gengwall

“According to the complementarian view Craig is describing, the comp position is that Eve’s sin was, at it’s heart, NOT about believing the serpent rather than God. It was about acting FIRST, without looking to Adam for guidance or permission. The problem is that nothing in the Genesis text says anything like this.”

You are absolutely correct about the lack of textual support for such a notion. But reading into text is habitual for comps so they don’t recognize it. The very notion that Eve would have to look to Adam stems from the presumption that Adam was in authority. And so starts the endless circular argument, because the basis for Adam’s presumed authority stems from pther presumptions about things like creation order and naming of animals. All of this is unsupported in the text of Scripture (not the facts; the conclusions), but that doesn’t persuade them it isn’t true because they have presumed male authority.

It reminds me of the scene in Princess Bride (this blog’s favorite movie, right???) where Vizzini and Westley (as the Man in Black/Dread Pirate Roberts) are engaged in a battle of wits. Vizzini, a self proclaimed genious, spouts off a string of presumptive reasoning about what kind of person his opponent is. In the midst, Westley says (sarcastically) “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”. Undaunted, Vizzini replies “Wait til I get going” and continues on with his wild analysis. Comps are a lot like Vizzini. And I often get dizzy dealign with their argument as it spins in circles.