I cannot see in anyway how any human born after Adam has a nature that he had prior to him sinning in the garden.

I also cannot see any human as ever having lived to have had a perfect nature like Adam in the begnninhg and then fall as Adam did either.

So are we perfect in nature like Adam when we are born and thenb we fall like him? I could never think or believe that. So I think there is a difference in nature between the way Adam was created and how we are born.

“I know that many say that Charles Finney was a heretic. I know almost nothing about Charles Finney but I do know that the statement above is not true. God is not the author of the nature of Adam after the fall that became the nature of the “old man”. This nature is connected to the nature of the devil, not to the nature of the original creation.”

Can I make a point? Adam’s nature had to of changed at some point because WE,all humans born after Adam certainly DO NOT have the same nature as he did that is, a perfect, innocent, nature. So we either have a nature that was like his “before the fall” or after.

“Then let’s change the term to what the Bible actually uses. While the common modern term is “sin nature” the true Biblical terms “fleshly”, the “old man”, the “old self”.”

I was going to suggest this change.

I’m gonna read on now…

Truthseeker,

“As egals, we can easily see that because Adam was created first does not mean he was the leader or ruler of Eve automatically. Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see explicit verses that say men should have authority over women because Adam was created before Eve.”

I’m interested in this topic too. I’m going to Paula’s now to read the comments…

I’m sitting here agreeing with you and Cheryl, I’m undecided ultimately. But it seems to me that there is something of importance to the prophecy made in Gen 3 about the woman’s seed and sin entering the world through Adam. What all that means I don’t exactly know at this point, but I hope to eventualy determine what I do believe as to whether or not humans inherit a sin nature from Adam.

I look forward to any who will contribute further on this discussion…

“According to the comment Nick made on Hannah’s blog, looking at “little sins” that a husband commits is simply an issue with “what the Word of God states about the difference between men and women’s roles.” Apparently, a wife not submitting to her husband’s “little sin” is a “big sin” as far as Nick and Piper are concerned.”

Weird, isn’t it?

“The same can be said for the so-called leadership of the husband to his wife. Are we to assume that Christ is not enough? Can a mere man, a sinner who is unable to save himself, afford us women any spiritual protection? I would say no!”

Excellent point, CLC! I won’t forget it!

“Teaching” doesn’t mean teaching.
Complementarianism means complementarianism with hierarchy.
Submission means subordination.
Pastor means ruler.
Equal but different means equal but subordinated but equal.
Church means a building with people gathered inside.
Male means boss.
To be created first means progeniture.
Chauvinism doesn’t mean chauvinism.
But Hierarchy always means hierarchy 🙂

“It simply defies logic that a person could prophesy/be a prophet without teaching something.”

Maybe it doesn’t count as prophesy if it’s not done behind the pulpit an so in that way prophesy isn’t considered formal teaching therefore not teaching at all.

The person who heals, serves, prophecies, speaks in tounges, performs miracles, evangelizes, sheperds, helps and administrates does not teach, and neither does the apostle! No person who functions within their gift teaches except the Teacher or whoever Mike says.

The other verses he cites are from contexts of gifts. So what? Women are given the gift of prophecy and teaching, or does Mike deny that? What’s his point then for citing the other verses? Those verses don’t say that women are not given the gifts of prophecy or teaching and they don’t say that women cannot use their gifts of prophecy and teaching for men. What’s his point then? There is somekind of distinction being made within those verses but the distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with prophecy not being a matter of teaching.

Confused

“And this use of prophesy should be included in a Greek Lexicon definition and it is. Isaiah was preaching and teaching and had authoritative, but the “prophesy” referred to in Mark 7:6 is different than 1 Cor. 14’s use of the same word.”

There were female prophets in the OT? So what is Mike’s point here?

1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak to sensible people, judge for yourselves what I say. (ESV)

Women then are responsible and have the freedom to judge for themselves what Paul says and teaches rather than having men tell them what they think he teaches. In other words, women do not have to follow the teachings of comp theology without checking for themselves what Paul says. But comps would tell us that women must learn from the men what Paul says because their theology teaches that only men may teach and women cannot judge prophecy.

“The big issue is whether “seems” and “likely” are good enough to warrant a charge of sin.”

ROTFLOL…….too funny! It’s beyond ridiculous thinking about it and is made too clear by “the big issue”.

WOW.

12 & 14 – Kay and Dave, (“I cannot speak so much for Mike, but it appears that some comps you cannot tie down with logic, because logic is not what is of greatest importance, maintaining the hierarchy is”) you guys made the points that I was going to make! 😛

Thanks for that Tiro! I’ll think on it… 🙂

Cheryl,

Is the phrase “the husband is the head of the wife” ever repeated in Scripture? 1 Co 11 is not necessarily about husband and wife, but could be about man and woman. I wouldn’t say that the concept in 1 Co 11 is repeated in Eph 5.

??

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

It should have read: Another example, if 1 Tim 2:12 is not universal law, then maybe after all, none of Scripture is God breathed.

Maybe since it is being questioned as to whether or not 1 Tim 2:12 is universal law, therefore in Mike’s mind, other things about Scripture are being questioned… For example, if it’s not universal law, then maybe Scripture really isn’t inspired after all – at least it seems that some people could think in this way because 1 Tim 2:12 after all, carries so much weight.

Another example, if 1 Tim 2:12 is not universal law, then maybe after all, none of it is God breathed.

So maybe this goes to show how heavily ingrained 1 Tim 2:12 is. If it gets ripped out of it’s place (in one’s mind) then along goes all kinds of other things…or if it’s questioned then all kinds of other things must be questioned too.

Humm…

Cheryl said Scripture does not need a second witness, and Mike had said so earlier too. As if everything in the bible, every single thing that is said/written needs to be repeated in order to be true – a ridiculous notion. The point is not about what’s true and what’s not true, the point is about what is God’s law and what is not. Just because all of Scripture is true does not mean that all that is true is God’s law.

How is what Cheryl said, not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? 1 Tim 2 is Scripture. Where is it’s second witness establishing it as law? Since it is not established as God’s law (comps have yet to prove this) and since it is Scripture therefore it needs a second witness because all of God’s law’s have at least a second witness. So in this sense “Scripture needs a second witness” that is, CERTAIN PARTS of Scripture, when claimed to be God’s law, need a second witness to prove it. BUT this does not mean without qualification that “Scripture” (as in the whole thing, all of it, or anything in it ever said) needs a second witness.

Mike:
“You said Scripture does not need a second witness, but then you said, “[1 Timothy 2:12] was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition), it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal)…

“How is this not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? Timothy was an elder of the Ephesian church and the letter was circulated as Scripture and is thus in our bibles.”

Yes, 1 Tim 2 is Scripture.

Mike:
“If all of 1 and 2 Timothy are just for that day and age and not for today, is Christ really our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) are the positions of overseer and deacon necessary (1 Timothy 3:1-12)? Is all Scripture breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Are Paul’s words in a letter to young Timothy Scripture or not? Are Jesus words that are in red (in some bibles) more inspired than other texts? I think all of the Bible is inspired equally, so to say that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus words is unsettling.”

Why is the assumption made that 1 Tim 2 is just for that day and age? It’s universal principles are timeless like all universal biblical principles. Two principles, for example, would be that the deceived must learn and not teach.

That Christ is our Mediator is not being disputed as there is no way to dispute the written Scriptural fact.

We are not told that the body MUST operate with overseers and deacons at every assembly. Such is never commanded. It is not a law.

2 Timothy 3:16 directly says all Scripture is God breathed.

Paul’s words are Scripture and all Scripture which includes what Jesus said, is inspired. But inspired word does NOT mean that it is automaticaly law. As if everything ever said in the Bible which is inspired is LAW?? That makes no sense.

Who is saying that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus’ words?

Mike:
“So, the “law” idea that you build up is set on the principle that one passage (especially from a personal letter) cannot be enough to allow for a teaching to be true.”

False. Mike does not appear to be understanding what Cheryl is saying at least up to this point in his rejoinder. One passage can be enough to allow for a teaching to be true, but one passage CANNOT be enough to allow for a teaching to be a universal law.

Mike:
“But, what if Paul said what he meant and the teaching to Timothy are for the entire church, just as those who put the canon together desired. If something is written one time in Scripture, it must be dealt with as Scripture and not tossed out because there is not an identical passage or teaching found in Jesus’ words.”

The timeless principles are for the entire church. 1 Tim 2 here is accepted as Scripture and is not being tossed out, but it IS being disputed as to whether or not it’s universal law, and what’s not being disputed is whether or not it’s Scripture. Besides, there is nothing in what Cheryl has said to have given Mike the impression that she believes that 1 Tim 2 is not Scripture. So with that and other things he said or asked above, I don’t know why he has even said or asked those certain things.

What does whether or not 1 Tim 2 is a universal law have to do with whether or not it is inspired, or Scripture, or Scripture needing a second witness, or whether or not it’s for that day and age, or whether or not Scripture is God breathed, or whether or not Paul’s words are Scripture, etc. What does anything he has said so far in part 4 have to do with addressing whether or not 1 Tim 2:12 IS UNIVERSAL LAW?

Can someone please knock down the brick wall?? ;P

Thanks Frank 🙂

A Amos Love,

You had me laughing for awhile after I read your last comment 🙂 Good stuff…

“Is there anything in the Bible about
pastors in pulpits preaching to people in pews?” lol

Kay, what appears to you to be how comps view “church” appears to me too.

Frank,

And if those who don’t understand the New Covenant came to understand it, it appears that there would be no room for issues having to do with “publicaly judging errant prophecy” or “teaching with men present”. So I think that understanding the new covenant is a VERY important part of understanding the difference in views between egals and comps, at least that’s what appears to be. And how did too many comps come to have an old covenant mindset? How does that happen??

How come complementarians have a different view of “church” than egalitarians? What does “church” mean to the majority of comps?

Cheryl,

yeah, why would God discriminate against men from receiving the gifts for the body? humm…

Hi A Amos Love,

“P.S. – I’m neither Complementarian nor egalitarian.”

Well, really by definition, an “egalitarian” is also a “complementarian”… ;P

Or maybe “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly, because only with their presence we have “church”?

So is it sin for women to teach men in church?
Or maybe is it man’s sin to learn from women in church?
Or perhaps the real issue here in this comp view is about “the presence of men”?

“It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.”

What’s the difference between a woman teaching other women and the same gifted woman teaching men also while the women and men are assembled together? Her gift is the same (gift of teaching). What she teaches the women and men is the same (correct biblical doctrine). And what the women and men hear/learn is the same doctrine coming from the same voice. So the woman’s gift (of teaching) itself is not sinful, her using the gift (teaching) is not sinful (it’s great), and what the women and men are learning (correct biblical doctrine) is not sinful, yet somehow “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly?

Thanks Cheryl! Yes, it’s been a couple of years at least…I’ve come out of the thick fog! 🙂

It’s about what women can and cannot do based on whether or not what they do is sin. That’s the bottom line.

Is it a sin for women to teach men in church?
Is it a sin for women to lead in the home?
Is it a sin for women to judge prophecy?
Is it a sin for women to lead and have authority in the church?

What do they violate and break when they do these things? Scripture?? Then where does Scripture testify in the first place, saying that such things are sin for women?