “one man’s disobedience” affected him. These are the verses under dispute in Genesis 3.
Is God’s reaction to Adam a sign that Adam now has a sin nature that makes him untrustworthy? The fact that God drives only the man out of the garden shows that he possesses a rebellious sin nature that will be passed on to us. If Eve had been designated as a rebellious sinner and was also removed from the garden because of her propensity to sin, then Paul could not say the words he said about Adam. Paul could not say that it was the transgression of the one man.
Paul has identified that it is the transgression of the one man and this corresponds with the identification of Adam’s sin as treachery in Hosea 6:7. Adam’s rebellious sin was an act of treachery that brought sin into the world and we were all condemned “in” Adam.
Paul makes it abundantly clear that Adam’s sin was worthy of condemnation. Adam’s expulsion from the garden was a result of his rebellious nature and his punishment to work by the sweat of his brow was a condemnation because of his treachery.
It was Adam and Adam alone who was the father of all dying. In contrast it was Eve who was the mother of all living. Through Eve would come the Messiah who would be the faithful watchman who would sacrifice Himself to protect and save us. He was the last Adam who succeeded where the first Adam failed. Jesus became the victor and the one who purchased back what the first Adam lost.
Those who point to Adam as a designated “ruler” and “leader” of the woman have completely failed to recognize that Adam’s place is not one of honor but one of disgrace. God did not designate the one who was unfaithful as a watchman to now be a sole “ruler” intended to take control of his wife. Instead of obeying God’s design for the man to be loving and sacrificing for his wife, Adam practiced his sin nature by ruling over her as a controller and dictator. It was Adam alone who sinned in rebellion and Adam alone had a condemnation upon him as the only one who had the nature that would cause him to continue to practice his rebellion.
If we take the Genesis account as it is written and understand that it is Adam alone who experienced a condemnation from God as a rebellious traitor, then Paul’s words about the one man who brought sin into the world fits perfectly.
I’d say, “Adam the leader, ruler” just got the boot ;P
I can’t imagine one trying to make that man Adam out to be some leader of God endowed with authority, over another human being, namley Eve.
He couldn’t even keep watch of the garden! What does that tell us about how well he ruled his home? ;P
What I find very interesting is, that man Adam of all people – considering what he did, his failure, sin out of rebellion, accusations against God and Eve, the one alone who was thrown out of Eden, etc, is given a high place over the female in some hierarchy! Amazing!
The father of the dying over the mother of the living? How unsound.
Paul’s words “and Adam was not deceived” in 1 Tim 2 supports the Gen 2 text saying “who was with her” in the context of when the serpent approached Eve, and proves that he was with Eve when the serpent worked his deception because there is no evidence that Eve attempted to deceive Adam, and the only deceiver we have in Eden was the serpent, so he had to of heard the serpent’s deceptive words in order to not have been deceived since there is no way, no evidence, no proof, to attribute the serpent’s words as having been relayed by Eve to Adam. Besides the serpent asked with the plural “you” and lied using the plural “you”. Paul’s words once again confirm Genesis at creation and the fall in regards to Adam.
Whoops, that was meant to read Genesis 3:
Paul applies Adam’s education to the singular female in 1 Tim 2 just as he applies Eve’s deception to the male and female corinthians in 2 Co 11:3.
Did Adam name the serpent like he named all the other animals? This would also show that he understood the nature of the serpent. He either named all the animals or he did not.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.
That can’t be right since God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, which means he would have brought the serpent to Adam, inside the garden, the garden he was suppose to watch and keep. Humm… gotta go back and look at the text where Adam names the animals!
Comparing Genesis 3:22 with 3:1, “he became” makes it appear that the serpent “became” crafty just as Adam became unlike God. However that works out, humm…
Cheryl, any ideas on the serpent getting it’s name and the Hebrew?
Looks like both Adam and the serpent became something neither were created to be. Help ;P
Also relevant to Gen 3:22-24, the man alone being made from the ground:
1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
Eve was created from a living being, Adam was not created from something that was living. There is something to that having to do with the breath of life that God gave Adam, the same breath of life through the blood which was part of the substance (“human life”) used to form Eve… And Eve is also unique in that she did not have the sin nature that is passed down to all through Adam.
1 Co 15 makes Gen 3:22-24 undisputable as to who is being refered to.
Whoops again, that was Genesis 2:7 not 4:7.
“Did Adam name the serpent like he named all the other animals? This would also show that he understood the nature of the serpent. He either named all the animals or he did not.”
that’s a good point of Scripture to show that Adam knew the serpent was going to be sneak/crafty that Eve would not have known. And then that brings in the question of how much influence did Satan give to the serpent and the the serpent was inclined to readily receive the sort of influence Satan would give it.
“What I find very interesting is, that man Adam of all people – considering what he did, his failure, sin out of rebellion, accusations against God and Eve, the one alone who was thrown out of Eden, etc, is given a high place over the female in some hierarchy! Amazing!”
Isn’t it. According to hierarchists, because the man was not deceived and sinned rebelliously he is given the leadership of humanity/woman. Crazy thinking! In the end it’s just all about power and the manipulations one must go through to get it and keep it.
“Is God’s reaction to Adam a sign that Adam now has a sin nature that makes him untrustworthy? The fact that God drives only the man out of the garden shows that he possesses a rebellious sin nature that will be passed on to us. ”
They both sinned. But interestingly, the rebellion and treachery was what made the difference. Besides failing to honor and love God it was a failure to act on important information that would benefit Eve. The treachery was twofold. Adam dishonored God and dishonored the woman that God gave to him as the help for his aloneness.
And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.
pinklight – “What is this about gengwall?
Looking at scripture4all I see God speaking in 3:9 “and he is saying” and then the man in 3:10 speaking next in response to God, “and he is saying”.”
Susanna had continued to insist that God had called out “Human” (ha’adam), as if ha’adam was part of the verbiage GOd used. It was not. That was my point. It was rather clumsily made.
In other words, the quote from God was “Where are you?” The quote did not include “human” or “man” or “Adam”. It was simply “Where are you?” (singular). It is a point well taken.
And it may not have been Susanna – it may have been Kay. I can’t remember it was so many comments ago.
“And it may not have been Susanna – it may have been Kay.”
gengwall,
It wasn’t me…I was on Thanksgiving vacation and barely able to keep up with the regular comments 🙁
…I’m just now caught up. Wheww!
Sorry – I could go back and check but it is in the other post. Anyway, SOMEbody was saying the ha’adam was part of what God actually said.
I just wanna say a few brief comments. It greatly disturbs me with comments like the ones below. It is no wonder that comps do not want to dialogue with you all when you don’t even understand the teaching. It does however reveal alot to me about this topic and how people are more inclined to listen to society than each other.
“In the end it’s just all about power and the manipulations one must go through to get it and keep it.”
“And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.”
This is what feminism saids, not what complementarians say. It is disappointing to hear these type of things. If egals think that comps are lusting for power and manipulate and downgrade women it will be very difficult to ever dialogue effectively on these issues.
Hey Mark,
The fact is that comps don’t want to dialog with us not because we don’t “understand the teaching” but because we ask questions they can’t respond to. Many of us (if not the majority) used to be complementarians so we do understand the teaching and what was expected of us. Perhaps what you really mean is that we don’t understand the “heart” of men complementarians. If that is what you meant, then yes, no one can see another person’s heart. The motive is hidden from us but the fruit that we see can be tested and no matter how badly comps treat us we certainly should not say that we know exactly what each one does things. None of us certainly know your heart and you don’t know ours either. It is by the grace of God that we can love one another even while we are in the other “camp”. It is only because of Jesus that dwells in each of us.
Personally I try not to make general statements about the problems of men’s lust for power yet still I can’t get a comp to dialog with me either. So what’s the problem? I can’t help thinking that when we ask the hard questions that really do need answering, they aren’t comfortable in answering. Perhaps it is because it might mean that they would have to look rethink their own position to answer the questions. It is difficult for many to rethink their own position because people’s positions are often made with long held cherished beliefs and they are not up for discussion.
The fact is that this statement is absolutely true: “And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.”
Now men who don’t lust for power or authority over women don’t even bat an eye lid because it doesn’t refer to them. It isn’t about all comps or all men. It is about those who lust for things that place them in a rulership position over others. Why would that statement be offensive? Perhaps there are other men here who could help me. You are men too. Did the above statement come across as attacking all men?
The other statement was about manipulating the Bible to keep power. Perhaps it is a statement of frustration because we have asked comps to please show us where Adam had authority over Eve since this is what they claim. None of them ever gives a Biblical answer but only gives statements that they do not back up with the Bible. Why is that? What would be the reason to claim that something is Biblical and then refuse to answer the question of where in the Genesis account it is shown?
So just for the record, I am going to stick my neck out and answer the suggestion that women here (and all evangelical egalitarians) think that all complementarians lust for power and manipulate and downgrade women. Not all comps are like that. Some are gentle respectful comps who have no desire to take rulership over anyone. They are comps only because their conscience compels them to believe that this is what the Bible says, but they do not personally practice shutting women up or stifling them or taking authority over them.
Yet for those who follow the complementarian way from their heart and they love what the doctrine tells them about men’s unique rights to have and use the gifts that God gives them, then women can be easily downgraded and the Bible can be used as a weapon against women to force women to be silent about their Biblical arguments and their Biblical questions about our equality.
I think this is because the complementarian way is not really complementarian. It is separation and division. Men are given the privilege of having and using every spiritual gift but women have the wall built in front of them. They are not allowed in most comp camps to teach men in a Bible study. They are also not allowed in most comp camps to use their gift of pastor and they must stifle the Holy Spirit within them to listen to the complementarian rules. This hurts women and divides the body against their gifts. It also hurts and grieves the Holy Spirit when His gifts are disregarded.
So for the comp men who come here, I think that it isn’t so much a dialog that we are looking for but for them to get real and deal with honest-hearted questions like the ones that we have asked from Genesis. When comps refuse to answer the questions the red flags go up in our minds. We wonder why they cannot or will not answer the questions?
Also this blog is about Christianity and equality as Christians not worldly feminism. I do not use the term feminism because it has too much baggage. If you look on the side bar, I have been willing to take on some of the errors of “feminism” when there has been arguments that go beyond what the Bible says. This blog is about Biblical truth and I am willing to speak out against error from either camp because I believe we all need truth. When we embrace truth we can be assured that we are on the right road.
So I am wondering if you are going to answer the questions that I have posed with my comments to your answers that I gave to you on the other post? If you are busy but intend to answer, just let me know. If you don’t want to answer my questions then it would be good to have a reason why the questions are not worthy of being answered. But please do not use anyones frustration with men who lust for power as a reason not to answer the questions. Just be graceful with your sisters in Christ who have been hurt by men who have treated them in an un-Christlike fashion.
My error, I just see that Mark has put comments on the other post. I will have a look at his answers at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/#comments Perhaps we can respond to his answers here as the other post has so many comments already.
Here are Mark’s answers that he posted over at the other post and I will be answering his “answers” on this post as the other one is already well over 400 comments long. My answer will likely come in pieces as I deal with each one of Mark’s 10 comments.
“The fact is that comps don’t want to dialog with us not because we don’t “understand the teaching” but because we ask questions they can’t respond to. Many of us (if not the majority) used to be complementarians so we do understand the teaching and what was expected of us. ”
This is correct. I have had the opportunity to meet some well known comp teachers and even when asking questions as a fellow comp about teaching that seem to be confusing or contradictory to other Biblical teaching, they were always dismissive. As if asking the questions, by themselves, were my problem in being rebellious. As time went on, I finally realized they did not like such questions and therefore responded in ad hominen style.
Mark, you have avoided such questions, too a few threads back. I don’t say that to be mean but to just point out that it happens all the time.
I have asked you at what age a boy becomes a man and a woman should not teach him. Your response is always cloaked in formal or informal church settings which is not scriptural at all. It is man made. Let;s say, in Nympha’s living room, at what age would boys be men that she would be in sin to teach them?
I have also asked why,since there is no prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men, we are expected to believe there is a new one in the NT?
Mark, If you cannot get Gen 3 right, you cannot understand the rest. You cannot understand that Patriarchy in the OT is a sin. The result of what God said would happen. God worked through sinful man to achieve His own Glory.
The correct translation of what God said to Eve goes like this:
In Gen 3, God told Eve that she would turn away from Him and turn toward her husband and he would, as a result, rule over her.
In effect, what you are teaching is sanctified sin. If her ‘desire’ is for her husband, it is not for God first. That is the consequence of Eve
s sin. And non egals teach that women SHOULD do this. They will say they don’t but they do. And it is teaching sin as virtue.
“And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.”
This is what feminism saids, not what complementarians say. It is disappointing to hear these type of things. If egals think that comps are lusting for power and manipulate and downgrade women it will be very difficult to ever dialogue effectively on these issues.
—————————————————–
Mark feminism isn’t the only camp that feel this way at times.
There are men all over this earth that fill that sentence quite nicely, and I’m sure you could even think of some.
Its hardly a ‘feminism’ belief alone, and no offense comps do love to say that word for some reason. I realize its a hot button word for alot of people, but it can be used to divert a sense of truth from some men as well. You need to keep that mind the bible does speak of man’s thirst for power, and YES it does happen within the church as well. I have wonder what phrases they coined at that time to divert away from the subject.
Does that mean EVERY man that is comp follows this for his own personal power? No.
When I read some the responses from comps with it comes to a ministry I deal with personally? I seriously have to wonder if some parts are pushed a tad to much (to put it nicely), and YES that is what you end up with! I also find in alot of places that is very hard to accept. The ‘f’ word is normally thrown out there as well when it is pointed out. Its a signal to me they have ended the discussion, and they won’t even go near the spiritual abusive ways the men have used scripture to harm their family.
I grew up with a comp background. When it was time that my grandparents needed to be removed from their home due to Alzheimer, etc. my mother asked for help from their church (and her’s when she was a child). My grandfather due to his condition and other factors was pretty darn scary, and hard to manage. He was a danger to himself and everyone else. Mom was afraid of him at that point, and state was very individualistic. They told her she had to remove him on her own, and that is WHY she asked the church for help. They basically refused due to not wishing overstep his leadership.etc. It totally threw me for a loop! He and his wife were sick, and needed help. They KNEW because they couldn’t control his behavior at church, and stopped picking them up on Sundays for church after 65 years. They blew us off until it came time they were afraid he might die in his home, and pressured the state to step in. Sounds like from what we heard pretty much threaten them if they didn’t remove them the church would do something. It was to late at that point, and he died within a couple of days.
lol you don’t want to call that a type of oppression that’s fine! I will call it a warped sense of ‘leadership’ along with other things. My grandmother suffered as well, and this wasn’t some fly by night church. It was big, powerful, and in a large city. One that popular comp speakers would love to visit and preach at.
That man wasn’t in the position to speak of his role, because his mind was GONE! My grandmother was at a HUGE risk of being hurt very badly, and they wanted to STILL respect his role of HEAD. You have to admit that is a bit ugly don’t you think?
When you know things like that happen you have to expect a bit backlash, and throwing the F bomb out to deal with it looks like diversion. Seriously if you want to place an end to these ‘myths’ than deal with them head on, and don’t go around the subject like that!
You are brave and I appreciate your presence here personally.
I have an uncle that was a comp missionary, and I have to tell you even HE thought what happened to us was awful. When you have those that PUSH those roles a bit to hard? To me it leaves common sense behind with alot of basic human happens in people’s lifes. I’m thankful they coerced the state to remove him before he did die in the home, but at times I truly resent that they abandon him in his true time of need. Roles wasn’t needed – common sense and compassion was.
Okay – I’m shutting up now. lol sorry!
Mark,
Regarding question #1 my continuing questions to you asked:
You did not answer my questions. I am not concerned that men and women can teach each other in “various ways”. I am asking about a gift of teaching the Bible for the benefit of the body. Since you say that women may teach men, I am asking how many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin? Would you please answer the questions that I actually ask instead of answering questions that I am not asking? I think that my questions are appropriate because God does gift His women with the ability to teach His Word. I am asking questions about how that can possibly be a source of sin.
Okay that was a restatement of question #1. Please, Mark, I would really like an answer to my questions especially on #1.
MarK,
On question #2, I said:
Your answer was this:
Now I find your non-answer here very interesting. Susanna seemed to think that my position might open up a door for a comp to see more authority for Adam, but your comment makes me think that you are agreeing with all of Susanna’s views thus using her viewpoint to prove your comp view. Is this true?
Mark,
The others have answered better than I can, but I do have one request for you. Go to the CBMW site and read chapter 3 of RBMW by Ortlund. Then come back and let us know what kind of attitude towards women you sense from this man.
I used to have a copy of it on my computer, but now that my daughters are old enough to read and understand it, I removed it lest they find and read it. I honestly think that reading something like that, which claims to be God’s view of women, is worse for them than some of the blatant worldly objectification of women that they see in the world. At least I can easily tell them that it’s ugly and sinful if its movies or media. But when someone claims to speak for God and says things like that, what do I tell my girls?
BTW my anti-spam word is “pain.” Like the others, I also come from a comp background, and it brought and still carries a lot of pain!
Mark,
Concerning Question #3. I asked you where the Bible says that only elders could teach? I also asked you if single men are in sin for being pastors? You did not answer these questions. I would like you to answer the questions, please.
Let’s see what you did answer:
Well, it is interesting that not only is the work of an overseer something that all may strive to according to 1 Timothy 3:1, but also the chapter that you reference above (Acts 20) shows that it is the Holy Spirit who who is the one who makes people overseers.
When we desire the work of an overseer, it is the Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to do the work as He enables. This is why women can be apologists who work hard at doctrine and the defense of the faith and who expose the lies of the cults and the aberrant movements coming into the church. This is my job. I work hard to protect people and many pastors have come to me for help. Are you now telling us that only men may protect the church and only men may work hard at the teaching of doctrine and exposing error?? Are you telling me that I am in sin because I have been gifted by the Holy Spirit and called into a ministry of protecting the church and teaching doctrine?
You said:
1 Timothy 3 is about the work of an overseer (1 Timothy 3:1) and the ability to teach is a very important responsibility. It is a gift given by the Holy Spirit to both men and women. Are you saying that “able to teach” is restricted to men?
You are “hinting” that men alone are responsible, but that isn’t true. Secondly language comes from a patriarchal society and we do not get “godly hints” from language that God wants only men to teach or protect the flock. This is an extremely weak argument and it presupposes that God should not gift women at certain things because they are “male” only gifts. This is not Biblical.
Of this disqualifies women and single men, then you have a lot of problems. Do you join any movement that comes against single men as elders and overseers? Do you see them as being in sin?
Also women were Deacons in the early church yet the exact same “qualification” relates to a deacon. How do you explain this?
The “personal qualifications” are rather that of faithfulness to one’s spouse if one is married.
On the contrary, the “women likewise” shows that the women are NOT to be excluded from the preceding words. The Holy Spirit is showing that women who desire to do the work of an overseer are not missed out. Women must also be faithful spouses and may do the work of an overseer with their qualifications as also personal faithful and upright qualifications. The “women likewise” is a problem to the complementarian position because it says that women are not exempt from 3:1 “desiring to do the work of an overseer”. It supports the egal position and makes the comp position very hard to maintain.
So I will ask you to answer the questions again. Are males who are unmarried sinning against God if they become overseers? Are “women likewise” also allowed to do the work of an overseer as 1 Tim. 3:1 allows? If not, why not? How could we hold back a woman as being in sin but not hold back a single man as being in sin? Please answer these questions, Mark and do not ignore them as you have as they are very, very important questions to us.
Hi Cheryl. I think we are starting to cross-thread again. I wonder if this discussion would go better in one of the “Maqrk” threads. Just a thought.
gengwall,
Yes, it is an issue of cross-threading again, however there is one issue that does fit. It is hard to know what to do since Mark rarely shows up and has already said that he won’t be around much for the next couple of months.
Perhaps I can leave the questions here for Mark as I already linked where they were originally posted over to this thread. The rest of us can discuss the issue of Adam until Mark shows up again. At that time, I will likely create a new post for Mark’s answers, our questions, his answers, etc, etc. So since Mark’s claims that the issue of women in ministry comes from Adam’s preeminence before the fall and that Adam and Eve were both kicked out of the garden, I think we can get away with a little diversion while we (mostly) deal with the Adam only question. If for some reason we cannot keep on topic, anyone can suggest again that we start a new post.
Mark,
Regarding question #4,
You answered:
You seem to be contradicting me, but are you going to agree that Ephesians 4:11 gives the onus of the gift to the Holy Spirit? Is it not true that Ephesians 4:11 says that “pastor” is a gift given?
Now I see that you have once again completely ignored my questions. I showed you that there is not two or three witnesses that forbid women to teach the Bible to men. I asked you:
You ignored my questions from question #4 to talk about elders. Why did you do that? Are you unable to answer my questions? Please Mark, I ask you to answer my questions as they are very important questions. It is vital to have two or three witnesses to establish a doctrine of sin.
Acts 20 establishes that the Holy Spirit is the One who makes people overseers. Can you please explain why men want to hold back those who have been established as overseers? Those who were given the approval as elders were already doing the work as elders. No one is “made” an elder so that they now must become one. Rather those who take the lead by example are those who are gifted and called and desire the work of being an overseer. Do you disagree that the Holy Spirit and not man is the One who empowers a person to do the work of oversight?
Mark,
Under question #5 I asked,
You completely ignored my questions and answered this way:
So while not answering my question, you dealt with single men here, let me ask how you can ignore the “must be the husband of one wife” and force that to mean that women are not allowed to do the work of an overseer, while single men are? If you are going to take the “must be” as a quality of character then you cannot use it to disallow a woman because that is prejudice. It is not a weak argument at all. It is an argument showing the prejudice of men. Now if you would just as strongly disallow single men as doing the work of an overseer, then at least you would not be prejudiced against women in favor of males. Unfortunately it is your argument that is weak as an argument that has women being in sin for doing the work of an overseer.
Paul isn’t addressing the “majority” of men because he said “must”. The fact is that Paul is stating a moral characteristic which fits both men and women. The moral characteristic is faithfulness.
So I would like to ask a question regarding the “majority” of men as married. What is it in the passage that would allow for men to be free to do the work of an overseer without being married? What language in the text do you use for that exception?
Under #6 Question I asked something completely different than you answered. It looks like you got #6 mixed up with #7. So we will fix that up in the next comment field. Regarding your “answer” to a question here is what you said:
Who is dismissing the passages that seem to restrict women from teaching or even speaking in the assembly? No one here is dismissing them. We are taking the inspired words and the inspired grammar and taking the full context to understand the passages. Once one takes the context and the grammar, then the importance of my questions are understood.
However I find you very befuddling. You say that the hard passages on women are “clear” yet you have refused to answer many of the questions that would show how your “clear” understanding distorts the texts themselves. You also say that it is not a sin for women to teach even in the church and now you are once again that there is a “witness” of the texts to women not teaching. So what is it going to be? Are women allowed to teach or not? If they can teach in the church, how many times can they teach before it becomes a sin? Please do answer because your appeal to the text is “unclear”.
Under your answer to question #7 (which was originally my question #6) I asked:
You answered:
The Bible never calls Eve a “sinner” as if she continued practicing sin. It says that she fell into transgression. If she had a sin nature of rebellion, why does the Bible never say so? Why does her rebellion then never pass on to her children?
Eve’s death was the result of eating the poison – the fruit that had no life that was forbidden for her to eat. However never once is she said to have been “in rebellion” to God. If I have missed something please show me a verse that says that she was in rebellion. The sin nature that is passed on from Adam to all of us does not affect Eve. If you believe it does, please show me how Eve could have inherited Adam’s sin nature?
No. First of all the quote from Romans 3 is taken from the OT where it says that the fool says in his heart there is no God. No fool seeks for God. All of them turn away from God. But there are many God-fearing people who did seek for God and Eve is not one who was said to be a rebellious person against God Himself.
Show me where Eve is said to be a “sinner”? Where is she said to have a sin nature?
She didn’t obey God because she was deceived. Paul said that even sinners (he includes himself) can sin ignorantly. It is not true that all sin is complete rebellion to God. How do you answer Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 1:13, 14?
God clearly wants us to obey him and He is willing to work on behalf of everyone who will respond to the call of repentance that he provides to everyone.
I respectfully ask you not to make my blog an argument about Calvinism. This is an issue of women in ministry and God’s work in His women through gift thing, empowering them and sending them to be obedient to Him. Any offshoot argument is not appropriate here. I assure you that I am not a heretic or a Pelagian and we can just leave it at that.
Mark,
Under Question #8, you again have failed to answer my questions. Why? Here is what I asked:
After not answering my questions, you responded this way:
God looks at the heart and Paul himself said that sin done in ignorance is eligible for mercy. The fact that Paul said that he was the ‘worst’ of sinners does not mean that Paul contradicted himself. Rather being the ‘worst’ of sinner is because of the deed not the heart intent. Paul put Christians to death. This is a very bad sin. But Paul also said that he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. So the sin itself was very bad, but God judged Paul’s heart and because Paul did the sinful deed ignorantly and in unbelief, Paul found mercy from God.
God Himself always looks at the heart. He does not see the deed done without also seeing the intent and God judges in a righteous way by judging both the deed and the heart.
It is God Himself who judges that sin done in ignorance is not as bad as sin done willfully. In fact in the Hebrew willful rebellion against God is called sinning with a high hand. There is no sacrifice given for sinning with a high hand.
You have confused the sin with the intent. Sin done in deception is not worse than willful rebellion. You err because you have not understood the Scriptures on God’s separation of sin and the heart.
Not only have you not deal with 1 Timothy 1:13-14 but you completely contradict God’s Word on the seriousness of willful rebellion. I have put the passages together so that they do not contradict, but your view has to ignore Paul’s words on ignorance and in contradiction to the Scriptures you make all sin to be the same. My friend, I can only assume that it is you yourself who have a completely wrong understanding of sin.
Mark,
Under question #9 You had originally said “The curses show who is MORE responsible for the fall.”
I answered:
You had said that Adam was more responsible for his own sin and I answered your comments and asked further questions:
You also said “There is no mention of God distinguishing between a moderate sin (Eve) and a bad sin (Adam)” and I answered and questioned you with this:
It appears that once again you have not answered almost all of my questions. Why?
You said:
9. Gen 1-3 shows male headship in the following ways. Adam is made first. Eve is made from Adam and for Adam. Adam names his wife. Adam is addressed first. The curse because of Adam affects all of creation. Adam bears the primary resposibilty for the fall. Paul uses Gen to prove male headship in two of his argument (1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2).
All you have done is presented a claim to leadership that is never claimed in the Bible. Paul does not say that Adam is leader because he was created first. Where do you get that from? You also say that “Adam bears the primary responsibility for the fall” when I questioned you where you got that from? Adam never bears “primary” responsibility but the full responsibility. Once again you have merely by-passed by questions. I wonder if you are even seeing the questions, or if you are to busy to pay attention? Why would you consistently evade the questions and give facts that have no bearing on leadership? The Bible never ever states that the first one is to be the leader. King David was the last child, not the first. What’s with that if the Bible principle is that the first is the designated leader?
You are bypassing my question AGAIN! We are not dealing with righteousness, but how God judges between sins. What you are claiming about God is that He has no interest in our heart…that He judges deception the same as rebellion. You, my friend, have misrepresented God. Perhaps you would like to answer these Scriptures.
I could go on and on about God looking on the heart and the intentions of the heart, but I think these verses should suffice. How do you answer the Scriptures where God judges the heart and the intentions?
You are going off topic. The issue is not about deserving good things from God, but about the punishment for sin and the differences between different motives. Did God judge differently between Adam and Eve’s sin or not? What will you do with all the Scriptures where God says that he deals differently with ignorance than with rebellion? Why do you deny that God is fair and just in this way? Why do you wish to uphold the righteousness of Adam as “leader” and want to make Eve to have part of bringing sin into the world when the Scripture is clear that she had no part and Adam bore the blame alone?
Under question #10 I asked:
Once again you completely failed to address my questions. Instead of answering these questions you said:
We are each accountable for what we do, but we are not accountable for what others do. I will certainly be held accountable for the use of my gifts along with the teaching that I do, but please tell me how do you connect that together with being accountable for your wife? Where do you get that from the Scriptures?
You said:
You have twisted my words and claimed something that I did not say. I did not say that God called her woman. God named her woman. That is what I said. I have no idea of what God actually “called” her by name as the Scripture is silent on that. The fact is that Genesis 2:22 shows that she was namedwoman before Adam affirmed her as his flesh and blood. Would you please deal with this and answer it? How do you get Adam taking authority over Eve by his agreeing that she was “woman” as his own flesh and blood? Where does Adam or God say that this was an act of “leadership” instead of an acceptance of her very nature?
Honestly Mark, I think that you must just take what I write and it goes right over your head. Why else would you misrepresent me? The fact is that God created a “woman”. Do you agree?
“Woman” is not her name. And God has already created her as “woman” so Adam’s recognizing that fact cannot be used to create an authority over her that isn’t there. God never tells Adam to take authority over Eve. Why?
The fact is that Adam agrees that she is the mother of the living (in contrast to him being the father of the dying). However his “naming” her Eve after the fall cannot be used to prove his authority over her before the fall. The fact that he took sinful domination over her after the fall is undisputed. Even comp writers will agree to that. Whether Adam’s “naming” her Eve is a sinful act of not is not the issue here. The fact is that he didn’t “name” her before the fall so it cannot be used to prove that God’s plan was for Adam to have an authority over Eve. Can you prove otherwise?
So you have shown that there is not a single passage that says the husband is to take authority over the wife. And you make “head of” to mean “authority over“. Adam is the source of Eve. Is that disputed? How can a husband be the “head of” his wife in the time that this was written? By sacrificing for her and supplying as the source of her nourishment. He feeds her and cares for her as he does his own body. How is this same passage applicable today? The husband can still be the source of his wife by sacrificing to give her everything that she needs so that she can use her gifts without restriction and thus he lifts her up.
My husband has sacrificed for me and he has stood up for me when men tried to silence me. My husband has acted as a source of supply to open the door for me whenever he could so that I was allowed without hindrance to serve God. He became to me a source of encouragement and a source of life as one who lays down his life for his wife so that she (me) can bloom.
In what way have you sacrificed so that your wife can be all she can be in the Lord? What doors have you opened for her to serve that others tried to shut in her face? In what way have you lifted her up when she needed someone to speak on her behalf to stop someone from being prejudiced against her? How did you make sure that she could serve the Lord Jesus in every way that He has gifted and called her? Or have you made sure that she knows her place? Have you made sure that the doors are shut for her so that she cannot go through them? Where is a husband ever told to stop a wife from serving the Lord?
I didn’t say that Adam was the primary interest. I said that Adam’s sin is called treachery in Hosea 6:7. When Israel’s terrible unfaithfulness is compared to Adam’s sin, they are said to have sinned with treachery just as Adam did. Now can you please explain why the terrible sin of Israel is compared to Adam’s sin? Why are both called treacherous acts? Why do you ignore Adam’s sin as treacherous? Why do you equate Eve’s sin as equal to Adam’s sin? Is it because Adam must be lifted up in the eyes of complementarians in order to “prove” a male leadership in creation? Is it right to downplay the treachery of Adam in order to promote him as “leader”? How is it that God would take the treacherous one and make him the ruler over the woman? If he failed her before he ate the fruit, then how could God have confirmed a “leadership” and “authority” of the man over the woman after the fall?
I am not thrilled that we waited so long for you to answer but you have ignored almost all of my questions. Are you ever planning to actually answer the questions? If the comp position stands strong, it will not be by ignoring the hard questions. The truth is willing to answer questions no matter how hard they are. Error tends to skip over the hard questions because error is afraid. I trust that you are one who has a good heart which follows hard after the Lord Jesus. I encourage you to use that good heart to answer the questions without fear.
Seems to me that Adam’s rebellion is replaced with a glorious leadership and responsibility. How often in comp doctrine when it is taught that the man is the leader and woman the follower, is it ever brought up that Adam was a traitor, a failed watchman, kicked out of Eden and passes on down his sin nature to us, and that he failed his wife before he ate? Never. Why? Because leaders can’t be put in that kind of light because if they are then it is made known that they are not truly leaders of God.
Now everyone makes mistakes, but treachery and continued rebellion?? He conintued in his rebellion when he blames God and Eve, rather than acting responsibly. And hear I thought responsibility of him and his wife was his number one strength? And then he proceeds to rule over his wife as God predicts?? That’s not a leader in the slightest.
#72 & 73
Thanks gengwall and Cheryl, I got it now.
#97 – My point is that it’s always about Adam’s glorious leadership in comp doctrine rather than the reality of his disgrace which contradicts “glorious leadership”.
I think that we get so caught up in the words that we forget the story. The story also has bearing on the meaning of the words. The story is that God created a place… a land… a garden and in it he placed all that was needed to provide for the people he would create. He created humans, and companionship and gave his people a vocation to be his image bearers governing and stewarding the garden.
We forget also that Moses wrote Genesis and taught the people when they were moving into the new land. The teaching had bearing on their experience of moving into the land of milk and honey. They were being called to live their vocation as image bearers and remain faithful to God.
The temptation about the serpant had to do with a teaching Moses was doing to help the people refrain from worshipping false Gods. The story of the tree and not eating its fruit had meaning for the people of God as they approached the new land.
I don’t think the meaning is about roles or authority … but it is written to a people and they are being called to remain faithful to the living God in the midst of a land of false gods. They are being reminded of their vocation.
Adam is possibly the representative figure but it is metaphorical for the human race. That doesn’t mean he is head. That is an idea brought into the story from other sections of scripture. If we want to interpret this well, we must pay attention also to the story Moses is telling. (and when I use the term story, i am not saying it is fiction… only that it is in a story form).
Mark wrote: “10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?”
Why would Mark ask this question? What does it matter to him, which doctrine Cheryl is teaching? -because according to him she isn’t supposed to be teaching any doctrine in ‘formal church’ anyway.
Looks like a smoke screen to me.
Cheryl wrote:”If her nature was corrupted, then why did Jesus come through the woman and only the woman? Why was no man allowed to be the father of Jesus?”
Mark answered:
“7. Now Eve is a sinner. Paul explains that as a sinner we are dead(eph 2:1) spiritually and physically.”
Mark,
We answer your questions – why don’t you answer ours?
Or maybe the question numbers are just mixed up there??
Why is it so difficult to understand that Eve is not Adam’s child who inherited his sin nature?
The promised Savior was “her Seed” (Gen.3:15). Not Adam’s seed, but Eve’s – “her Seed.”
“For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one Man, many will be made righteous.” Rom.5:19
Surely, you don’t claim both that through Adam sin came into the world and also through Adam we are made righteous, do you??
Mark,
Why wasn’t it good for the man to be alone?
The promised Savior was “her Seed” (Gen.3:15).
Or do you believe that without the sinful influence of Eve, that Adam never would have sinned?
If yes, then Eve is really responsible for sin entering the world and Paul is wrong in all of Romans ch.5.
If yes, then why did God say, “It is not good that man should be alone?”
Has anyone read The Message translation of 1 Tim 2:14 in relation to the fall? It is horrifying.
“woman was deceived first – our pioneer in sin! – with Adam right on her heels.”
And we wonder where people get the idea that Eve had a sin nature and coerced Adam into taking a bite. Yikes.
Mark wrote:
”Interesting though, why isn’t femine pronouns used for generic humanity- is this a hint of the resposibilty of men.”
Actually, no. God does not hint at responsibility. God does not play with us with insinuations but tells us outright our responsibilities.
”Finally regarding Hosea 6:7. You said that God calls Adam’s sin treacherous, but have failed to show 1 verse which explicitly has God saying ‘Adam’s sin was treacherous. The prophecy is targeted at Israel not Adam, so to emphasise Adam as the primary interest is wrong.”
I don’t think so Mark. If it didn’t exist, then Adam’s treachery couldn’t be used as a reference and a comparison.
”Where is it recorded that God call her ‘woman’ and not Adam.”
That is a decent question Mark. I will ask in return, where did Adam learn the woman’s origin? There was no way Adam could know that she was ‘woman’/from-man unless God told him. Adam was only repeating in prose what God told him when God presented the woman to him.
I wrote: ”n the end it’s just all about power and the manipulations one must go through to get it and keep it.” … and
“And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.”
Sorry that you misunderstood me. I was not speaking about comps only or all men, although it may have sounded like it. I was loosely addressing the ills of the world in general and the fight for power and authority. Of course comp men do not say they are lusting for authority and power. Yet, when you say that only men can have authority and power in the church and the home, you do sound terribly close to the rest of the world in wanting to retain something desirable for yourselves only, denying it to other’s.
In Christ authority is not about the right to decide things for others. In Christ, authority is about giving real life to others. Worldly authority is empty and lifeless, serving self and giving oneself honor, even and especially when there is an image of grandness.
Mark wrote:
””10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?”
No one is held accountable for another person’s sins. You are correct that you will be held accountable for how you treat your wife. You will be held accountable for whether or not your treatment of her releases her to life and liveliness, releases her to serve God to the fullest of her capabilities, encourages her to be more like Christ, releases her to be who she is in Christ and be all that she can be. You will be held accountable for that and for the times your treatment wounds her, hinders her, keeps her from being who God wants her to be, and keeps her from being herself.
IMO one of the biggest evils that “Christiandumb” produces in fellow Christians is a falseness of persona that happens when we box groups of people into categories. God loves and delights in each individual human that has ever lived and ever will live. In the womb God weaves a personality that is wonderful and awesome. In Christ, it should be our desire to release each person to be themselves as God created them to be and to encourage them to seek and operate in the gifts that God wants them to minister to the world in.
To sway a person from being who God wants them to be can only be wicked; it cannot be good. Yet, the church in general throughout history has mirrored itself with the world in wanting to segregate and divide the people of God in ways contrary to God’s desire. Christ said that we should be One, united together serving His Love to each other and the world. Yet, we still want to control who does what, when and where to the degree that the church today is so often not all that enjoyable in attending the required (more controlling) Sunday services, sitting through the controlled same type of services all year long, with the same people doing the talking…. And so on.
From my observations, many are tired of the divisions. What people want is to be surprised and blest by the uniquenesses and creativity of Christ in others. Why do you suppose? Perhaps, it encourages them to learn to be the pure good personality that Christ created them to be and whom the Holy Spirit wants to use to serve God’s Love to others with.
“Has anyone read The Message translation of 1 Tim 2:14 in relation to the fall? It is horrifying.”
“woman was deceived first – our pioneer in sin! – with Adam right on her heels.”
that is horrifying! It is adding to Scripture in such a way as to taint the purity of the Word.
Mark you wrote:
“I agree that the ‘roles’ of creator, redeemer ect were not eternal roles, since their was a time when creation was not.”
“Jesus was eternally in the Father’s bosom or at his side (Jn 1:18) and at the final resurection hands all things back to his Father and retain his position at the Father’s right side.”
Mark,
So, when Jesus “hands all things back to his Father” wouldn’t that temporal job/action/”role” be finished/ended – not eternally continuing?
Why not answer my question?
It’s easy, really – just “yes” or “no.”
gengwall,
I shudder to think what extra words the Message put in Romans 5 to make that square up.
“I shudder to think what extra words the Message put in Romans 5 to make that square up.”
Although it is hard to believe, “woman was deceived first – our pioneer in sin!” is NOT the worst part of this translation. It is “with Adam right on her heels”. Why? Because it makes Adam “deceived second”! The message says exactly the opposite of what Paul says, which is that the man was not deceived!
“The message says exactly the opposite of what Paul says, which is that the man was not deceived!”
yep. And those who portray the woman as ‘the deceiver’ do the same thing.
Kay, I think Cheryl said that Mark is going to be gone a couple months. So, don’t expect him to be answering any questions any time soon. 🙂
So Peterson says in his translation the exact opposite of what Scripture says. MacArthur does too. After somebody quoted him I went and read all 4 sermons about the curse on the man and the woman. Here’s what he has to say about Adam not being deceived:
“We know from 1st Timothy 2 that he was “not deceived.” It tells us there: The man was “not deceived.” He was not deceived by Satan and, therefore, we can assume that perhaps he wasn’t even there when the conversation was going on between Satan and Eve. And that would have been the way Satan would have chosen to have it, so that he could pull the woman out from the man’s protection and authority, and deceive her.” http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/90-245.htm
So according to MacArthur, since Adam wasn’t deceived “we can assume” he wasn’ t there. But Scripture says the exact opposite. Gen 3:6 “she gave some to her husband who was with her.” We can assume nothing of the kind, and there is no need for assumptions at all!
“Kay, I think Cheryl said that Mark is going to be gone a couple months. So, don’t expect him to be answering any questions any time soon.”
TL,
Oh, I see. I assumed he must not be leaving until closer to Christmas, since Cheryl went over his last comments and asked him more questions.
Frankly, I think we bombard him with so much that there is no way he can address it all. That is no excuse for avoiding questions (he has not answered a single one of mine that I can remember), but it is understandable that he won;t be replying to everything everyone has written or asked. It would satisfy me if he would just directly answer Cheryl. If he has time for anybody else, that is icing on the cake.
“So according to MacArthur, since Adam wasn’t deceived “we can assume” he wasn’ t there. But Scripture says the exact opposite. Gen 3:6 “she gave some to her husband who was with her.” We can assume nothing of the kind, and there is no need for assumptions at all!”
lmb,
Doesn’t it make you wonder if anyone listening to his sermons has their Bible open to read along?
And comps accuse egals of “explaining away” verses, while MacArthur just ignores some like they are not there at all. ?????
I keep hearing you all refer to this John MacArthur and I though “it can’t be the same John MacArthur who wrote ‘A Tale of Two Sons'”, an expository narrative of the prodigal son which I found exceptional. Now I see that it is! I am so disappointed to read of him now on other subjects and see how wacked out his interpretation is on matters of gender. *sigh*
gengwall,
it IS disappointing to see Christians gifted in some area brilliantly and really lacking in others to the point of possible heresy. But that really is just the way we humans are. We cannot possibly get it all correct in a mere 90 or so years of life on this polluted earth.
With that thought, we ought to be able to hear MacArthur in the areas he is gifted in and ignore the others he’s mixed up in. 🙂
And frankly, the area of women and gender is such a bad area for humanity, that somehow we’ve got to be able to grace each other to some degree, but without giving up women’s lives to destruction and limitations because of it.
TL,
You know the thing that gets me about MacArthur is that it’s practically impossible for me to believe that he hasn’t noticed something like Gen. 3:6 “gave to her husband with her.” I just can’t swallow that he has not noticed those words before.
Kay said:
The way I take it, it seems to me that Mark is hinting that I will be punished for teaching especially teaching women that they may use their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. Can you imagine that? I teach people to follow Jesus and use their gifts for His glory. I teach women that when God gifts them, He has also given the authority to serve the body with their gifts and apparently according to Mark, God is going to punish me for that. Perhaps even send me to hell for encouraging women to serve the Lord Jesus without paying attention to man-made tradition?
I just shake my head in amazement at men who think that women who teach the truth of God’s word will be punished because they are women. What should we do about that?
We are not to let our good works be spoken of as evil. We speak out in a gentle and respectful way as we speak the truth with love.
The problem with MacArthur is that he thinks he has a quick solution so he isn’t looking further. And while many men will agree that Adam wasn’t deceived, they are quick to say “by the serpent”. Many believe that Eve seduced or deceived Adam so he was deceived by the woman but not the serpent. But Paul said that Adam was not deceived. He was not deceived by the serpent and he was not deceived by the woman. He simply was not deceived. That means that Adam knew the truth and this fact is necessary to understand the treachery that he was accused of by God. He abandoned his watch and did nothing for his beloved wife when she was being harmed. But if men are able to pass the blame to Eve – that she deceived Adam – then they can still look up to Adam as a hero of sorts. That he was the designated male who was to rule the woman. Men today are being deceived by the original liar.
I just heard an argument that I know is fallacious but I’m not sure which logical fallacy to label it as. I will put it in terms of this post so maybe I can get a little help while still pursuing the topic.
“The bible teaches that sin came through Adam; everyone who believes the husband is the leader of the family rejects this teaching.”
Although it is possible that a person who believes that the husband is the leader of the family subsequently rejects the teaching of Romans 5, it is absurd to insist that EVERY person who believes that the husband is the leader of the family subsequently rejects the teaching of Romans 5. They may in fact embrace Romans 5 but try to explain it away, or may even embrace Romans 5 but see it as irrelevant to the topic of family structure. At any rate, The logic of the argument certainly fails. Still, I can’t seem to find this precise argumental progression in my handy dandy list of logical fallacies. Can anyone help?
“The problem with MacArthur is that he thinks he has a quick solution so he isn’t looking further.”
Cheryl,
And apparently it’s working fine for him – because his followers never seem to notice he’s leaving off part of the verse.
“The way I take it, it seems to me that Mark is hinting that I will be punished for teaching especially teaching women that they may use their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.”
Cheryl,
I figured he would hold your husband accountable – ultimately Mark thinks husbands are where the proverbial buck stops.
A woman just can’t win in Mark’s economy – we’re punished for sinning and punished for teaching the truth. 🙁
“The bible teaches that sin came through Adam; everyone who believes the husband is the leader of the family rejects this teaching.”
gengwall,
Reminds me of a Sesame Street song “one of these things just doesn’t belong here…”
One doesn’t necessarily lead to or require the other to be true.
I should have added – the conclusion would be “anyone who believes the husband is the leader is sinning by rejecting the biblical truth Romans 5”
The sudden silence here is unnerving.
I know what you mean, gengwall.
Sorry not to be more help with your fallacies delimma – honestly, I’m not sure I understand what you are looking for…maybe because you substituted the subject…dunno. I’d email with you about it, but don’t know your’s and don’t want to publish mine here (not sure Cheryl would appreciate that either).
Hopefully, someone will chime in soon.
“The bible teaches that sin came through Adam; everyone who believes the husband is the leader of the family rejects this teaching.”
sounds kinda like a backwards strawman, gengwall. They are requiring that their group believes the husband is the leader. Then when they do they MUST reject the other. it is strange.
Please pray for me this week. I’ve managed to get a good sore throat and cold and feel terrible. Have to at least show up at my Bible group this morning to open the doors and give the material, but wish I didn’t have to do even that. Hoping it will be gone by Saturday.
Don’t forget that this is Christmas season, gengwall. People will be scarce. 🙂
“The sudden silence here is unnerving.” Gengwall, I’m with the others. I couldn’t make head or tail out of your person’s statement. It was sort of like somebody saying, “There’s a lot of sand on the beach. Everyone who believes in Santa rejects this truth.” The statements are so disconnected as to be complete nonsense, as far as I can see. Is “complete nonsense” a category of logical fallacy?
“Is “complete nonsense” a category of logical fallacy?”
lmb,
LOL – that was good!
TL,
Sorry you’re sick, but you have a lot of good company – does that help?? 😉
My logical dilema was an aside. I’m past it now. I have determined that there are so many falcors of fallacy in the argument that no one term fits.
BTW Kay, this may interest you. The actual argument is taking place on my contraception post, which I believe you have commented on in the past.
Cheryl – sorry for the off topic distraction. So, Adam…..
LOL – I am not sure what a “falcor” is, but I know it wasn;t what I meant. I menat “flavors”. I am looking at my keyboard in dismay even as I type this wondering how I typed that.
TL,
I have prayed for you that you will be restored to health. At least you are not in the cold as we are. It is unseasonably cold here and the electrical system is overloaded as many heat their homes with electricity. The electricity has gone out several times the last couple of days so I haven’t been able to be on line much. It is very frustrating.
gengwall,
I also couldn’t understand the statement either. Couldn’t make head nor tales out of it so I just kept silent. I thought there was probably more intelligent people than myself out there who could figure it out 😉
The proposition is a non-sequitur, a straw man, an over generallization, and cherry picking all rolled into one. The supporting arguments are even worse, nothing but a variety of “appeal to” arguments (authority, wisdom of the ancients, and even silence). Susanna in particular will love this – the supporting arguments boil down to “because the Church fathers said so”.
““because the Church fathers said so”.”
LOL These guys just want to be everyone’s ‘big daddy’ who whips em all into submission. aaarrrggghhh!
Perhaps, I should limit my involvement while I’m sick. I get a tad bit snotty and blunt! 🙂
“LOL – I am not sure what a “falcor” is, but”
Glad you cleared that up, gengwall – I was about to run for the Webster’s to see what I’d been missing about false arguments all my life.
And I understand your disappointment about MacArthur after you’d enjoyed one of his books so well. I had that same feeling about Peterson when The Message came out. His book “A Long Obedience In The Same Direction” was very helpful to me years ago…
““because the Church fathers said so”.”
TL,
Sometimes the Church fathers (and who gave them that allustrious title, anyhow?) get stuck in my craw, too. Why do carry so much weight? Because they’re dead? There are many good theologians today. Why do people think they knew more than we do today? Perhaps, because I didn’t grow up in church, I just don’t have that relationship with the traditions and church histories.
Hi all
As you are all aware i have been slow in response and the comments here seem to reflect that i am avoiding answering questions, thus my view is terrible, i treat women unfairly.
Due to this what i would like to do is slowly go back over the 10 questions and post the original questions and all the responses thus far. I will do 1 question at a time and answer as succinctly and accurately as possible. If others dont want me to do this let me know, otherwise i will concentrate on those questions. Please be aware that i have always tried to be concise and answer to the best of my abiblity without simply cutting and pasting every question ever asked- i simply don’t have the time to do such things. If this has appeared as evasive i apologise, but please don’t read into my responses or opinions from what is not said. I aprecaite gengwell’s understanding on this issue.
Quickly i just wanna answer Kay’s last comments regarding church fathers. INdeed they are fallible and got many things wrongs, as we all do now aswell. However they are the closest people we have to the NT times who would best understand language, culture, exegesis than we can ever do this far from Christ- that is why there imput is invaluable. To be accurate historically we need a good understanding of history. They give us insight into early theological crisis, early ministry formation, interpretation of scripture, language difficulties and ultimately how the church began and grew through the early centuries of persecution. And not only that they show us what was ‘orthodox’ christianity in those years.
The further we are from the culture of the NT and indeed the OT the harder it is to understand the culture. The only downfall in my opinion about their writings, is often we don’t have the writings of those who were not ‘orthodox’ e.g Arius because often their works were burnt or lost once condemned, so we have to reconstruct the early ‘heresies’ from what is written within the orthodox… the old ‘history is always written by the winners’ debarkle.
I will be back over the next few days with my re-posting of question 1
“The further we are from the culture of the NT and indeed the OT the harder it is to understand the culture.”
But…the further we are away from the paganism and ignorance of the NT and OT culture the less influenced we are by them. It is a double edged sword, which is why we evaluate and scrutinize the early Church writers rather than just take their word for it.
Mark wrote: “so we have to reconstruct the early ‘heresies’ from what is written within the orthodox… the old ‘history is always written by the winners’ debarkle.”
Mark,
I appreciate your addressing my concerns about the full reliability of the “Church fathers” – it’s refreshing that you and I actually have some ground of agreement. 😉
Mark wrote: “And not only that they show us what was ‘orthodox’ christianity in those years.”
Please bear in mind during discussions here, that was good reason for a Reformation. Huss was burned at the stake for believing the Bible is THE Christian authority and Christ, rather than a pope, is THE head of the Church.
One of the 3 main tenets of the Reformation was the Priesthood of All Believers – I’m sure we both agree.
What I see is that this tenet has not been fully implemented to All Believers. Men are still holding on to a different Priesthood.
Just because verses have been interpreted in a certain way for much of church history does not mean that said interpretation is true – or else we would all still be Roman Catholic. 🙂
Aside from desiring to keep a certain portion of the Priesthood of All Believers for themselves, I find it difficult to see another reason why hierarchists are so sure of interpreting verses 11-14 literally, but not verse 15 which is clearly connected – because taken literally that would be heresy.
Or why comps try to teach that Christ is THE head of Church and that a woman has 2 heads. That is contradictory.
😉 But somehow it’s not heresy to teach the “traditional” interpretation that women are easily deceived and therefore should not be allowed to teach men, so to ruin them as Eve did with Adam.
No where in God’s word does it say there will be only one Reformation.
Hey all
Interesting post here on 1st Timothy 2:12-15.
NT/History blog
http://www.billheroman.com/
This is the first one – 12 – 7 – 09
Owa Tafoo Lameye
Say it out loud quickly. This weekend I drafted a nine post series on 1st Timothy 2:12-15. Now say it again. Owa Tafoo Lameye. Unless… maybe I can show all my personal cards before I get into the business. Be gentle with me. Here goes…
On paper, I’m probably somewhere between a ‘comp’ and an ‘egal’. I’m not really sure. I was raised with traditional ideas of husbandry and responsibility, but in real life, I’m a pragmatic egalitarian. To me, it’s real simple – both in church and in marriage. If a sister in Christ wants to and can do something that helps in the body, or in the family, we absolutely should want her to do it, especially if she does it well! (I feel the same way about brothers. We shouldn’t generalize. We should specialize. Most of all, we should all get our exercise!)
“regarding church fathers. INdeed they are fallible and got many things wrongs, as we all do now aswell. However they are the closest people we have to the NT times who would best understand language, culture, exegesis than we can ever do this far from Christ- that is why there imput is invaluable. To be accurate historically we need a good understanding of history. They give us insight into early theological crisis, early ministry formation, interpretation of scripture, language difficulties and ultimately how the church began and grew through the early centuries of persecution.”
Thank you Mark, for that clarification. We agree. The input of the early Church fathers is invaluable. But it is not authoritative. Their understanding was not authoritative. Only Scripture is authoritative.
I’ve always found it amazing that the apostles even with Christ with them daily did not understand so much. They were just human and fallible after all. However, we can trust the Holy Spirit’s anointing upon them as they addressed problems in the church and wrote things which still help us today. The Holy Spirit can use anyone to write and speak eternal truths. There were some things that the early church fathers wrote that was indeed anointed, but not like the writings of the original disciples. There were other things they wrote that was actually horrible, and yet they thought was so right. As Kay said, a reformation was surely needed. Without the HS, we’d be helpless indeed.
A. Amos Love,
You must mean “Oh what a fool am I”?
Mark,
You said:
I think we can understand the slowness when you tell us how busy you are. I have had such times of busyness myself that I wondered if I ever had time for this blog. Often I haven’t posted here until between 1 am and 3 am because that was the only free time I had. So I do understand and am compassionate with someone who is busy.
However the failure to address the issues was concerning to me along with an apparent misunderstanding of my own questions and/or answers. Perhaps you just read the words too quickly and that was a cause for misunderstanding. However with all of this, I don’t think we could say that you treat women unfairly. I for one don’t know how you treat women. Some have a biased and prejudiced view of women (I am not talking about you) yet they never act of this prejudice. How you actually act out your view is not altogether clear. We can know what you believe by your defense of your position, but we haven’t heard how you practice living out that position so it would be unwise for us to assume that you are unfair to women.
I think it would be a very good thing to go through each of the questions, the rephrased questions and additions questions brought up by your answers and try to answer each point. I do think your idea would be helpful. Also answering one at a time is helpful to keep us focused on that one question.
I look forward to your comments and hearing the answers to the questions that you have not yet addressed. Thanks!