TL

“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. 🙂

“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 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.

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:
”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.

And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.

“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.

“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.

“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.

I’ll have to wait for the Logos to get the MAC platform ready. And start saving now. 🙂

what’s your program??

That will be on my wish list. 🙂 Could have saved a lot of discussion.

“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?

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.

“Your choice of scripture to promote women pastors is interesting. In 2 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, “Paul” (depending on who you believe wrote these passages) clearly states that women should not speak in church, much less teach or lead. “

Jay, if one does not know how to read a chapter in context, and lifts out sentences and pieces of sentences, one can indeed make them say anything they want. BTW I think you meant 1 Cor. 14. But if you read 1 Timothy chapter one as a whole, you will not find any new ‘law’ that forbids women from teaching or leading. Same thing with 1 Cor. 14.

“The last I heard of my minister he was preaching beside Bruce Ware at a local pastoral training conference which was to ensure that all the pastors in our local area taught correctly the fact that God never submits and Jesus always submits and all human relationships ought to reflect this truth.”

How sad. All that damage these men are doing to the body of Christ bringing unspiritual fleshly legalism into it. The personal gains of phariseeism to those who benefit by it, are just terrible.

There are so many people in the world hurting and in need of the true comfort of the Lord by His Holy Spirit. And these guys, for their own gain, are spreading legalism. 🙁

Please do write more Frank. That was full of good thoughts. Though I’m still reading it. 🙂

“Adam was instructed to tend the garden – protect it. In that he failed but it was not a matter of sin.”

As a side note, I’m not so sure I agree that Adam’s dereliction of duty was not a sin. God lists two causes for the curse and consequences to Adam – eating from the tree AND listening “to the voice of your wife”. I agree with Cheryl and other’s assessment that this relates to Adam’s failure to act while the serpent was deceiving Eve. I would take that as part and parcle of Adam’s failure to guard the garden, and since said failure is listed along with eating the apple, I would say it constitutes part of Adam’s sin.

Interesting, gengwall. I would agree that it was less than perfect behavior, which is part of the definition of sin – missing the mark of holiness. How do you interpret God cursing the earth for Adam’s sake?

“It may also mean that Eve sinned before the Fall by choosing to act outside of her ‘gender role’ and out from under her ’spiritual leader.’”

Eve was not instructed to follow a leader. Adam was not instructed to be a leader. Adam was instructed to tend the garden – protect it. In that he failed but it was not a matter of sin. He just allowed danger in. Their only sin was in disobeying God’s direct instructions.

” “Also subordination of function necessitates a subordination of essence.”
This is a novel modern understanding, and throwing this back to early trinitarian debates is not correct in my opinion. In all honesty it seems like it is the egal attempt to discredit the distinctions made by some comps on essence/roles.

Mark, this is very basic logic. If you say that because of one’s essence (their gender, sex, biology) they must be subordinate for life to another because of their essence (their gender, sex, biology), then you are also saying that their essence is not equal at all. The one who because of their essence must stay subordinate is inferior to the one who naturally, because of their sex, remains leader, prophet, priest, king over the other.

However, the most important point is that Scripture does not say this anywhere.

Cheryl, that is really interesting that these men will answer to give their “party line” as you call it. But when you get specific about some of the holes in it, they don’t want to engage any more.

I don’t think I’ve ever been vaccinated for anything my whole life. 🙂

The news stories are scary. A friend of mine had it for 2 weeks. She is fine now. I suspect some depends on your health when you get it.

“The head of Jesus is God – I believe meaning the Trinity. Get your head around that (no pun intended). Jesus (having the very fullness of God in him) comes from the Trinity…from the Father, the Spirit and wait for it…the Son! Jesus comes from Jesus (and the Father & the Spirit). Jesus is sent by the Father in some texts, but is sent by God in others. Jesus sends Jesus (as well as the Father & the Spirit).”

Very well said Dave. We too often forget the truly miraculousness of Christ Jesus who was prophesied in Gen. 3 as our Messiah, who was planned for in the Beginning (b.reshit), and who was born 100% Divine and 100% Human. Although Jesus is one person, we cannot forget that the Divine cannot be changed (the same yesterday, today and forever) and what is human is created and not Divine. That is the miracle and involves so much our finite minds find difficult if not impossible to fully comprehend.

“We can believe that Adam ate an apple if we want to (except even that can be disproven) “

Couldn’t have been an apple. Apple’s have seeds, so they were among the allowed fruit. 🙂

Chrysostom lived in an era where men were considered superior to women. It is unfortunate that he interpreted many things within that thinking. However, Chrysostom was able to rise above this thinking when he honored Junia as a female apostle.

His thinking on veiling was also influenced by the very recent past to his era in which women were commanded by legal human laws to veil under certain conditions. He still thought women were compelled (because of their inferiority) to honor the superiority of men with a veil. One must discern who they want to believe on issues like this. Just because he was a person living a few hundred years after Christ doesn’t give him more understanding.

“but what Berkhof’s is saying sounds remarkably like the ESS doctrine.”

I love Berkhof’s chapter on the Trinity. And would have to strongly disagree that his portrayal has any resemblance at all to the CBMW ESS doctrines. I consider the ESS doctrines to be very much within what Athanasius taught against.

The idea of a woman wearing a covering on her head is a human one. It was never instigated in the Torah. Headcoverings were culturally determined and different in different cultures.

Such things are not things God is concerned with. If He had been concerned, He would have brought Eve to Adam with a proper covering over her head and body. God is concerned with morals, character, integrity, and the things of the spirit and soul. And yes, these things do affect what we wear, but in the sense of modesty and not offending other’s cultures. That’s about it.

Regarding the Hebrew rosh and the Greek kephale, for the word ‘head’, I ran across some interesting info in my online Hebrew study.

First words in the Bible = in beginning. The word is b.rasheth. There is no ‘the’. Ha=the. The word rasheth has it’s root from rosh which is the Hebrew word we translate as head, which also means beginning/first. This is from my new study on learning Hebrew from a Hebrew. Also, Don noted (on Equality Forums) “Rosh Hashanah is the head of the year, literally.”

Thought you might appreciate that info.

Mara, if you get the book, maybe we can dialogue about it. I started a thread on the Book Recommendations folder on Equality Central Forums.

BTW….

There is a great new book out by a friend of mine.

When Dogmas Die by Susanna Krizo

http://www.whendogmasdie.com/

I haven’t finished reading it yet, but when I do, I’ll post a review on her site and the Equality Forum. Her thorough research is awesome. She is posting information from our history that every believer should know something about. It is sad that we don’t. She covers 13 Scriptures relevant to the question of Biblical equality.

I totally recommend this book. I understand that Amazon will have it but not until January. They show they have it in stock, but I think it is back ordered until Jan.

Hopefully, this “advertisement” is OK, here. 🙂

“There was no room for discussion. I might add that they had recently returned from a conference at Mark Driscoll’s church in Seattle where they were told very strongly, by a very influential person (big church = influential) that complementarianism was the only way to go. CBMW and the Resurgence both appear to hold the gender issue as a non-negotiable.”

It is always a red flag when people are not open to discussion. This is a trademark of the CBMW movement. None of their websites allow discussion. And the associated websites and blogs also tend to shut down any discussion where there is disagreements while castigating those who disagree. I do not find this a characteristic that is Scripturally unacceptable.

Cheryl….. many warm hugs to you. You are always a pleasure to dialogue with.

🙂 o/o/o/