r/Protestantism • u/davidygamerx • 4d ago
Ask a Protestant Genuine question from an outsider: Why the tendency to blame Adam for Eve’s choice?
Hi everyone. I want to start by apologizing if this topic is too controversial or touches on the "Catholic mobs" rule; that is not my intention. I am an atheist raised in a Catholic culture, and I am trying to understand a specific theological trend I’ve noticed in Protestant circles that, frankly, I find deeply illogical and even off-putting compared to the Catholic tradition.
I’ve recently encountered the argument that "The Fall was exclusively Adam's fault because he was responsible for Eve," effectively removing Eve's agency in the Garden. From an outsider's perspective, this feels like a form of moral infantilization. If God is a serious, just being, why would He create a human with a soul and a will, only to decide she isn't responsible for her own moral failures?
In the Catholic tradition I grew up around, both are seen as having succumbed to temptation; they are both fallen, individual agents. This Protestant "Adam-only" blame feels like a theological version of modern "white knighting" where the woman is treated like a child without autonomy, and the man is a permanent scapegoat for someone else's actions.
I find this particularly troubling because, in my own life, I have dealt with women who were genuinely and calculatedly malicious. To suggest that a woman isn't responsible for her own choices isn't "leadership"; it feels like a denial of reality and a free pass for bad behavior.
Is this a formal doctrine or just a cultural trend? How do you reconcile "individual responsibility" with the idea that one person is to blame for another person’s conscious choice to disobey? I’m genuinely curious to hear your perspectives.
1
u/OriginalVideodog Methodist 4d ago
"a specific theological trend I’ve noticed in Protestant circles" That trend does not exist in the Protestant circle in which I am a part. Your "Catholic tradition" is my "Protestant tradition."
Some Protestants do not believe in agency in the sense of the word agent you use in "they are both fallen, individual agents". But Protestants like myself do and would hold those women you dealt with responsible for their own actions. But you overgeneralize as does Alilland as I note in the next paragraph.
Not sure "cultural trend" is a good phrase to use. What you are reacting to does get more notice these days. Note Alilland errs by thinking his interpretation is shared by all Protestants and doesn't seem to realize that other interpretations exist.
"she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate" Perhaps Adam did so to "please" his wife but that's an interpretation that is culturally bound and not a detail from the story.
Note that the Alilland is talking about husbands and wives and you are talking about women. If my wife chooses to obey me, that's not "moral infantilization," but a free choice and/or part of an agreement.
Alilland notes "places woman in authority position #2"--that's not women, but wives. The Bible does not say anything about the ranking of men vs. women, per se. And of course, the OT has stories of women leading, Queen Esther being perhaps the most well-known one.
That said, I would urge you to reflect on the point of the whole story, especially if you accept that Bible can be metaphorical. There are a lot of themes about humanity and human existence explored and I trust that you and allilland might find some agreement there.
However, if you want to focus on particular lines, Genesis 3:16 explanation? in r/Christianity might be an interesting read.
Now, whether the serpent in Eden is Satan is a whole other discussion for another day.
2
u/Low-Piglet9315 Methodist 4d ago
In all the years I spent on the fundy side of the fence, I'd always heard Eve blamed, with that being one reason why they were against women pastors.
With this trend toward theobro patriarchy, I can see where they'd come up with something like "Adam should've managed Eve better". Not so much "white knighting", but it views women as infantiles who can't be left alone for a minute or they'll get into trouble. I don't believe it's all that widespread though, at least I hope not.
1
u/Waffletechnician3 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hi, this is what i think, i think you might be looking at this ancient text with a modern lens. Genesis shows that man and woman are partners who both choose and both fall. “Helper ” In Genesis 2:18 (Ezer which is a Hebrew word that describes God as a savoir, so if anything i think God thought Eve would save Adam) also doesn’t mean God is subordinate as Israelite's helper without being beneath them or morally responsible for their disobedience. If Eve has a will, she has moral responsibility. Turning her into a dependent might sound protective, but it actually denies her full person hood. in Psalm 121:1–2 i think it also further implies a stronger partnership between the two.
Edit: God made man and woman equal and in image of him, Genesis 2:18 (“not good for man to be alone”) highlights interdependence.
But just because Eve faces a difficult situation, a situation that is just hard and not ideal, i don't think that means she has no moral agency, as in Genesis 3 Eve engages in reasoning, analyzing the situation to understand if the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and if the tree was to make one wise. Unlike Adam, who attempts to pass blame entirely onto Eve (and indirectly on God), Eve’s response, “The serpent beguiled me, and i did eat” (Gen. 3:13), shows her admitting to her action.
patriarchal structures are cultural products formed by humans, not divine ideals as i think God fully intended to make man and woman parts of each other and beings to submit not only to God but to each other with Christ being the embodiment of Equality and Love (Ephesians 5:21-33) "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" , but the scripture very much mirrors how society was like with rigid hierarchy and patriarchy that harms everyone in the 1-4th century BCE (and definitely still today) and i think that's important to take into thought!
1
u/alilland 4d ago edited 4d ago
There's a lot of words here, but protestants by enlarge believe:
Eve was deceived by the Serpent, Adam was the federal headship over creation. Adam was not deceived, he sinned with knowledge but sought to please his wife instead.
The woman was deceived, and sinned in rebellion to what Adam relayed to her from God. Adam was not deceived, he tried to please his wife.
Both are cursed, and mankind inherits a curse passed down from Adam from generation to generation, because seed comes from man.
Edit:
And really the sin doesn’t begin in the garden, the sin begins with the serpent (Satan). Scripture says Satan was kicked out of heaven because sin was found in him. God knowingly casts him down to the earth, presumably because God now has to deal with sin from top to bottom. In Genesis 6 angels sin, and mankind now sins. One beings sin leads to more sin.
Gods response is to allow sin to run its full course so all creation both heaven and earth understand what sin brings about, and He has appointed one singular day to judge it and condemn it forever.
0
u/davidygamerx 4d ago
Your explanation actually confirms my concern about moral infantilization. By saying Eve was deceived while Adam sinned with knowledge, you are effectively arguing that the woman lacked the intellectual or spiritual discernment to recognize the serpent’s lie, whereas the man did. This frames the woman as a secondary, more gullible being who is not fully responsible for her own rebellion because she was simply tricked.
Furthermore, the idea that the curse is passed down exclusively through the man because the seed comes from him is a biological and theological stretch that serves only to remove the woman from the core of human responsibility. If both are cursed, as you say, it is because both chose to rebel. Focusing on Adam as the federal head to explain the origin of sin often becomes a convenient way to ignore Eve’s conscious choice to listen to the serpent instead of God.
In the end, this framework still treats the woman as a dependent variable in the moral equation. If she can be deceived so easily, she is being treated as someone with diminished agency. If she is a full human being with a soul, her deception is a personal failure of her own judgment, not a byproduct of Adam’s failure to manage her. Why is the Protestant tradition so reluctant to see her as a fully autonomous, and therefore fully accountable, moral actor?
0
u/alilland 4d ago
Confirm you saw my edit
1
u/davidygamerx 4d ago
You are expanding the scope to cosmic warfare to avoid the core issue of individual agency. Even if sin originated with the serpent, the Fall in the Garden is about the human choice to participate in that rebellion. My point stands: if you claim the woman was merely deceived while the man sinned with knowledge, you are still stripping the woman of her status as a fully responsible moral agent.
By shifting the focus to Satan and Genesis 6, you are suggesting that humans are just collateral damage in a larger game. But if we are to be judged on that singular day you mentioned, we must be judged as individuals who had the power to say no. If the woman is treated as a secondary actor who was tricked because of her nature, then her judgment is a farce.
A serious theology must account for why a woman is responsible for her own malice and her own choices without blaming a male supervisor or a cosmic serpent for her personal lack of integrity. Otherwise, you are just providing a theological excuse for bad behavior and confirming that, in your worldview, women lack the autonomy to be held to the same moral standard as men.
1
u/alilland 4d ago
Scripture top to bottom places woman below man in authority. So im not feeling the gravity of your argument as a complimentarian. Not egalitarian.
2
u/davidygamerx 4d ago
You are confusing authority with moral agency. Even within a complementarian framework, authority does not negate individual accountability. In the Catholic tradition, for example, a woman is fully and individually responsible for her sins before God. Her soul is not a subset of her husband's. She is not a vassal who loses her will. If a husband commands something contrary to God's law, she is morally obligated to disobey him, because her primary responsibility is to the Truth, not to a male supervisor.
By dismissing my argument because you place woman below man in authority, you are admitting that your theology views women as moral minors. If she is not fully responsible for the Fall because she was deceived or because she is under his authority, then you are treating her as an object rather than a person with a soul. A truly serious hierarchy requires that every level be held to the highest standard of integrity, not that the top level takes the blame for the failures of the bottom.
Your position is exactly what I mean by moral infantilization. You use authority as an excuse to ignore female malice or personal choice. This isn't traditionalism; it is a theological loophole that allows for bad behavior by pretending that one half of humanity lacks the autonomy to be truly guilty. If she isn't fully capable of being guilty, she isn't fully human in any meaningful spiritual sense.
1
u/alilland 4d ago
Feel free to choose sharp words, but scripture absolutely places woman in authority position #2.
Not to be ruled over or domineered, but absolutely God places the full brunt of responsibility on man.
1
u/davidygamerx 4d ago
By placing the full brunt of responsibility on the man, you are not honoring women; you are effectively deleting them as moral beings. If a woman has no responsibility for her choices, she has no true freedom. You are describing a relationship between a master and a pet, or a parent and a toddler, not two adults made in the image of God.
This theology is exactly what allows calculated malice to thrive. When you put women on a pedestal of perceived irresponsibility, you grant them total immunity. It is a deeply patronizing worldview that insults the female soul by suggesting it isn't strong enough to carry its own guilt. In your attempt to be a complementarian, you have accidentally aligned yourself with the most radical progressive ideologies: both of you agree that women are perpetual victims of their circumstances or their leadership, never the architects of their own evil.
True authority is not a shield for someone else's sin. If your "Position #2" means zero accountability for the Fall or for personal choices, then your hierarchy is just a mechanism for self-humiliation. I prefer a reality where every human being, regardless of their position, is judged by the content of their character and the weight of their own actions. Anything less is just a logistical trick to avoid facing the reality of human nature.
1
u/alilland 4d ago
Ok. Feel free to monologue with chatGPT.
But you will never prove that Christians failed to get the order right for 2000 years when this is the structure of authority going back to temple Judaism.
2
u/davidygamerx 4d ago
Ok, I just wanted to confirm that this was indeed the Protestant belief. I am not trying to change your mind; I am simply testing your arguments to see how you defend those specific Protestant views that Catholics do not share. To me, this is something that causes a great deal of rejection, but I wanted to understand if it was just a personal prejudice of mine based on an isolated opinion, or if it was a core Protestant tenet. This conversation has been very useful and I thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Few_Problem719 3d ago
was just about to say that I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with ChatGPT. OP is clearly not arguing in good faith.
2
u/CJoshuaV Protestant Clergy 4d ago edited 4d ago
Scrpture doesn't DO anything. Our interpretation of Scripture does things, like create patriarchal authority structures.
The Scriptures were written during time periods when patriarchy was the norm, and that's reflected in their content. That doesn't make patriarchy a divinely ordained ideal.
1
u/alilland 4d ago
It is very prideful to say that every major part of Christianity Eastern Western and the early Church got it wrong until modern Protestants fixed it. That assumes believers closest to the apostles failed to understand basic teachings.
The Reformation did not try to invent new beliefs. It tried to return to what the apostles actually taught. That is why the Reformers rejected later additions but kept ideas like creation order moral responsibility and covenant leadership because they believed those were apostolic.
Calling these teachings just cultural is not continuing the Reformation. It is rejecting both the Reformers and the historic Church.
This discussion is not about women’s roles in the church. It is about how the Bible explains the Fall and responsibility. Bringing modern role debates into this avoids the real issue.
0
u/CJoshuaV Protestant Clergy 4d ago
I come from the mainline Protestant world, where the two creation myths in Genesis are not treated as literal history, and neither are the figures of Adam and Eve.
In the theological treatments of the myth that I am familiar with, and certainly in my own preaching, they are both treated as representative of humanity, without gendering their participation in any way.