Adam's federal headship, the feminist heresy, and the Westminster Standards

Yes, it seems that even Calvin’s argument against that position means that it’s not completely novel. The words “with her” are right there in the text after all.

I did hear a complementarian today express a (not strongly held) opinion that Adam eating the fruit was not his first sin, but that his first sin was in not crushing the snake and protecting his wife. This struck me as theologically very novel, but it also seems hard to avoid if you hold the position that Adam was physically present when Eve was tempted.

Thank you, pastors Tim and Jesse for your input. I would like to do some more research on this and I appreciate the pointers.

This seems to be the strongest argument against the “physically present” side of the argument, or at least to the various complementarian knock-on effects of holding that position: Adam isn’t rebuked by God for it, and Paul doesn’t bring it up either AFAICT.


Like a dork, I just last evening discovered this thread. (But am very much enjoying reading it.)

For whatever it’s worth, I love Perelandra.

I lovingly demur. Unless you’re being funny. The whole planet is essentially a sinless “bog” world. The first time I read the novel, I knew there were things from it that I wouldn’t forget from then on even if I lived to be 150 years old. I’ve since read it several more times. Some of the most amazing parts are from the middle of the book. Reading “Perelandra” again after “Hideous Strength” seems to always make me appreciate the later/closing sections of “Perelandra” all the more, too.

Like they stitched together the seams themselves.

1 Like

In Milton that mindset is linked with Satan’s mad desire to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven. It’s a sign of sin’s distorting impact on our minds rather than a romantic devotion.