“So, I don’t have a problem with saying that Christian women continue to be sinners. We all are.”

I agree, we are all sinners. So, I do not understand how we could now expect to have a different outcome if a present day “Eve” gives some forbidden fruit to her “Adam” husband?”

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” Genesis 3:6

But Eve never left a proposed “proper domain under her husband’s care.” Verse 6 states that he “was with her” there and did nothing to “care” for her, but did the opposite and joined right in eating and later tried to place blame on Eve for it by saying, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me…”

“How can women under Timothy’s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake?”

Since that model didn’t work for Adam and Eve, then it makes no sense to say that now we somehow could avoid the same mistake by continuing to follow it.

So, we are supposed to believe Paul is saying that it’s somehow better to follow “Adams” who sin knowingly, rather than risk sinning due to deception? I just can’t find anything in Scripture that says sinning on purpose is superior to sinning due to deception. To me, it sounds like saying that thumbing your nose at God is better than accidentally sinning.

And where does that leave single and/or childless women? Not every woman gets a marriage proposal. Why did Paul write “to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” and “the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord…this I say for your benefit..to promote what is appropriate and secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” (I Cor. 7) if they were actually supposed to be adhering to a different “God-ordained calling including a focus on marriage, family, and the home.”?

I also do not see how we can say for sure that Eve was told to stay under Adam’s care, since there is no verse stating that. The other thing we also don’t know for sure is who told Eve not to eat the fruit or why Adam didn’t correct her misstating the prohibition since he “was with her” at the time.

I am really trying to understand your viewpoint here.
I am not ready to come down on one side or the other of this issue. For me, there seem to be a lot of blank spots in both views.

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking, but, even as Christians, we still have a sinful nature and we still sin. For a quick answer, see:

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99857.qna/category/th/page/questions

Indeed, Paul himself said in 1 Timothy 1:15, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I *am* the foremost” (note the present tense).

So, I don’t really have a problem saying that Christian women continue to be sinners. We all are.

I think verse 14 may best be explained in terms of the congruent creation view. See Daniel Doriani, “Appendix 1: A History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).

BTW, Schatz has misunderstood my position since she believes I’m making the salvation of any woman dependent on all women continuing in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. I believe Kostenberger has the right view on this in his paper ““Saved Through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan’s Deception” (see reference #7 in my post). Please read my references so you can better understand my position on this.

Ironically, it seems that Schatz’s view is more vulnerable to this criticism than mine is. Schatz would have the salvation of that one specific woman dependent on the one specific man or perhaps the woman’s husband. In either case, the woman’s salvation through the Messiah is dependent on someone else.

Also, it’s good to keep in mind that demonstrative proofs are audience-relative, and some audiences will complain ad nauseam that you haven’t proven your case simply because they are offended by your conclusions.

Nevertheless, if I have the time and am willing to do so, I may develop some sections more. But I have ideas for other posts in the works right now.

I have been thinking about how patricentric Jesus was during the time of His humiliation. Why would it be wrong for us as Christians to also be focused on our Heavenly Father?

To the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me that there would be an application for the Christian family. No, we don’t worship our earthly fathers, but there is something special about fatherhood and motherhood. God Himself made the distinction between the two. A father is much more than just a male parent and a mother is much more than just a female parent.

God bless you, Chris, in your family, your work, and your blog,

Mrs. Webfoot

You know that, don’t you. Sometimes a person doesn’t need to keep on responding when there has been no real refutation.

I think that’s the case with Chris’ exchange with Cheryl, but each one is free to make up his or her own mind.

Thank you,
Mrs. Webfoot

So, any Christian woman can be said to be in transgression right now because of her deception? Really?? This is confusing – could you please explain what you mean by this?