Mark

TL,

Thankyou for clearing up this mis-communication. I thought that i made it clear that my understanding of Adam’s leadership stems from what i understand that to be as expressed throughout all of scripture. Likewise i pose the question, where in the text does it talk about total equality?

Just another thought about understanding how we understand what is meant when Paul talks about ‘sin came into the world through one man’-Rom 5:12- it came to me while cooking dinner 🙂

If we talk this literary it must be false. Because we know in Genesis that Eve was indeed the first to sin, so sin actually entered the world first through Eve. So what does it mean. Perhaps some may say it is ‘intentional sin’. So maybe it should be translated- ‘intentional sin came into the world through one man’ since you are all claiming Eve’s wasn’t intentional, and indeed she isnt a man. Should we then seperate what sin Paul is describing here?
How would Cheryl or others understand this? See i think it makes perfect sense if we understand Adam is recongnised as the one resposible for sin entering the world, although Eve indeed did sin first. Adam is responsible for the act of sin entering the world, not Eve’s specific sin. I’m interested how an egalitarian would reconcile this?

TL- i am glad that we are agree that spiritual equality in Christ doesn’t allude to sin. The point i was making was that historically when a church has accepted or ordained women pastors and the like, homosexuality acceptance has followed. And that is precisely why it is not good to argue down these lines. IF i did that i am diverting from what egalitarianism actually teaches. And so i say the same for comp teaching. It doesn’t support abuse, even though some have abused under its title. But again it is not representative of the true view.
So you might say it is a reality that abuse has occurred and i have no doubt. It is equally a realtiy that acceptance of homosexuality has followed supposed egalitarian teaching. Thats why it is important to steer clear of these type of arguments