Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Matt Slick and Wayne Grudem made a major admission  that, methinks, should not go unnoticed in the gender role debate.

Egalitarians have said for years that being the head may mean being the source, not the leader, when the New Testament speak of the man being the head of the woman. While complementarians tend to say they disagree, they sometimes use head that same way.

CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) has an article by complementarian Matt Slick, on the topic of federal headship. It is clear, from the article, that this federal headship makes Adam the source of sin, through which death enters. It does not make him any kind of authority figure, who orders us to sin.

Federal Headship is foreign to the modern mind, but it is a biblical concept.  It is the teaching that the father is the one who represents his family, his descendents…

Federal Headship also finds its place in … Rom. 5:12-14, … When Paul says in verse 12 “because all sinned” he is using what is called the aorist indicative in Greek.  This means that it is an action is completed in the past.  Therefore, there is a logical implication that we can draw from this.  Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology says

“But it was not true that all men had actually committed sinful actions at the time that Paul was writing, because some had not even been born yet, and many others had died in infancy before committing any conscious acts of sin.  So Paul must be meaning that when Adam sinned, God considered true that all men sinned in Adam.” …

“The federal headship of Adam presupposes and rests upon his natural headship.  He was our natural head before he was our federal head.  He was doubtless made our federal representative because he was our natural progenitor, and was so conditioned that his agency must affect our destinies, and because our very nature was on trial (typically if not essentially) in him.  Whatever, therefore, of virtue in this explanation the natural headship of Adam may be supposed to contain the federal theory retains.”

… original sin is the teaching that Adam’s first sin brought to us both guilt and a fallen nature.  He brought us guilt in that he represented us and when Adam died, we died in him.  1 Cor. 15:22 says, “In Adam all die.  In Christ all shall be made alive.”  Second, since Adam is our ancient biological father, we inherit his sinful nature.

Wayne Grudem imply, and Matt Slick say, that Adam is our (federal) head because he is the one from whom we inherit sin and death, in other words the source of sin and death. He is also our natural head because he is our progenitor, the source of our existence. Of course he is. Head means source, head mean origin and progenitor and starting point. Adam is our head.

The man (Adam) is also head (source) of the woman. (Eve) And at least some leading complementarians know and admit head means source.

Q.E.D.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Complementarians admit head means source!" (11)

  1. I love it! I would like for them to read what you said, and try to take back their own words.

    Like

  2. I do not agree that Federal Headship is taught in Scripture, altho it is assumed in patriarchal cultures.

    Like

    • It seems to me Adam had some kind of source-ship that may be called Adam’s federal headship. But that is not taught in the Bible about any other man, so it is limited to Adam. This Matt Slick article call Adam a federal head, not other men.

      Like

  3. I’ve even had a male pastor that taught very clearly that head means source. Thank God for the truth!!

    Like

  4. Truth Preacher said:

    Do you actually think this somehow overturns the Bible’s clear teaching on patriarchy in both testaments, and male headship??? Christ is the Second Adam. So unless you want to say Christ is ONLY our source of spiritual life but not our head, Slick’s position stands. Yours does not.

    Like

    • I believe the Bible has no clear patriarchy teaching to overturn.
      Jesus being the second Adam is not about “being our source but not our head” but about being our source which is the meaning of head, and the replacement of our sinful (Adam) nature with the Christ nature.

      Also see my comment, the last comment 12/10/2012 here: http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=362

      “Federal headship proponents are making an argument that has as premise:
      “Because of Adam, we are in the greatest mess ever.”
      And ends with the conclusion:
      “…so, those not like Adam should follow those like Adam.”
      That is about as logical as: “The leadership of the Zanu-PF political party is responsible for hyperinflation and hunger in this country … so we should listen to Zanu-PF.”
      …Adam being the source of our sin problem doesn’t make him someone to obey (head as in leader) by sinning like him, but someone whose influence we should fight!

      But (good news for honest males, bad news for those who attempt the huge spin to get CBMW style complementarianism out of it) the Bible never teaches: “Adam being regarded as the cause of sin carries over to all males in a way it does not to women.”

      If Adam’s source-ship of sin carried over to all men, if male behavior thus had a larger potentially negative influence on everyone else (women, children, other men), then men should not be the ones who alone are in charge, but under authority of the whole group that could potentially be influenced by their dangerous behavior.”

      Like

  5. Truth Preacher said:

    You can “believe” the Bible has no patriarchy to “overturn” just as you could choose to not “believe” in gravity and walk off the roof of a building. Your “believe” doesn’t matter. That Scripture teaches patriarchy is OBVIOUS! Denying that it does is no argument, but rather, reveals the spiritual state of the one who resists the truth.

    If Adam wasn’t our HEAD and representative, why are all born with sinful proclivities, why do all die? Why are all suffering the result of what Adam did, if He wasn’t our head and representative? You see, this is all answered in Romans 5. Also, if you deny this, you deny the gospel truth as well, that Christ, as the SECOND ADAM reversed our plight. And when we are saved and in Christ, He becomes our head, and we derive identity and life from Him.

    Christ did not capitulate to the supposed wrong cultural norms in appointing 12 MEN to be Apostles and leaders. To say He did is to accuse Him of sin and compromise, and further, the ABSURDITY of complying with the “evil” patriarchy while supposedly, according to feminists, creating an egalitarian church! You can’t have it both ways! His choice of 12 men PROVES patriarchy, or proves He could succumb to public pressure. Which is it?

    Like

    • “If Adam wasn’t our HEAD and representative, why are all born with sinful proclivities, why do all die?”
      Adam was our HEAD (Greek kephale, meaning he was our source). We are born with sinful proclivities because he is the source of them, and we die in him.
      “Why are all suffering the result of what Adam did, if He wasn’t our head and representative?”
      He is our head (source) and represents us all who were in him.
      ” if you deny this, you deny the gospel truth as well, that Christ, as the SECOND ADAM reversed our plight. And when we are saved and in Christ, He becomes our head, and we derive identity and life from Him.”
      Yes. I don’t deny any of it. Indeed, when Christ becomes our head (source), we derive identity and life from our source, hallelujah!
      Christ, of course, is not just our kephale, our source head.
      Christ is also our leader, which we get elsewhere in the Bible and is not denoted in that word. But Adam is not called a leader there, no word that means leader in untranslated Greek is used for Adam in the text.
      “Christ did not capitulate to the supposed wrong cultural norms in appointing 12 MEN to be Apostles and leaders. To say He did is to accuse Him of sin and compromise,”
      I never accused him of capitulating to wrong cultural norms. He chose 12 Jews who wore dresses, could only Jewish dress-wearers be disciples? What should we conclude from him choosing male Jewish dress wearers. Does Jesus have any room for non-Jewish or pants-wearing leaders? He chose a disproportional number of fishermen and not one rabbi, should we assume those taught in the Bible cannot be leaders in church?
      Really this thing of who Jesus chose as disciples is not even on the topic of head meaning source in Romans 5.

      Like

  6. Truth Preacher said:

    Your comments at the end are textbook Red Herring. We are dealing with GENDER ISSUES, and you bring up clothing! Irrelevant. He chose 12 men, when all He had to do, was chose some women FOR LEADERSHIP and feminists could have an actual point for once. But he didn’t, and that speaks VOLUMES! And they didn’t wear “dresses”. This is foolish talk. They wore ROBES. History and Scripture testify to this. I wear a BATH-ROBE after showering, not a “dress”. As for JEWS, salvation is TO THE JEW FIRST, then to the Gentile. This is plainly taught. Nothing you brought up is relevant. Nothing in Slick’s article helps the unbiblical feminist viewpoint one iota.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: