Comments on: The sin of the man http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/ This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled "Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?" This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women's ministry. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:27:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Don http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4264 Don Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:28:59 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4264 That has sometimes been my problem also.  I tend to assume the best, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, esp. when I am Mr. Oblivious (the person in the room who misses the obvious when everyone else can see it). That has sometimes been my problem also. 

I tend to assume the best, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, esp. when I am Mr. Oblivious (the person in the room who misses the obvious when everyone else can see it).

]]> By: Cheryl Schatz http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4263 Cheryl Schatz Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:37:25 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4263 Ah, yes, that summarizes my good points and my bad points.  I see the best in people but this is not always a good thing.  This last year has been an eye opener, though, with seeing the worst come out in people who should have good fruit in their lives that matches their profession of Christ but who show the signs of bad fruit.  I can still compliment them but it is much harder now that my eyes are opened :) Ah, yes, that summarizes my good points and my bad points.  I see the best in people but this is not always a good thing.  This last year has been an eye opener, though, with seeing the worst come out in people who should have good fruit in their lives that matches their profession of Christ but who show the signs of bad fruit.  I can still compliment them but it is much harder now that my eyes are opened :)

]]> By: Don http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4262 Don Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:22:15 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4262 You must be a complimentarian! (Notice the first i.) You must be a complimentarian!

(Notice the first i.)

]]> By: Cheryl Schatz http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4248 Cheryl Schatz Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:56:24 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4248 I have had an extremely busy day so just got to all your wonderful answers.  I will start with the "last shall be first" answers (sorry about that Paula,  but you still get the prize for being the first one up in the morning with a brain worthy of giving logical answers). Don, Good answers, I especially liked #4 saying that it is dangerous to derive doctrines from bad examples.  Well said. Lin, I liked all of your answers, especially #3 about Adam worship.  I think we could say that the doctrine should be called Federal sinner not Federal head.  The only one that Adam was the head of was his wife as they are one flesh.  And Adam did not impute sin to his wife so the idea of federal "head" is a misnomer. Paula, I also liked all of your answers especially #2 where you said: <blockquote>She wanted Adam. Not his alleged power, position, golf clubs or anything else, just him. </blockquote> Are you sure about the golf clubs??  Very funny!  Also good point about Adam's craving power.  The battle was not that Eve wanted to rule Adam but that she wanted to not be ruled.  This battle still continues today.  When one person takes rulership over another in marriage, it isn't a one flesh union as it is supposed to be but a sinful reality of our fallen world. Good job everyone!  Everyone gets an A+.  I have had an extremely busy day so just got to all your wonderful answers.  I will start with the “last shall be first” answers (sorry about that Paula,  but you still get the prize for being the first one up in the morning with a brain worthy of giving logical answers).

Don,
Good answers, I especially liked #4 saying that it is dangerous to derive doctrines from bad examples.  Well said.

Lin,
I liked all of your answers, especially #3 about Adam worship.  I think we could say that the doctrine should be called Federal sinner not Federal head.  The only one that Adam was the head of was his wife as they are one flesh.  And Adam did not impute sin to his wife so the idea of federal “head” is a misnomer.

Paula,
I also liked all of your answers especially #2 where you said:

She wanted Adam. Not his alleged power, position, golf clubs or anything else, just him.

Are you sure about the golf clubs??  Very funny!  Also good point about Adam’s craving power.  The battle was not that Eve wanted to rule Adam but that she wanted to not be ruled.  This battle still continues today.  When one person takes rulership over another in marriage, it isn’t a one flesh union as it is supposed to be but a sinful reality of our fallen world.

Good job everyone!  Everyone gets an A+. 

]]> By: Don http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4226 Don Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:05:33 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4226 1. Because she had figured out her sin, she was no longer deceived, she knew the truth.  But the man was blaming others. Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, \"Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--\" Notice the concern is if HE eats from the tree of KOGAE, he would be stuck in his state. 2. As Eve\'s desire was for her husband, God knew she would follow him. 3. I do not think it is the church, it is some in the church. 4. Adam is a bad example, it is dangerous to derive doctrines from bad examples except for why they were wrong. 1. Because she had figured out her sin, she was no longer deceived, she knew the truth.  But the man was blaming others.

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, \”Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever–\”

Notice the concern is if HE eats from the tree of KOGAE, he would be stuck in his state.

2. As Eve\’s desire was for her husband, God knew she would follow him.

3. I do not think it is the church, it is some in the church.

4. Adam is a bad example, it is dangerous to derive doctrines from bad examples except for why they were wrong.

]]> By: Lin http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4224 Lin Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:53:26 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4224 Now some questions for discussion: 1. Why do you think that Eve was not kicked out of the garden? She did not need to be kicked out.  Adam was a traitor who did not do his duty as a watchman and he was NOT deceived. He sinned blatently and proudly then blaming God and Eve for his own sin. Eve was deceived and admitted it. 2.  Why did Eve leave the garden if she wasn’t kicked out? Scripture answers this for us in Genesis 3;16. God predicted as a consequence of her transgression that Eve would turn from Him and toward her husband who would rule her. Eve lived out that prediction and followed Adam. 3.  Why has the church been so focused on trying to prove that Adam alone was a unique ruler over mankind? Federal Head? Yeah, this stuff is scary. It is Adam worship. The simple answer is: Pride. Wanting to lord it over others and using Adam to do it. 4. Was it Adam’s <strong>position as ruler</strong> that brought sin into the world or was it his treason and open defiance that brought sin into the world? Well, Genesis 1 tells us that both were given dominion so there is no scripture that says Adam has a position as 'ruler' over Eve. He was given a specific job that he did not do. But that job has nothing to do with being a ruler over Eve. Scripture is very clear that Eve was an ezer to Adam just as God is an ezer to us. She was 'comparable' to Adam. Not under him in a chain of command structure. It was his treason that brought sin into the world. As a matter of fact, I am unclear how this mysterious position as sole ruler brought sin into the world. God never once says that Adam is in charge of Eve or her ruler. That is a made up position for Adam through misinterpretation of the text. It has to read INTO the text. Now some questions for discussion:
1. Why do you think that Eve was not kicked out of the garden?

She did not need to be kicked out.  Adam was a traitor who did not do his duty as a watchman and he was NOT deceived. He sinned blatently and proudly then blaming God and Eve for his own sin. Eve was deceived and admitted it.

2.  Why did Eve leave the garden if she wasn’t kicked out?

Scripture answers this for us in Genesis 3;16. God predicted as a consequence of her transgression that Eve would turn from Him and toward her husband who would rule her. Eve lived out that prediction and followed Adam.
3.  Why has the church been so focused on trying to prove that Adam alone was a unique ruler over mankind?

Federal Head? Yeah, this stuff is scary. It is Adam worship. The simple answer is: Pride. Wanting to lord it over others and using Adam to do it.
4. Was it Adam’s position as ruler that brought sin into the world or was it his treason and open defiance that brought sin into the world?

Well, Genesis 1 tells us that both were given dominion so there is no scripture that says Adam has a position as ‘ruler’ over Eve. He was given a specific job that he did not do. But that job has nothing to do with being a ruler over Eve. Scripture is very clear that Eve was an ezer to Adam just as God is an ezer to us. She was ‘comparable’ to Adam. Not under him in a chain of command structure.

It was his treason that brought sin into the world. As a matter of fact, I am unclear how this mysterious position as sole ruler brought sin into the world. God never once says that Adam is in charge of Eve or her ruler. That is a made up position for Adam through misinterpretation of the text. It has to read INTO the text.

]]> By: Paula http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/#comment-4220 Paula Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:41:15 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=372#comment-4220 1. Because (a) she was "beguiled", which carries the connotation of more than simply being misled but also very deeply deceived, and (b) because when she was confronted directly by God (<em>which proves she was personally responsible for her own actions and not under Adam in any way</em>) she freely admitted (1) her guilt, (2) the serpent as the cause, and (3) did not blame anyone else. Later, when she began having children, she showed faith in God's promise of the Savior through her seed. Also note that it was Eve, not Adam, who first named their children. 2. She wanted Adam. Not his alleged power, position, golf clubs or anything else, just him. Never in scripture is she said to have wanted anything that allegedly belonged to Adam; never is she said to have been guilty of wanting power. In fact, it is Adam who God expressly stated would crave that power; it is Adam who was the one with the desire to rule. 3. It's pure pride, "might makes right", "I got here first" mentality. 4. Adam had no such rule over Eve or anyone else. He was clearly defiant and wanted to be in charge, even over God. He was the treasonous guard, the spineless protector, the blame-passing coward. Does the Bible ever say much good about Adam? Does it ever say anything about Eve being defiant? Hey, I took the quiz first... does that mean I get the highest grade, just for that reason? 1. Because (a) she was “beguiled”, which carries the connotation of more than simply being misled but also very deeply deceived, and (b) because when she was confronted directly by God (which proves she was personally responsible for her own actions and not under Adam in any way) she freely admitted (1) her guilt, (2) the serpent as the cause, and (3) did not blame anyone else. Later, when she began having children, she showed faith in God’s promise of the Savior through her seed. Also note that it was Eve, not Adam, who first named their children.

2. She wanted Adam. Not his alleged power, position, golf clubs or anything else, just him. Never in scripture is she said to have wanted anything that allegedly belonged to Adam; never is she said to have been guilty of wanting power. In fact, it is Adam who God expressly stated would crave that power; it is Adam who was the one with the desire to rule.

3. It’s pure pride, “might makes right”, “I got here first” mentality.

4. Adam had no such rule over Eve or anyone else. He was clearly defiant and wanted to be in charge, even over God. He was the treasonous guard, the spineless protector, the blame-passing coward. Does the Bible ever say much good about Adam? Does it ever say anything about Eve being defiant?

Hey, I took the quiz first… does that mean I get the highest grade, just for that reason?

]]>