Featured Why are We Totally Depraved?

It is a wrong conclusion because Adam was the head of His wife.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

She was deceived by satan...this is why God does not have any woman preachers....but Adam was not decieved....he rebelled.

 

OK, I was thinking that God had instructed both Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. But possibly he only told Adam that, and then Adam conveyed that to Eve, so that would explain possibly why she was not as morally culpable. But she affirms to the Serpent that God did forbid it, and actually the Serpent confirms that God forbade it. But it talks about how the fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food, and so forth, and she was overcome by that, "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life", as its described in the gospels I think. But once again, why all the talk in the Bible about "through one man sin entered the world" when Adam wasn't even the first one who sinned. It implies to me it was inevitable that Eve would sin, because she was created from Adam.

 

Because the gospel is based on it!
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 

Death entered in because of sin. Adam ushered in death because of his rebellion.

 

I just felt compelled to get up to speed personally on the subject of Gnosticism, seeing as every Southern Baptist preacher has to allude to it knowingly at some point, as if they are truly personally familiar with it.

That book I mentioned is not really the best - basically following a TV series previously produced by the author.

But several interesting things about Gnosticism: It grew directly out of the concept of "The priesthood of the believer" in that all of us can ostensibly go directly to God through the Holy Spirit. And a lot of the gnostic writings were never meant to be taken literally, but instead were conceptualized as spiritual utterances, and highly personal, tapping into some aspect of the divine as the spirit conveyed it to the writer. And all of this multitude of writings by different people who perceived of themselves as Christians started to converge on certain ideas, regarding the evil of the flesh, which actually is an orthodox idea, as Paul himself talks about it, talking about flesh and blood not inherting the kingdom of God and so forth.

And actually, the whole authoritarian structure of the Roman Catholic church grew out of an alarmed reaction to gnostic thinking in the first few centuries after the resurrection of Christ. And its interesting that even after the early church successfully stamped it out that it crops up a thousand years later in the form of Catharism, which once again the Roman Catholic church is virulently opposed to.

But you look at the things that Cathars rejected regarding Roman Catholicism, and some of them are the same things that we as Southern Baptists would oppose. For example the Cathars were deeply offended by all the Roman Catholic imagery and veneration of the sufferings of Christ, all that iconography of him being tortured and tormented on the cross. The Cathars were much more oriented towards his resurrection, his transcending this physical world. They also personalized salvation, saying it had to do with the individual, and not some authority structure eminating from Rome, an authority structure based on worldly wealth and power and enforced by the sword.

Otoh, some of the Cathar's ideas had direct parallels to what we would term eastern pantheism, e.g. vegetarianism, not wanting to consume or kill animals, as it might be some soul still in the process of transcending this physical world but not yet arrived. And actually, in that age it was the wealthy who ate meat anyway, it being an extreme rarity among the peasants. But the doctrinal arguments against the Cathars by the Catholics would be perceived today as absolutely orthodox and correct, but when the Cathars were not ready to go away, that's when the burnings and persecutions started.

So anyway, I have often contemplated starting a discussion thread on Gnosticism, but perhaps its a subject for mature believers to become informed of on their own.

-------------------------

There's a lot of deeply disturbing things about Gnosticism though - the parts of it that could be characterized as "Hermetic" basically has diverged into the occult, which is after all an attempt by man to tap into the divine. Proceed at your own risk.

 

Mark: you have a lot of good truths here mixed I think with some misunderstandings. The brief order of things is this:

This is accurate I think, you will note in Genesis this subtle turn of phrase when speaking to the serpent: Eve said: "But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." God however, did not say this! he only said not to eat of it. Most likely, you are correct, that Adam only heard this and passed it on to Eve, Adam possibly adding the command not to touch either. But this, I think, needs a little more clarification:

Sort of, but what the serpent is really up to here is questioning God's commands more than affirming them, he says: "Yea, hath God said?.."this is doubly effective if Eve heard this second hand. The Serpent, Having sowed the seeds of doubt, then counters with this in vs.4 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: " Hence, the new testament rightly clarifies that Adam is to blame because as Icon pointed out: 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. What is important to note is that Eve was indeed tricked, but Adam (not deceived) sinned willfully thus Eve's sin was in many ways of ignorance, Adam's of rebellion. Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

I love your insight here:

I agree wholeheartedly!!:thumbs::smilewinkgrin: All sin might fit into 1 or more of these 3 categories, and in this one sin, all 3 categories were included, the fall was, in that respect total.

I cannot agree here, Adam was innocent at the point of his creation, and subsequently also Eve, remember, it is only after the fall that man is now inherently corrupt.

 

:

Icon is absolutely correct... the context of the passage is this:
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.


1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I do not often accuse Icon of accurately contextualizing and exegeting the Scriptures (ask him), but what he said here is absolutely and inarguably correct, and in perfect context.

 

Inarguably?

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

 

Yes, inarguably, (and I read this article, in a forum on the topic you posted before I even joined the board). I am aware that there are those who "kick against the pricks" But that was sheer quoting of Scripture and in context on Icon's part. When one says "inarguably" they do not usually mean that none would be foolish enough to attempt it (Napoleon did invade Russia from the West after all). They mean that no one can come up with a plausible, coherent, and valid counter-argument. This article is no different.

 

HeirofSalvation [27]:

I won't quote you here just for brevity, so hopefully it won't be confusing, some of it is in response to Iconoclast actually.

I first heard a pastor say very convincingly that Eve adding to God's command by saying He told them to not even touch the fruit exemplifies how we tend to make God's commands more burdensome than they actually are. Sounds good to me. But then I subsequently heard another pastor say that it was clear that Adam for the sake of safety had added an additional restriction to Eve to not even touch the fruit which was a wise thing for Adam to do. That's sounds good too. So which interpretation is correct. I suspect the one coming from your own pastor. I'll throw another interpretation into the mix. When God confronts Adam and Eve after the fact, after they both hid from him, he doesn't imply at all that Eve hadn't heard it first hand from Him and so was less culpable. Maybe God himself had told her previously not to touch it, who knows. I don't think my conjecture there is any less valid than the previous two interpretations.

My original contention was that possibly Adam was corrupt before the offense, by virtue of being human. I know what the orthodoxy here is. My point isn't refuted by just reiterating the orthodoxy. But my reasoning was that animals certainly sin, commit violence, steal, etc. I am reminded of the fact that our national symbol, the bald eagle, that majestic bird, is an insufferable thief. Bald eagles are constantly stealing fish from each other. And if man is not off the hook for sinning without cognizance of it, then why should the animals be. Don't misunderstand me. I'm just saying that what animals do has to qualify as sin. Its everywhere. Look at a troop of baboons. Every human vice is in evidence. Covetousness, cruelty, lack of mercy, lust, rage, etc. And animals I don't believe needed to "fall" spiritually to start sinning. It just comes natural to them. So, it seems inevitable that man would sin as well. It was inevitable, unless it took God by surprise. But also, I pointed out that if Paul continually blames Adam for mankind's fall, and yet it was Eve who sinned first, then it implies there was something corrupt in Adam from whom Eve was created. Now this may all be wrong. And its tentative on my part. But that's my argument.

Maybe some pastors blame animals sinning on Adam too. Well, we know from Paul that it was God's will for the creation to fall:

(Rom 8:20-21) For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

And on the subject of Eve, I saw someone once say that Paul describes her in I Timothy 2 as "transgressing" which in their mind was in a different category from intentional sin. But I just now looked at Romans 5, and there as well it describes what Adam did as "transgression". And its hard for me to see what Eve did as being less severe in any sense than what Adam did. She asserted dogmatically to the serpent, No God said we cannot even touch that fruit, and the serpent doesn't contradict her on this. What he does do is entice her into knowing, outright rebellion against God.

But as far as Romans 5 in which Paul deals at length with Adam, I would submit tentatively that in that patriarchal world, it was natural for him to give Adam corporate culpability for both himself and his wife, but actually when Paul talks about the sin of "one" repeatedly in that passage, he may very well have Eve's transgression in mind.

I also have to say, I am somewhat puzzled by Paul's emphasis on Eve being deceived in II Timothy. It was Eve's own rationalization to God on being confronted to say, "Oh, it was the serpent who deceived me". Adam had his own rationalization, blaming his sin on Eve. Eve was enticed into outright rebellion in my book. Maybe God is letting Eve's judgment of her own actions stand, as an act of mercy: "OK, Eve, you were 'deceived' then. That's the judgment I'll go with."

But anyway, thanks for the feedback.

 

Very nice.....the historic faith:applause::applause::applause:

 

Sin is what corrupts. So then Adam apparently sinned before the sin in the Garden. What corrupted Adam's heart then?

 

'Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren' (James 1:3-16).

Adam was created sinless but able to sin (Lat. posse peccare). He was tempted by Satan (being with Eve when she was tempted- Gen 3:6c) and drawn into sin by his desires.

Steve

 

Here is what Calvin said;

Calvin taught that Adam (and mankind) fell because God predestined and ordained it. Man became corrupt because God ordained it according to Calvin.

Calvin taught that men have no right to question this, even if it does not accord with their God-given sense of reason. To support this he quotes Roman 9:20-21

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

The problem with Calvin's view is that he pulls this scripture out of context. Paul was clearly referring to Jeremiah chapter 18;

Jer 18:
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Paul was clearly referring to Jer 18:6 when he spoke of God as a potter having the power over the clump of clay.

But Jeremiah was not saying God "unconditionally" chooses to honor some men and destroy others. In verses 7-10 Jeremiah says that if a nation God has spoken of to pull down and pluck up repents and turns from their evil, then God will repent of the evil he had spoken toward them. God also said that if there be a nation he had spoken of to build up and plant, if that nation sins and will not obey him, he will repent of the good he had spoken toward them.

So, Calvin completely misinterprets and misrepresents what Paul said in Romans 9 and what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 18. God does not unconditonally choose to honor some men while choosing to reprobate others, it is conditional upon their obedience to God.

 

(Rom 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

What was the likeness of the offense of Adam that Paul is alluding to? If there is some particular attribute of Adam's offense he has in mind, why wouldn't he say what that attribute is?

We sinned and died when adam sinned...we do not have to personally commit the same exact sin...be cause in him we sinned and died...we commit plenty of our own sins because we are born in adam.....

His sin has been given to all men

Jesus righteousness has been given to all men who are born of God.

 

Rom 5:12) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

So, to repeat myself, why is Paul's discourse utterly oblivious to Eve's role in all this, as elaborated in detail in the Genesis account. Genesis describes in detail the nature of her rebellion, and Adam's transgression is only described very tersely in Genesis. So why in Paul's reconception of it, the man is all important. Is it just so he can draw this parallel he want to make with Christ? And furthermore, he says above the death spread to all men as a result of Adam's sin. What about women? Did Eve's sin just spread to the women or what? If all this emphasis on men is just a byproduct of Paul's culture, does that mean we as well go along for the ride?

Adam was the head...not Eve.....she is part of the story...but not the main focus

The bible is about redemption of the church...not cultural issues primarily.