pinklight

The Adam placed above the woman in the scriptures is not the same glorified Adam placed above woman in comp doctrine.

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.

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 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”…

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.)

Very important!

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… 🙂

Making an addition to my first statement in my last comment:

Her name was only “Adam” collectively with the man, as a name of their race (Gen 5), but her name is not “the Adam” or “Adam”…

And then he created Eve out of Adam. Actually God didn’t name her Eve. Adam named her Eve later. That wasn’t her name. Her name was Adam. When God said Adam, they both came.

Her name was not “the man”. Her name was only “Adam” collectively with the man, but her name is not “the Adam” or “Adam” singularily in the creation/fall accounts. Genesis gives it only as the male’s name. But this is not to say that she was not “Adam” as in “human”. It’s just that God has his reasons for the author under inspiration using ha’adam only in reference to the man, singularily throughout the Genesis accounts of creation and the fall – so that we don’t end up thinking from the text that ha’adam when used means both collectively.

Then he came up to create man and said, God said “Let us create man in our image. Let him have dominion.” Those were the words that he used to bring Adam alive.

On Copeland’s quote – No, God did not say that. Copeland has swapped out “them” and replaced it with “him” when he is speaking of Gen 1:26 here.

The more one affirms and amplifies this model, the more glorious the soul becomes; the more influential, wise and authoritative the man, the more beautiful, graceful and elegant the woman.

K Liebens,

Humm…Are you saying that the soul is glorified by the (fallen) flesh/gender?

I think your comment in full was interesting. Hope you find the discussions around here to be interesting!

The more one affirms and amplifies this model, the more glorious the soul becomes; the more influential, wise and authoritative the man, the more beautiful, graceful and elegant the woman.

A patriarchal hierarchy is something intrinsic to our fundamental design. This was present before the fall of man, was modified following the fall ,

K Liebens,

You might want to have a close look at Genesis 3 where we read that Adam Alone became Unlike God since he ate without being deceived, through whom sin entered the world and then reconsider “patriarchal hierarchy”. I don’t think it wise to follow Adam anywhere or depend on the flesh (gender).

Gen 3
22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us,

RO 5
12because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world,

essence determines function not vise versa. I can now see why comps and egals debate all day long over saying that the Son cannot be inequal in function unless he is inequal in essence and why comps reply with inequality of function does not touch essence.

It can be proven from scripture that inferiority of essence leads to inferiority of function. Gen. But it is backwards to question if subordination of subsistence leads to inferiority of essence.

“Now i want people to prove from scripture and church history, how a subordination of subsistence leads to inferiority or un-equal in essence.”

Does being a slave lead to inferiority? Or does inferiority lead to a subordination of subsistence? Your beginning with a subordinated Son (slave) rather than just a “Son”.

It’s like you are saying, Mark that because he is the Son and not the Father therefore he is eternaly subordinated, simple as that (!!) yet sonship does not necessitate eternal subordination unless oranges are purple.

What does sonship have to do with being eternaly under a father?? None of this son under father “subordination” stuff makes good sense.

Gal
4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Ro
3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

However there are passages that refer to Jesus as the ‘Son’ before his incarnation (Rom 1:3-4, Gal 4:4)

I cannot see how these verses show that Jesus was the “Son” before his incarnation. Galatians speaks of “born of a woman and under the law”, and Romans v4 speaks of his sonship through “the spirit of holiness.” So I cannot see the distinction that you say exists, Mark.

I don’t know what I could possibly add. I’m still trying to understand how being a son (different in subsistence) can make one eternaly subordiante. Earthly son and father relationships don’t even consist of subordination throughout the entire relationship so where does the idea of it come from? Like what (relationship) can we look at to compare it to? It’s like saying oranges grown in purple. I don’t know how else to describe what I’m trying to say.

There is NO WAY to humanly comprehened some eternal divine (heirarchal – subordinate) “father/son” relationship, therefore, man (humankind) cannot place himself above divine understanding. We need to stop where reason beckons.

Maybe you have proof Mark, based on some earthly culture that we should all be trained in where the “son” is forever subordinated to the “father”???

Should I be educated in Aussie culture or something???

The real question is 🙁 what are you trying to grasp at??

So a new breed of “Son” is forever subordinated under his father? Common, Mark?!

“Are sons of the earth forever under the authority of their fathers??”

How far do you go, Mark? You can only go as far as your human perception, logicaly speaking, so let’s get back in line with reason, please!!

“…Now you, Mark, say that the Father and the Son are so seperate that ONLY the Father sent the Son. Who was it who raised Jesus? Who was it who sent him? Where is the conclusive Biblical (Calvin not included) evidence for ESS?”

Mark, WE are going in circles!!

“The question pinklight is in what way is the Father not the Son and the Son not the Father.”

Okay. I hear you. Are sons of the earth forever under the authority of their fathers??

“It is not good enough to just say what you did. I had a Christadelphian say exactly the same line as you and he didn’t even believe that Jesus was God? Let’s begin to try and understand the ’subsistences’ so we can better know the word.”

Answer the question above!

“I have said again and again that we cannot comprehend nor communicate the Trinity effectively. However we must do the best we can with Scripture, since most unbiblical positions stem from a wrong historical understanding of the Trinity, e.g JW’s.”

Mark, how important is historical understanding in comparison to the Written word, in you opinion?

Mark, you are a JOY to communicate with!!

“So please stop accusing me of a unbalanced position and having no ‘proof’ or support for my argument. Maybe someone else’s eyes need to be opened away from our cultural influences.”

Your position IS unbalanced. You have what you believe and that is IT!! And how am I influenced by today’s culture in relation to biblical manhood and womanahood, please enlighten??? Besides, Log/Speck…

“The question then must be raised, was Jesus subordinate before his incarnation and after.”

Good question! Hi Mark!

“Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). For who will dare to affirm that the Son entered his Father’s bosom for the first time, when he came down from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides (John 14:6; 15:26; 14:16).”

This has what to do with the subordination of the Son to the Father??? What, where??

“So what was Jesus position pre-incarnation…was it a subordinated position? What is his position now considering He is STILL in human form? Maybe his humanity is now void…the subordinated part according to your interpretation doesn’t really apply in His resurrected body.”

You’re assuming his FORM since he died the king of the Jews but reserected the king of Isreal. WHY ASSUME anything and create doctrine from it?? In the beginning he was the word who WAS GOD (Godhead, NOT the Father).

“From what people have showed here i have yet to see how one distinguishes the Father from the Son.”

The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Is there any question on that?

Do you think,, Mark that sons are to forever be subordinated to their fathers? If not it is because the analogy (Father/Son/God) BREAKS DOWN and rightly so. Do you think God surpases our very own use of analogies or not???

“Why is it a sacrilege to think of the Father on the cross, but not a sacrilege to think of woman on the cross?”

Should we turn to Eph 5 at this moment?

“However, I get the distinct impression that complementarians see the husband as having the sending authority of the Father, and the wife as having the privilege of following the path of suffering of Christ and being crucified on the cross.”

OPPOSITE Eph 5 Ofcourse.