"It was the whole Trinity, which at the beginning of creation said, "Let us make man". It was the whole Trinity again, which at the beginning of the Gospel seemed to say, "Let us save man"." – J. C. Ryle link
Emmanuel Enid
A debate on the role of women in the church disguised by a debate on the Trinity.
A long time ago, the Deebs predicted there would come a day that the gospel™ boys would begin to go after one another in order to prove who is the most theologically astute. I used to think that complementarianism was a secondary issue, something Christians could amicably disagree about. It isn't. It has become the lynch pin of the entire Neo Calvinist movement. If this were not so, I do not believe that the current battle about the ESS doctrine would be so heated, especially by those heavily invested in The Gospel Coalition, T4G, Acts 29, and the Council of Biblical Men and Women.
In 2008, CRI presented Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father. The article recognizes that the issue of the eternal submission of the Son was, once again, being debated due to the complementarian/egalitarian debate.
Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father? The biblical doctrine of the Trinity is God’s self-revelation about His nature. Both the Old and New Testaments reveal God as a unity of three persons; because of this unity, we can enjoy the benefits of a relationship with Him. The Trinity makes possible the incarnation of God as man, and it is only through the incarnation that we can be saved from our sins, since God alone can be our savior. B
Believers, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, accept these truths by faith. Understanding precisely how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to one another remains a topic of debate, however, and this debate recently has been reinvigorated due to its implications for the egalitarian-complementarian debate about how male and female Christians should relate to one another in marriage and the church.
Some definitions
Eternal generation of the Son
This relationship between the members of the Godhead is a mystery. Better yet, there is NO human resemblance to what is going on in this unique relationship.
From Theopedia:
The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son." [1]
Brief explanation
The name "Creator" or "Savior" refer to acts of God's will, but in contrast his name as Father to the Son is a revelation of the identity of God Himself. The Father brings forth the Son by the act of being God, not by an act of will, so that the Son fully shares in the Father's deity and glory as God. There has never been, nor is it possible for there to be, any God and Father without the Son.
God is an absolutely simple being. There are not three gods. There are not three Lords. There are not three parts of God. Rather, there are three who are Lord, three who are God, three who are One. The Father is not changed by being Father to the Son; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God eternally. The Son is not divided from the Father by being the Son; the Son is as near to the Father as the Father is to himself. There is distinction among the divine Persons, but there is no separation.
By simply being God, the Son expresses the Father's person and being. Whoever sees the Son, sees the Father; that is, the Father is revealed to whomever the Father chooses to reveal the Son. Only God can reveal God. "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (John 1:18; ESV). "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17:21).
"Eternally begotten" compared to "born of"
This doctrine suggests that Jesus, the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin, and declared to be the Son of God when raised up by the Spirit of God, manifests in human and therefore derivative terms an eternal and unchanging mystery concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son.
What is meant by the Ontological Trinity?
The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) defines it like this.
The Trinity is the Christian teaching that God consists of three simultaneous, eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three persons are equal in their attributes and nature but differ in how they relate to the world and to each other. When we say they are equal in nature and attributes, we are speaking of what is called the Ontological Trinity (ontology–study of being and essence). Each of the three persons in the Godhead are divine–have equal attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, etc.).
What is meant by Economic Trinity?
Again from CARM we learn:
the Economic Trinity deals with how the three persons in the Godhead relate to each other and the world. Each has different roles within the Godhead, and each has different roles in relationship to the world (some roles overlap).
Here are some examples from CARM.
We can see that the Father sent the Son (John 6:44; 8:18). The Son came down from heaven not to do his own will (John 6:38). The Father gave the Son (John 3:16), who is the only begotten (John 3:16), to perform the redemptive work (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). The Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit.
In other words, the three members of the Godhead have different functions. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Son who died on the Cross. The Son is not the Father. Up to this point, I think most orthodox Christians would be in agreement.
What is the heresy of subordinationism?
Theopedia outlines it this way.
Subordinationism is an heretical view that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. In other words, this view maintains that, within the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior to the Father. To the contrary, orthodox doctrine maintains that although there is no autonomous Person of the Trinity, none who is God apart from any other Person, yet each Person is autotheos
Merriam Webster defines autotheos as
the doctrine of the self-existence of God; especially : the doctrine that Christ is the self-existent God himself
Do the members of the Trinity have a difference of will?
CARM discusses the issue of the will(s) of the three members of the Godhead.
1. There is only one will with God. If the Father sent the Son and the Son did not come to do his own will, then is the Son subordinate in that role to the Father? If so, isn't this a resurrection of the heresy of subordinationism?
This objection fails to recognize the difference between the heresy of subordinationism which teaches a difference in nature among the persons of the Trinity and subordination which teaches a subordination or roles within the Trinity.
2.Doesn't the difference of role mean that the Father commands and the Son obeys? But if this is so, how can the Trinity be of one will?
By definition, each person of the Trinity must have his own will; otherwise, they are not persons. The question would then be how does each will relate to the other within the Trinity? The Scriptures don't tell us that the Son obeyed the Father. We are told that Jesus came down from heaven not to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him (John 6:38). It would seem that we could conclude that the Father and the Son either did not have the same will, and/or that the Son voluntarily subjected himself to accomplish the will of the Father. Either way, the members of the Trinity work in perfect harmony in spite of there being three persons.
3. If the Trinity is of one will, how can there be a distinction of wills between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The question may not be valid. God is a Trinity of three persons and by necessity, each person must have his own will. The Bible does not explain how this inter-Trinitarian relationship of three persons works in order to accomplish the will of the single God. But we see no logical necessity that says the distinction of wills means that the Trinity cannot act with one will.
The continuing debate
It is important to understand that the parties on both sides of the current debate are complementarians. However, the folks over at The Mortification of Spin(MOS) believe that Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, Denny Burk and Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are wrong to use the interrelationship of the Trinity as a proof text from the eternal submission of women.
I will also give the MOS editors props for calling out some of the more ridiculous aspects of the complementarianism as proposed by groups like CBMW. They had a hearty laugh over the now missing Soap Bubble Submission CBMW post.
Here are some of the current posts on the ESS debate along with a short statement from the posts.
God the Son–at once eternally God with His Father, and eternally Son of the Father by Bruce Ware
Ware is one of the *inventors* of the current day ESS doctrine as it relates to complementarianism. He is a professor at SBTS and his daughter is married to Owen Strachan of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This was posted at Reformation 21.
As Son, the Son is always the Son of the Father and is so eternally. As Son of the Father, he is under the authority of his Father and seeks in all he does to act as the Agent of the Father's will, working and doing all that the Father has purposed and designed for his Son to accomplish. The eternal Son, God the Son, is both fully God and fully equal to the Father, while he is fully Son and eternally in a relationship of Agent of the Father, carrying out the work and implementing the will of the Father in full submission and obedience to all that the Father has planned. God and Son, i.e., fully God (in nature) and fully Son (in person)–this is who this Second Person of the Trinity is as Hebrews, John, and the New Testament declare.
Fourth, none of this glorious Trinitarian theology is being devised for the purpose of supporting a social agenda of human relations of equality and complementarity. I do believe there is intended correspondence,
A Surrejoinder to Bruce Ware by Carl Trueman.
Trueman is one of the editors of MOS and a professor at Westminster Seminary.
Nicene Trinitarianism involves a host of commitments – to divine simplicity as classically articulated by Gregory Nazianzus, to the unity of the divine will, to inseparable operations and, of course, to eternal generation. Repudiation or revision of any one or more of these involves a revision of the whole and thus ceases to be Nicene Trinitarianism.
And while I am happy to hear that none of this is driven by identity politics, it does raise one more question. Even if we were to grant that Nicene orthodoxy is wrong and Bruce Ware is right — what does any of this have to do with male-female gender relations? The answer, I believe, is nothing at all.
Whose Position on the Trinity is Really New? by Wayne Grudem posted at The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Grudem is a seminary professor, best known for his Systematic Theology and his 83 rules for women.
(4) Failure to adequately account for the clear pattern of biblical teaching on inter-personal relationships within the Trinity: Goligher and Trueman simply fail to account for the repeated testimony of Scripture, and Scripture must be our final guide in this matter. As I have written elsewhere, there is an abundance of Scriptural teaching on the eternal authority of the Father and submission of the Son in terms of relationship (not essence). The names “Father” and “Son” themselves would certainly have implied such a relationship in the ancient world in which Scripture was written, for fathers of families still had familial leadership even when relating to adult sons (see Gen. 49:33; 50:16-17; Luke 15:18).
A rejoinder to Wayne Grudem by Carl Trueman
To respond: I accuse no-one of rejecting the Nicene Creed of 325, as he states (at least in the version of the post available at 13:52 on Friday). Nicene orthodoxy is actually defined at Constantinople in 381. I simply state that those who get rid of eternal generation and speak of eternal submission are outside of the bounds set by 381 — which is the ecumenical standard of the church catholic, albeit in the West subject to the revision at Toledo.
A Guest Post at MOS by *John Calvin*
He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. Let us take notice of those gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
Why did the Son become incarnate? Because he submitted? by Dr Mark Jones at MOS.
Jones is a pastor at Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church in Canada, a research associate at University of the Free State in South Africa, and a lecturer in systematic theology at John Wycliffe Theological College in cooperation with North-West University in South Africa. link
He deeply disagrees with Bruce Ware.
The offices of the Mediator, namely, priest, prophet, and king, necessitated that the Son of God take on the work of mediation. Regarding the office of priest, it is the birth-right of the eldest Son in the family to be the priest. Therefore, to prove he was a Priest (Heb. 5), the author cites Psalm 2: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” As an intercessory priest the Son is uniquely able to approach the Father, which is a function grounded both in ontology (i.e. their natural subsistence) and economy (Christ’s work of mediation).
…In the future, I want to take up the issue of using the language of “authority” and “submission” to describe ad intra Trinitarian relations. It seems to me to be highly problematic, as many have pointed out, to make “submission” the constitutive personal property in God. (I also want to challenge Bruce Ware’s use of the word “eternal” in his Reformation21 piece, which to me is an example of failing to understand how the term has been used historically. And, as I noted above, his Christology seems to have suffered as a result of his Trinitarian views).
There are better ways of understanding why, for example, the Son became Mediator. Those ways do not require us to use the language of submission when it comes to the eternal relations between the Father and the Son.
A brief response to Trueman and Goligher by Denny Burk
Burk:
Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of SBTS.
He is a Neo-Calvinist. However, I want to commend him. Unlike his fellow Calvinists, he takes comments on his blog. When writing about issues like the Trinity, it would have been helpful if those participating in the debate had allowed for questions. This is a complex issue. Denny has even allowed me to comment on his blog! That takes guts.
Burk, of course, aligns himself with the ESS doctrine.
4. Truman and Goligher write as if any analogy of gender roles to intra-Trinitarian roles is inappropriate and unbiblical. Goligher writes, “To use the intra-Trinitarian relations as a social model is neither biblical nor orthodox.” Likewise Trueman, “Analogies of intratrinitarian relations to human notions of submission [are] inappropriate.” The problem with these two statements is that they fail to recognize that Scripture itself makes the analogy! The Apostle Paul writes, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). The point is clear. The headship of God is in some sense analogous to that of man. The nature and extent of the analogy is certainly up for discussion and debate. But to pretend that some form of analogy is unbiblical is untenable—unless of course we dismiss the apostle Paul, but I don’t think either side of this debate wants to do that.
5. I agree with Grudem that Trueman and Goligher have failed “to adequately account for the clear pattern of biblical teaching on inter-personal relationships within the Trinity.” I have in mind 1 Corinthians 15:28 in particular:
“And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.”
Are you confused yet? I certainly was. However, the following article helped me to get a better grip on the issues.
Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father?
Both side of the debate are presented by CRI in one post. I found it quite helpful.
In the discussion that follows, Kevin Giles, Vicar of St. Michael’s Church, North Carlton, Australia, and Robert Letham, professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology, Bryntirion, Wales, debate whether Jesus Christ is eternally submissive to the Father. They further discuss the applications of their respective positions to the egalitarian-complementarian debate.
1. Does the Son Submit to the Father in the Indivisible Unity of the Trinity? by Robert Letham
He leans towards the submission view.
Here are a few points.
Since Reformed theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) propounded the idea of the covenant of redemption, much Reformed theology has argued that Christ’s incarnate obedience reflects eternal relations. This idea holds that salvation rests on an intra-Trinitarian covenant, the Father stipulating that the Son should take human nature, make atonement for sin, and promising rewards for the faithful discharge of these duties, and the Son accepting the covenantal terms. Of this covenant, both Owen and Francis Turretin (1623–1687), for example, were notable exponents.
With others, I have some reservations concerning this proposed covenant of redemption. It has not received confessional status; in Eastern terms, it is a theologoumenon—a theological opinion. It pictures the Trinity as a divine committee meeting that borders on tritheism: the Father leading, the Son simply responding to the Father, and the Holy Spirit absent.
…Instead of Giles’s paradigm, I suggest the following. The Son is eternally God—yesterday, today and forever—and remains so. In the incarnation, He chose to lower Himself, adding human nature, in which He was obedient to the Father while simultaneously ruling the universe. From his resurrection, He was exalted to the right hand of the Father. As Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln (1807-1885), put it, “man with God is on the throne,”19 while the distinction of deity and humanity is still preserved, and will be so forever.
This is the way the Son exercises His Lordship—not with the oppressive power of fallen man, but as a servant; He did not come to be served, but to serve (see Matt. 20:20–28). He acts freely, not under compulsion. This tells us something vital about the Son and about God Himself.
As the Son became incarnate and the Spirit came at Pentecost, the Father sending, so the indivisible omnipotence of God comes to expression in distinct ways. No better summary can be found than that of Giles: “It is godlike to gladly subordinate oneself for the good of another.”20
2. The Son of God Is Not Eternally Inferior, Subordinate, or Submissive by Kevin Giles.
His view on Wayne Grudem's perspective is helpful.
On this basis, orthodoxy consistently has taught the temporal and voluntary subordination of the Son in the incarnation and completely has rejected the eternal subordination of the Son in nature and/or authority—the heresy of “subordinationism.”
…This new teaching on the Trinity came to full fruition in 1994 with the publication of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.4 The impact of this book on evangelicals cannot be overestimated. It is one of the most widely used theology texts in evangelical seminaries. He is emphatic that the eternal subordination of the Son in authority stands at the heart of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. For Grudem, the Father has “the role of commanding, directing, and sending,” and the Son has the role of “obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us.”5 For him differing authority is what distinguishes the Father from the Son. He writes, “Authority and submission between the Father and the Son…and the Holy Spirit, is the fundamental difference between the persons of the Trinity.”6 “If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all.”7
…How what Letham teaches in these few pages significantly differs from what Grudem and other conservative evangelicals are teaching completely escapes me. Letham avoids the confusing and confused use of the words “function” and “role” but he still eternally suborders the Son to the Father in authority. What he first repeatedly denies in his coverage of the Bible and the historical sources, namely the eternal subordering of the Son, he then unambiguously affirms in the final section of his book. The Son is eternally set under the Father’s authority as women are permanently set under the authority of men in the church and the home. Women’s subordination, he would have us believe, is grounded “ontologically” in a hierarchically ordered Trinity where the Father eternally rules and the Son eternally obeys.
On the Permanent Subordination of Women
This observation leads me lastly to point out that what is common to all those who advocate the eternal subordination or submission of the Son is a commitment to the permanent subordination of women. The doctrine of an eternally subordered Son is introduced to give the weightiest foundation possible for the permanent subordering of women.
As no one in the contemporary scene other than conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians who are committed to the permanent subordination of women teach this novel doctrine, we must ask, is the tail wagging the dog? Scripture teaches the unqualified Lordship of Christ and the coequality of the Trinity (see Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 13:13), but has the “women question” led theologically and politically conservative Protestants to deny the unqualified Lordship of Christ and thus undermine the doctrine of coequality in the Trinity?
I highly recommend you take the time to read this post for a great understanding of the debate.
Where do I stand?
I go back to the will of the members of the Trinity. As humans, our wills are regularly in conflict with one another. We are sinners. However, the wills of the Three in the Godhead are not in conflict. Let's look at the attributes of God. God is holy and is without sin. He is omnipotent, all wise, infinitely merciful, just, gracious and loving. He is good and is the embodiment of truth. He is glorious. All three members of the Godhead fully share in these attributes.
This whole *Jesus is eternally submissive thing* makes no sense to me outside of Jesus' time on earth when He temporarily gave up His right to the privileges of being God. Do we truly view him as sitting around in heaven while waiting for the Father to say "Time to get going?" They perfectly know one another, agree with one another and want to work in harmony with one another. They will not make any mistakes and will never work against one another.
Within the church, we know that we are sinners and those who lead the church are sinners. We do not perfectly understand each other and often times work against one another. Christians, who are supposed to be known for their love, are often known for their condemnation, self righteousness, and their ability to overlook serious sin in themselves and their best buddies. Not so in the Godhead.
I think it is unhelpful and illogical to attempt to apply the relationship between the members of the Godhead to the relationship between men and women. We are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Once again, I believe that the issue of complementarianism is the driving force behind the current interest in this debate and objections to the contrary ring hollow. I suspect this obsession is leading to questionable theology.
@ R2:
“This is what makes his outreach and defense of Mahaney & SGM so pathetic. The income stream in miniscule in comparison to what it could be if he was more well regarded.”
++++++++++++
why is it not well-regarded? Sounds like in times past it was. What changed?
you mention outreach and defense of mahaney and sgm — is the Louisville area aware of those shenanigans enough for that to be a reason for its bad reputation? i’m sure there’s a complex variety of things.
siteseer wrote:
Siteseer, you described it to a tea. They are accusers of the brethren. I wouldn’t be surprised if quite a few people, after listening to Washer, gave up on God completely. If I were to believe what this man says, I would have no desire to go on living. Even the Babylon Bee, where many Reformed folks post, has a few satirical posts about him. And he isn’t just popular among Calvinists. A friend of mine recently referred to Washer and he is a staunch Arminian. I wish Washer would retire to a place far away – like in the Outback or the Amazon.
okrapod wrote:
Egg plant is in the Night Shade botanical family (potatoes (but not sweet), tomatoes, peppers, peanuts). I can only eat them if they’re boiled, not baked.
@ R2:
“The thing about Johnny Mac is that he’s a hardass who is hard to like. But he has principles he stands on and doesn’t completely sell out for money and fame. He might be cruel but he’s got integrity.”
++++++++++++++
perhaps in the way an industrial strength zipper has integrity.
Patriciamc wrote:
Black-eyed peas, hush puppies
roebuck wrote:
Sounds like a good menu.
And corn bread.
And something for dessert. To be determined.
Darlene wrote:
What’s a hush puppy? How many do you eat at one sitting? How are the black-eyed peas cooked?
Velour wrote:
Unless you put too much sugar in it, probably not!
Velour wrote:
Basically fried cornbread. Except my dad puts lots of onion in it. Fantastic.
Velour wrote:
Ooh, also fried pickles.
On the first page of this discussion, someone was saying that the Trinity is easy peasy to understand (this is how I took that person’s comments).
I think this brief page shows that the Trinity is not so easy to understand (unless you are convinced YOU understand the Trinity perfectly and everyone else has it wrong):
One More Rumbling On [critiquing Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Trinity]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/13/one-more-rumbling-on/
Muff Potter wrote:
Usually cat fish. Fried cat fish is good stuff (provided it doesn’t taste “fishy”)
elastigirl wrote:
I used to think that John MacArthur had integrity, until I had a tour-of-duty of one of church plant that was pastored by one of his The Master’s Seminary graduates.
I have never seen more abuse than in that system. Authoritarianism. Excommunications and shunnings for the slightest dissent.
Then there’s the Dark Ages’ “Nouthetic Counseling” that John MacArthur and his schools advocate (started by Jay Adams), that the Bible is sufficient counsel for every thing. So you have untrained, uneducated men, unlicensed pastors/elders tossing Scripture verses at church members and their families for incredibly serious problems that should involve bona fide medical care from a licensed physician or other provider. (As someone pointed out on Spiritual Sounding Board blog that the very men who espouse this usually are wearing prescription glasses for their vision problems, which they didn’t *cure* with Scripture verses!)
My former pastors/elders blew it on the big stuff and didn’t get people to medical care for serious problems like: alcoholism, memory problems due to a brain disorder, and mental illness. So much damage was done to church members, their families, and friends.
Then there’s the John MacArthur schools – The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary.
It’s a cult-like environment with tremendous peer pressure exerted on students and keeping them busy, busy, busy with their peers, dressing downs, etc. The people who have escaped this system of schools describe how careful you have to be to get out. (I think the schools are just a money-making enterprise with the seminarians as franchisees learning how to set up shop based on the JMac brand.)
Relatives of people going to John MacArthur’s churches also describe the cult-like behavior of relatives who cut them off (and the relatives are Christians) and won’t have anything to do with them.
For the few things that John MacArthur has gotten right, like confronting Mark Driscoll’s behavior when other pastors like John Piper, etc. wouldn’t, he is still a very authoritarian, unloving man who believes in cutting people off and excommunicating them, not talking to relatives (including those who are gay), etc.
I live in the real world. I work a real job. We’re required to get a long with diverse people and work as teams. I have a gay boss, who is a far nicer human being than any of the NeoCalvinist pastors/elders that I had.
And then there’s John MacArthur’s views on women in the church and his proof-texting to exclude them from pastoring, teaching, serving. The whole thing is so terrible and so untrue. And it’s not like Jesus.
I learned a lot from my tour-of-duty.
Lea wrote:
I’m coming to see YOUR family. What state will I be traveling to?
Lea wrote:
Whaaaatttt? Seriously? What do you do with them? And why would you fry a pickle?
Did Southerners invent the “fried Twinkie”?
Daisy wrote:
Yes, my friends brought a box of frozen cat fish back from LA. to CA. They had a fish fry here in Silicon Valley. Those were mighty good throw downs!
R2 wrote:
That seems pretty extravagant.
Daisy wrote:
I commend Scot McKnight for taking on this issue. So far, he’s had three posts on it. I’m trying to get up my courage and post that ESS belief is a symptom of a far larger problem and note Ware’s believe on women and the image of God, Grudem’s list of no-no’s for women, and Piper and females giving directions.
Christiane wrote:
Here’s another thing about the Washer preachers and their ilk. If everyone was as evil and wicked and abominable as they say, there would be no hospitals. We, as a society, wouldn’t care for the sick, we’d let them suffer and die. There would be no police force. People could riot, rape, kill, commit theft, etc. and be commended for it. There would be no food banks, no shelters for the homeless, no organizations that help the poor and less fortunate of our society. If everyone was as wicked as they say, all that would exist is mayhem, chaos, & crime. We wouldn’t feel safe to ever leave our homes.
@ Patriciamc:
Oh, some of these theologians on these posts are a bit hard to follow since I’ve not been to seminary. And bless Alasair Roberts’ heart – he’s too d**m wordy – and a comp to boot. I just skip over his stuff.
FW Rez wrote:
I just looked…..it is pretty weak academically. It is a lot of coursework to “put up with” with not much pay-off…
Velour wrote:
I don’t think there is a commonality that could be called restaurants in the south. I live in a city and that is different from a small town in a rural county. We have all kinds of restaurants including lots of ‘Greek places’ and some place where you can munch on cucumbers and raw mushrooms (been there once) to really a lot of deli style places, and places that do food from more asian countries than I knew there were. I think that in an ordinary cafeteria you would surely find corn bread, in all probability fried okra, but not fried green tomatoes, at least I have never run into the latter except in fiction or a movie and once when I tried it in my own kitchen at the end of a tomato season-for an experiment. An unsuccessful experiment.
When we used to go to the cafeteria (a large business with more than one location) I always ate chicken livers with onions, fried okra, mexican corn bread and iced tea. Then it all got more expensive and I left off the tea. Then I left off the okra. Then I quit altogether. There are better places to go at the current rates. I went out to lunch with my son yesterday and we went to a deli place for a fried chicken with cheese and ham sandwich, fries and tea, but especially because we like the fried mushrooms with horseradish sauce. In other words–like anywhere else.
The only thing that I believe is served everywhere except at holy communion is iced tea. You can even get iced tea instead of hot tea at the asian restaurants. I kid you not. It is sacred or something.
Here’s another thing about the Washer preachers and their ilk. If everyone was as wicked as they say, there would be no hospitals. We, as a society, wouldn’t care for the sick, we’d let them suffer and die. There would be no police force. People could riot, kill, steal, commit all kinds of atrocities, and be commended for it. There would be no food banks, no shelters for the homeless, no organizations that help the poor and less fortunate of our society. If everyone was as wicked as they say, all that would exist is mayhem, chaos, & crime. We wouldn’t feel safe to ever leave our homes.
R2 wrote:
You have a different definition of integrity than what I use. Mine is more like below. A cruel person would be one lacking integrity in my world.
1. The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. “he is known to be a man of integrity”
synonyms:honesty, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
“I never doubted his integrity”
@ okrapod:
Oops, actually that was Friday. Senior moment there (loss of focus) for Saturday and Sunday. When I get to where I can’t count to ten I will worry about it.
okrapod wrote:
There is a type of restaurant called a “Meat and Three” where all of these wonderful foods can be found. You have a choice of a meat, and three vegetables (i.e. anything that is not meat; this includes mac n’ cheese and cobbler). Many barbeque restaurants offer a limited sort of Meat and Three. These restaurants are typically in rural areas or large towns, and offer large portion sizes along with low prices (many are <$10 for a meal)
“But though you spend an eternity of eternities in heaven, you are still not going to comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
A quote from that Washer sermon. Imagine that. We will be ignorant forever and always of the very gospel that is the basis of our salvation. Where do they get these ideas?
Velour wrote:
Arkansas. Home of the hogs and the duggars (lucky us 🙂
Velour wrote:
You dip them in ranch. I’m not a pickle person so I was skeptical (I didn’t grow up eating them), but it’s a really interesting mix of flavor. It’s basically bar/country/truck stop food.
Oh! did anybody mention low country boil?
Velour wrote:
The stuff I’ve mentioned and seen mentioned are things that are cooked at home.
My dad told me that when he and my Mom were stationed up north (a northern state) years ago, she sent him to the store to get okra (to fry up a batch) but he couldn’t find it.
He asked a grocer where they kept their okra, and the guy never heard of okra before.
There are some restaurants that I think are particular to the south or based in the south, such as Cracker Barrel and Golden Corral.
New Orleans has regional traditions such as beignets, red beans and rice, king cakes, bananas foster, pralines (dessert), Po Boys sandwiches, and French onion soup is popular. (A lot of those items are sold in restaurants around New Orleans.)
I don’t care for gumbo, jambalaya, and other sea food stuff (other than maybe fried cat fish).
(Well, about jambalaya. My sister sometimes makes it with sausage or I think with chicken a time or two before, and I like that a bit better than made with seafood.)
okrapod wrote:
And sweet tea is ALWAYS available. I’ve known people who defined the far side of the Mason-Dixon line as the point at which sweet tea is no longer automatically available.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks for explaining the various food dishes in The South and where they can be bought.
Ahhh, yes. The ice tea. This would be in the infamous Sweet Tea. I’d never heard of it until I was an adult. (I’m in CA. We have ice tea, usually, without sugar. You can add a little packet if you want which would be our version of ‘Sweet Tea’, but heresy to Southerners.)
@ Daisy:
Re-reading that list of food:
I’ll say it again: this thread is making me hungry, and I’m dieting. 🙂 I’ve been trying to lose the last 20 or so pounds for months now. I went jogging once today and will probably go on another jog later. Having to read about French onion soup, red beans and rice, pralines makes me want to cry.
Velour wrote:
Despite the talk, there are actually a lot of southerners who drink unsweet tea. Myself included. [But you better not tell me that it doesn’t count the same as water for hydration which people seem to love to do!]
I happened to turn on Dr Oz one day when they were interviewing the duck dynasty people and si told him he drank unsweet, and dr oz was very confused. It was funny.
@ Lea:
The pickles sound interesting. I’ve been making ranch dressing (vegan style) that is heart-healthy from scratch. And it is really good as a dip.
@ Darlene:
““But though you spend an eternity of eternities in heaven, you are still not going to comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
A quote from that Washer sermon.
+++++++++++++
just caught this one on the fly… he knows this based on what? what a trumped up, baseless assertion to make.
I really can’t stand it when people think they have the chops for such enormous mysteries…. think they have it all figured out. so incredibly foolish.
Velour wrote:
I’m putting a blackberry cobbler in the oven this afternoon.
Daisy wrote:
I hear ‘ya. I’ve had to cut back too and eat a mostly vegan diet. I nearly cried when I discovered the Canadian-made Gardein brand of products in the freezer section at Whole Foods. They have made “Chicken-less Chicken Tenders”, that look like fast-food, cut like chicken, etc. but are made out of soy and other products. Ditto a “Fishless Fried Fish”.
Chinese food, etc. I eat the vegan chicken tenders with bbq sauce or homemade vegan ranch dressing that I make.
I’ve made a really wonderful vegan chocolate cake without butter or eggs, and used applesauce. (Ditto for frosting.)
It can be done!
@ Velour:
I like cheese too much to ever be a vegan. Um, also meat I guess.
Velour wrote:
The reason for this is that proper saturation cannot be accomplished unless the sugar is added while the tea is still warm from the brewing process. Sister-in-law makes it so that the tea is more of a coloring agent for the sugar-water mixture rather than providing any flavor.
@ Daisy:
Thanks, Daisy, for describing those delicious Southern foods.
My doctor wanted me to watch my cholesterol so I’ve switched to a mostly vegan diet (not to be politically correct or anything) but just for heart-health. There are so many yummy meat-like products that are vegan, look decent, taste decent that I’ve been very pleased.
I even found meatless spicy “Chorizo” sausage that I make for weekend breakfasts.
I’ve figured out a really nice vegan chocolate cake and frosting. Ditto cupcakes. Tastes fantastic. No eggs or butter. Everybody thinks it tastes fantastic.
My really big project to tackle some time…can I make vegan Napaloean pastries? I think it can be done. (I’ve already done a lemon pie and chocolate pie.)
Lea wrote:
I like them too, but my doctor has a way with words in describing heart health.
K.D. wrote:
A Masters in Music (even Church Music) without theory or music history is like getting a Math degree without studying calculus. Graduate studies should take you deeper into your discipline, not just broader.
FW Rez wrote:
So Southerners are grounded hummingbirds?
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ll be coming in for some. I’ll bring some of that Bourbon icecream that was mentioned yesterday. Would that be ok?
@ okrapod:
Iced tea is, believe it or not, a Thing in the Mid-Atlantic states, too. Even in Chinese restaurants, though you have to request it. But choices are greater, per sweetened or un-.
@ Velour:
Your iced tea is like the iced tea in the Mid-Atlantic states, pretty much.
Up here, McDonald’s serves a version of sweet iced tea which is toned-down, but still way sweeter than I would ever make it.
Velour wrote:
Just FYI – peanuts are not Solanaceae (Nightshade Family), but are legumes (related to beans and peas and such). Of course, many people these days have a very bad allergic reaction to peanuts…
Tobacco is in the Nightshade family as well, as are petunias!
Lea wrote:
Yes, that ‘meat’ thing is definitely a deal breaker, vegan-wise… 😉
Velour wrote:
I think FWRez is saying that his sister-in-law doesn’t know what good tea is!
Come on over, and by all means, bring the ice cream!
roebuck wrote:
Thanks for the botanical correction, Roebuck, about peanuts. My allergy doctor made me avoid them starting in childhood because of allergies.
Sadly, I now have to avoid mangoes now, and juice, which I used to really like. I’ve always been allergic to poison oak, dislike cashews, and found out that they’re all related — including mangoes. Correct me if I’m wrong.
roebuck wrote:
Yes, but I think I would give up meat before I gave up cheese!
roebuck wrote:
I’ll make an exception for brisket.
@ A. Amos Love:
Respectfully Amos, I think you miss the point. The point is that they all emanate from the same source (the centroid of an equilateral triangle) even though the three sides and vertices are not the same (and yet they are). It’s a human derived construct to try and fathom the unfathomable. Nothin’ wrong with that if it helps to satisfy the very human need to resolve paradox.
I feel the same way about Mary as the ‘Mother of God’. Even though I’m not a Catholic, I’m convinced that fundagelicals have not been able to subtract one electron of mystery and magic from her person through all their attempts to achieve absolute linearization of Scripture.
@ numo:
I have noticed that at places where you go get your own drinks they have both kinds now, sweet and unsweet. One of my folks uses half and half-half sweet and half unsweet to get the sweetness level he wants. It works.
We never drank tea when I was growing up, rarely ate rice and mostly lived off pigs and potatoes with corn bread but not biscuits and whatever was ready to pick from the garden or happened to be in a canning jar from the last harvest. I don’t know if that was regional or just how my Mom did. She was from Texas and we never had extra money for anything fancy so there was that. I had never eaten a steak until some guy I was dating in med school bought some at the grocery and brought it over for me to cook–and I did not know how. So I pan fried it like we did pork chops, and then I married him to ensure a steady supple of steak. Well, partly because he was really nice about the how to cook steak episode. But this is one reason why I think that saying thus and such applies to southerners is apt to be inaccurate. We are not a homogeneous lot.
Darlene wrote:
I thought the Bible teaches that some things will be a mystery to believers in the here and now, but we will have things cleared up for us in the afterlife(?)
“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” 1 CORINTHIANS 13:12
Paula
You have made your points. We disagree on a number of items but that is perfectly OK. Here’s the deal. I am up to my eyeballs caring from very sick relatives and I cannot always keep up with the comments like I have in the past. One day, that will change but for now, i am rowing as fast as I can.
Please try to couch your comments in more of a positive light. My guess is that you want to be heard. Right now, you are not being heard because your communication style is getting in the way.
I know you have gone through terrible trials and that Sovereign Grace Ministries screwed up terribly with you and many, many others. However, remember, we are the ones who want to be of support to you. You and I have had some good conversations in the past. I hope that one day we can do so again.
okrapod wrote:
My mom does the same. I cannot drink the sweet tea at McDonalds, because it tastes like sugar water. And I have a massive sweet tooth.
Unsweet for me – unless I’m having an Arnold palmer which is sweetened by the lemonade…
R2 wrote:
Pretty broad definition.
Velour wrote:
They are related, oddly enough – the plants/trees all produce the chemical uroshiol, which is the thing in poison oak/ivy/sumac that makes you itch and raises blisters. The cashew ‘nut’ that people eat is just the seed from inside a much larger fleshy fruit that will have the same effect on your skin, and there are trace amounts of the chemical in the ‘nut’.
Ain’t botany fascinating! I guess I should come out right here and publicly admit that I am, in fact, a botanist… among other things.
Velour wrote:
Velour: Wiki def. of hush puppy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushpuppy
Velour:
Excellent recipe for black-eyed peas.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/patrick-and-gina-neely/black-eyed-peas-with-bacon-and-pork-recipe.html
A. Amos Love wrote:
I thought a 900-year-old diagram might help some people.
@ Lea:
I hear you. I usually get the pink lemonade whenever possible. Or hot tea if it is at some asian place.
Darlene wrote:
Yes, I suppose there are a myriad of views that exist within the Christian faith, which is why it’s important that we cut through all the various ecclesiastical traditions and draw our definitions from scripture itself.
As an example, I draw my meaning regarding fellowship directly from 1 John 1:1-3 where it says:
This is the meaning of the word fellowship I had in mind when I used it:
The arbiter, if you will, of fellowship between us and God and between Christians is the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit facilitates our fellowship with God. Apart from the Spirit there is no fellowship with God, nor will there be an any experience of fellowship with persons devoid of the Spirit.
I know God through fellowship and I identify other believers through the fellowship. If no discernible fellowship occurs, I’ve learned to take close notice of that. Anyone can quote scripture or sound like a Christian by regurgitating stuff they’ve heard or read, but that doesn’t mean what they’re engaged in is fellowship, for example.
Has this answered your question? I felt it deserved a somewhat thorough explanation. It’s also a topic I’ve been focused on for several months now, so thanks for asking.
dee wrote:
Dee – One of the things I’ve found that you’re acknowledging here is when people have been abused in the name of God by those who take pains to represent themselves as loving and kind–and Sovereign Grace specializes in this–it messes with your mind to the extent where it becomes very difficult even years after to discuss certain things evenly and decently with others. Having been a whistle-blowing elder at a neocalvinist church headed by two people who were former local church leaders in SGM and experiencing the effects of finally telling the truth and the pain and aftermath that affects not only you, but everyone who’s close to you, I can relate to what Paula might be going through.
Sometimes the family just grits their teeth when I go on rants about abusive churches or the pastor/CEO model, or take that extra glass of wine that probably should’ve stayed in the bottle, or stare into space seething over something done by an abusive church leader to a friend or family member half a decade ago. Sometimes people on forums wonder what the heck gets into me from time-to-time. I’d sooner be mugged and beaten half to death by a gang of thugs than deal with another NPD or sociopath with a seminary degree or one of their benighted enablers. You just don’t shake this off easily, at least I’m not.
roebuck wrote:
Thanks, Roebuck. Yes, botany is fascinating. I’m very allergic to poison oak (have had it for 6-months at a time) and have always hated cashews (I guess my body was trying to protect me from something it knew was related to poison oak). But mangoes. I’m so sad I have to eliminate them from my diet (fruit, juice, frozen dessert).
Darlene wrote:
Thank you. They look delicious.
@ Darlene:
Good looking recipe for black-eyed peas.
roebuck wrote:
You have had an interesting life I gather. Like you were doing something up in the treetops in central america, I think you said. And you taught (gasp) evolution and something else at the post secondary level. And now you have what sounds like a farm or sort of a farm in a rural area somewhere up in the frozen north. Anything but a cubicle. That is an enviable life. You sound like somebody who has been very fortunate in all that.
You can still read the article, “Soap Bubbles Submission” on Martha peace’s website. http://marthapeacetew.blogspot.com/2016/02/soap-bubbles-submission.html
Darlene wrote:
The Outback near me already has a Washer, but I don’t know if it came from from Amazon.
Lea wrote:
My mother (from Virginia) used to make okra pickles. (She pickled everything, including watermelon rinds).
Velour wrote:
A few years ago here in Nashville, there was a nearby deli run by a couple from Korea. I had to explain to the wife that tea with a packet of sweetener added was not “sweet tea,” but that proper sweet iced tea was tea brewed with sugar added to the hot water so it dissolves thoroughly. These things matter, folks, and are somehow related to the topic of ESS. I’m not sure how, but give us a few minutes and we’ll figure it out.
BTW, I drink a glass of non-sweet tea with one package of Splenda.
okrapod wrote:
Yes, I did some work in the forest canopy down in Panama back in the day. And here I am on my little farm in the frozen north with my goats and chickens and dogs and a changing cast of other characters. A cubicle would kill me in minutes, I think. Yes, I am fortunate in many respects. Dirt poor, but fortunate 😉
@ Paula Rice:
I still think your definition of being able to tell who is xtian and who is not is essentially subjective.
I still feel like you are sitting in judgement over people who post here. If you could just be… oh, I dunno – a little more on the level with everyone else? Friendly? It would go far to helping us all communicate better, I think.
Just my .02-worth…. YMMV.
Velour wrote:
key lime pie
I’ve posted my latest update on the open discussion thread.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-258930
Patriciamc wrote:
We got on the topic of food, because the meanies in leadership at my former NeoCalvinist church had actually had a meeting about me, contacted me, and told me that I had been too *lavish* for bringing 10-pounds of bbq beef brisket to a church potluck (which by the way disappeared in record time).
TWWers said they’d be grateful to have my brisket. Lydia suggested, based on a quote from some other man, that I have ice cream post-bad church experience. And then some kind of bourbon ice cream from The South.
Thus, the ESS topic got derailed into food.
Daisy wrote:
And then there’s jambalaya with shrimp, a cajun dish.
Velour wrote:
Talking about food is always fine! Your church’s response is absolutely mind-blowing. What idiots – and they probably ate some too.
Velour wrote:
OK, this goes at the top of our list of red flags to look for when seeking a new church.
I’m actually quite serious. Church leaders who meet to reject kindness and denigrate generous hospitality are missing out on some central points about Christianity.
FW Rez wrote:
And yet one can add sugar to iced coffee and it will saturate just fine. Go figure.
Velour wrote:
well, talking about sacred cow bourbon balls ice cream did help to cool the conversation off, so sometimes ‘de-railing’ for a little while enables us to get back on track and focused again……
as to the need for ‘cooling off’,
I think some among us desperately need to be heard and understood, even if they sometimes lash out because of the pain they carry for which there are no words …. if we can help bear one another’s burdens by listening, that becomes a Christian work of mercy, yes
Patriciamc wrote:
Indeed, the authoritarian NeoCalvinist church leaders’ pastors/elders expanding control over members’ lives was mind-blowing, choosing peoples’ friends, discussing with members what they fed their children, and on and on. The pastors/elders then upped the ante to excommunications and shunnings of good and godly Christians for any trumped up reason: wanting to leave the church for a saner denomination, quietly questioning them about how they were leading the church, child safety given they’d invited their friend a felon to church and all activities.
Watermelon Pickle Rind – delish!
Friend wrote:
I was well into that nightmarish church before the red flags started appearing. I was even chastized for helping an elderly church member (widower) after he’d fallen in his backyard, couldn’t get up, didn’t have his cell phone with him, and crawled around for 10 hours. I was the first person to call his house when he finally made it inside. When he told me what had happened, I went over there pronto to check on him.
I was told by the NeoCalvinist pastors/elders that I wasn’t permitted to visit him again without going through them and the head of security for the church (a cold-hearted man who told me that the widower was independent and I should have left him alone).
I’d asked the widower, “Do you want me to come over to see you right now?” He responded with: “Yes, please.”
It got so very old. All of it. What ever happened to a civil, “Thank you.” “Thank you for the bbq beef brisket.” “Thank you for helping the widower and checking in on him.”
Lectures? Meetings? Just insanity.
Friend wrote:
I know…how about Antarctica? If Washer retired there, there would be no one subjected to his ramblings, except the scientists who would ignore anything he had to say. 😉
Oops, I meant COMFY COW BOURBON BALLS ICE CREAM …
Darlene wrote:
Well, there are 7 churches on Antarctica–from what I could tell, four Roman Catholic, two Orthodox and one non-denominational (which also serves Buddhist services…)
🙂
I stand somewhat corrected: The Russian Orthodox parish is the only permanent church on Antarctica. Two monks live there.
Here is a link to a video of the Patriarch of Russia’s latest visit. The penguins are so funny.
https://www.rt.com/news/332835-patriarch-kirill-antarctic-penguins/
Patriciamc wrote:
Well, let’s see if I can build upon the significance of ice tea being related to ESS. The sweetened ice tea that is brewed with sugar added while it is hot defies the notion of ESS, because all elements – water, tea & sugar are equally dependent upon each other for the outcome of a most excellent iced tea. The iced tea that is brewed without sugar, that is later added when the tea is cold, never quite mixed in with the tea. Hence, the elements in this tea are not quite united as one. ESS would be likened to the latter, where a separation between the elements (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) remain. Perhaps because the Tea is resistant to being subject to the sugar, insistent that there will always be one element that reigns supreme over the others.
Patriciamc wrote:
Nothing like looking a gift horse in the mouth. This reminds me of my Christian cult experience to some degree. We lived in Christian communes back in the day. Our fellowship house was clean, tidy & furnished. And we ate fairly well, not extravagant but fairly healthy. Well, some other members came for an unannounced visit and declared that we were “into the flesh.” LoL! Velour, that brisket you made was proof positive that you were “into the flesh!”
Darlene wrote:
Now we’re talking. Yellow key lime pie. Made with real key limes with real whipped cream. There is a demonic counterfeit made with lime jello and cool whip. It is green which is how you will feel if you eat it. Yes, key lime pie with a side of b’nana pudd’n.
roebuck wrote:
Judging by your sensible and helpful comments, I am certain you were not the botanist responsible for inaptly naming smilax, the devil’s own weed. At least livestock can eat kudzu…
Not on topic of ESS but related:
To see the convoluted cult like teachings of the New Calvinists pop over to SBCToday as they take on the whole idea of God’s public will vs His secret will.
You will begin to see the roots of insane theology exposed.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh yum. Key Lime Pie. I have never been to The South. I will need a full tour of cuisine.
(Well, except for the time I was going backpacking in Patagonia, Chile (tip of South America) and had a layover in Florida.
Ditto for coming home from Chile.)
Gram3 wrote:
Heresy! Although I’ll admit I make key lime pie with regular limes. (Have you ever juiced key limes? Ugh).
We do make a pink lemonade pie that is pink lemonade, cool whip and eagle brand. It’s fab.
PaJo wrote:
I knew about the Orthodox church but not the others. None of those churches you mention would be good enough for Paul Washer. He would have to have his own church – that of the Solely Elected Church of One. He would be another A.W. Pink.
Darlene wrote:
I also think the pastors/elders were concerned by how popular and well-liked I was with everyone so they had to “take me out” before everyone. (I coordinated the potluck meals, help with set up, clean up, etc.).
So glad I’m out of there. Rules, rules, and more rules. Just insufferable.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience too. I guess it’s common.
PaJo wrote:
Oh my, I’m trying to picture Paul Washer praying with that Orthodox patriarch. It Just.Wouldn’t.Happen. But I’m more convinced than ever that is where Washer should go – Antarctica. Some alone time might do him good. 😉
Lea wrote:
I got one of those OXO hand-held citrus juicers. I’ve used it on key limes and it was fine.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3: Please post this most excellent recipe of key lime pie. I am afraid I may have only ever had the counterfeit kind.
Gram3 wrote:
I really quite lost on this post.
Darlene wrote:
But post it at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Cooking tab, so we
can have it for future reference, please.
Daisy wrote:
God cannot reproduce Himself because He is absolute, but since He is a plurality of Persons and has created us in His image, he has made us to reproduce His image within the families and communities we’ve been mandated to form, the structure of which we see patterned in the Trinity. In doing so we create families and communities that are to be patterned after the structures of community we find in the Godhead. Jesus didn’t just die to save us, he saved us so that we could be joined together with one another.
The Bible says Jesus created in Himself one new humanity by reconciling all of us together in His Body through the cross (Ephesians 2:13-16). As members of this new humanity, our identity in Christ is to have preeminence over our other characterizations. This doesn’t mean we stop being male or female, Irish or Italian, single or married, rich or poor, young or old. What it means is the discrimination and divisions that occur in secular organizations are not supposed to characterize our relationships with one another in Christ’s body. Since Christ accepts each person, and so must we (Romans 15:7).
I’ll tell you what though, one of the reasons people should believe in Jesus is because the faith of Christ has suffered the most abuse for centuries by those within the Church, and yet it survives.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, greenbriars are not the smiliest of creatures 🙂 There are just a couple of species of greenbriar up here in the frozen north, rather inoffensive, and no kudzu. We do have plenty of wretched weeds, but nothing like kudzu.
Darlene wrote:
It really has spiraled off into some odd directions, but take heart! It’s Monday, and we’ll start over in a few hours 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
People can also eat kudzu. We have a biology teacher just down the road from us who supplements his meager earnings with fish from a nearby lake and kudzu which he gathers. Don’t ask.
@ roebuck:
Even our gracious hostess is talking pickle relish.
Bill M wrote:
Indeed, the last few hours of comments before a new post can get very mellow and down to earth. 🙂
Velour wrote:
To me, when a church attempts to tell people what they can and can’t do on thie own time and off church property, then they’ve gone from authoritative to a cult. I’m glad you got out!
We really need a recipe link at the top of the page, and someone mentioned pink lemonade pie? Yum!
@ Darlene:
I love the analogy!
@ roebuck:
Yes. There’s always another topic to discuss.
@ Bill M:
ESS makes me wacky. What can I say?
roebuck wrote:
Thank goodness! It’s like a nice holiday meal and all kinds of talk. Pie and coffee talk.
Patriciamc wrote:
Me too! I describe what went on at that church as Spiritual Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It can knock a person out and kill ’em.
numo wrote:
It’s not real sweet tea unless your teeth hurt when you drink it!
numo wrote:
Too funny.
K.D. wrote:
Served with a shot of insulin and a good dental plan?
FW Rez wrote:
It’s exactly what my son said….and which looks better, a seminary MM or a UT MM…or any major state college MM?
Patriciamc wrote:
Here are some recipes for that: http://www.food.com/search/pink+lemonade+pie?pn=2
Velour wrote:
Both!
Velour wrote:
You might even call it fellowship 🙂
@ roebuck:
Didn’t the disciples always ask, “Is there going to be food?”
roebuck wrote:
Indeed it is.
Whenever we have good fellowship here I take communion, a little red wine and a little piece of matzoh cracker – since I was excommunicated & shunned from the NeoCalvinist church regarding wanting the church’s children protected from the pastors/elders’ friend – a felon (convictions re kids).
Deb wrote:
Does ESS make you want to pickle some things besides watermelon rind?
I do home canning, (did a batch of plum jelly this morning!) but I’ve never done pickled watermelon rind.
Velour wrote:
I indeed have heard about your experience with your former church, and lamented that such unbelievable things go on. I think your communion thing is lovely, and it’s just a pity we can’t all be together somehow to share it.
Darlene wrote:
I loooove key lime pie. It’s kind of a popular thing around south east Texas, since it’s a dessert in Tex Mex restaurants, and Tex Mex is big there, too
roebuck wrote:
Indeed. ‘Tis a pity.
I’m blessed to have this group, which saved my sanity and deprogrammed me from all of that nonsense in NeoCalvinism.
Daisy wrote:
Tex-Mex is HUGE in SE Texas…..want to go to a restaurant everyone agrees on here? Tex-Mex….
Linda wrote:
This?
Does God Have Two Wills? | Part One
http://sbctoday.com/does-god-have-two-wills-part-one/
K.D. wrote:
I’m not sorry, and that sounds nasty! 😉
A Plea to CBMW By Aimee Byrd
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-plea-to-cbmw
It starts out:
@ okrapod:
In Japan, it is normal. Oddly enough, i just finished a book in whivh a Japanese film crew ends up teaching a chef from LA how to make starch from kudzu roots. She ends up making some pretty delicious dishes with it.
@ Velour:
I think what okrapod said, about putting half a cup of their sweet tea to half a cup of unsweetened would work pretty well. Just enough sweetness, mixed with a genuine tea taste.
numo wrote:
I will give it a try some time. Thanks.
@ Daisy:
Secret will???
PaJo wrote:
Shh! The YRR will find out!
PaJo wrote:
Who attends, penguins?
Darlene wrote:
That IS the theoretical ultimate end state of Protestantism — Millions of One True Churches, each with only One member, each denouncing all the others as Heretics and Apostates.
Daisy wrote:
I dunno, but Howard Hughes had several.
Daisy wrote:
The problem with what Owen is saying is that their view of the Trinity affects every aspect of how they function in church and home with every believer.
Daisy wrote:
It turns out there’s only one church on Antarctica and it’s Russian Orthodox. I would fit right in – Paul Washer not so much. But still, Antarctica would be the best place for him. Lots of ALONE time and away from the rest of the world so as not to inflict any more damage upon others with his toxic preaching.
Darlene wrote:
Smilax is a vile twining vine or cane or both that spreads underground and possibly through a weed ether when we are not looking. It has thorns that will pierce kevlar, and it grows up into the hardwoods and destroys them. The leaves apparently have some kind of Roundup-proof coating, too. I see absolutely no redeeming value in smilax, but you could make a mint, Roebuck, if you could make smilax attractive to deer somehow.
Gram3 wrote:
Won’t goats eat just about anything? http://goatsquad.com/faq/
Daisy wrote:
So saith Owen BHLH. My experience says there is *no* room whatsoever within *their* movement for anyone who does not agree with them on every jot and tittle of ESS and Female Subordinationism. That statement is quite simply a whopper. But he unintentionally tells the truth about “our movement” being what is really important about this.
I am thrilled, thrilled, thrilled, that Owen BHLH has transmogrified ESS into “Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission.” Because that thrilling and exciting news makes my heart swell knowing that all is now well. Perhaps Owen has a rap song coming out that will help us remember that mouthful of word salad.
@ Gram3:
“Our movement” really? What is the movement he is even referring to? The ERAS movement . . .
Velour wrote:
Thank you!
Bridget wrote:
I think he means the Female Subordinationist movement. You really must read his whole post. I’ll bet you did not know that marriage enfleshes the nature of the Gospel. There is more like that. It is thrilling…
Gram3 wrote:
Really makes single, divorced and widowed folk feel included, doesn’t it? Me thinks they have made and idol out of marriage. And I seldom use that word *idol.*
Gram3 wrote:
gah 🙁
Bridget wrote:
That is so weird. There is no marriage in the Trinity, and the same with the Gospel. How could they get so off track? What’s the end game?
Gram3 wrote:
“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from … Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” Rev. 22:19
Looks like someone has added a boatload.
That Strachan post makes me want to take a shower. So, if women will be eternally submissive to men, never mind how much that sounds like Mormon eternal marriage, and since there will be no marriage in heaven, is he saying what I think he’s saying? Dang, they’ve got a whole lot more than 72 virgins to offer their followers!
Hey Max, I think I may have figured out what Matt Chandler means when he says “our girls”.
Bridget wrote:
You wouldn’t happen to have any idea what that means, would you? Because I have no clue what he is talking about. But the thoughts that have occurred to me as possibilities are not…winsome. Don’t know where the boy’s mind is at. That is a Southernism, though my grammar can be awkward at times.
JYJames wrote:
Total capitulation to them. I think they will just get weirder and weirder because they are all in on this ideology. That usually does not end well for people.
Gram3 wrote:
I would venture to say that he doesn’t either.
@ Gram3:
Enflesh –
1. to grow flesh or give a flesh-like form to
2. to ingrain
The “nature of the Gospel” would need explaining as well.
But how one enfleshes the nature of the Gospel is pretty much beyond what I want to know.
Nancy2 wrote:
LOL
Stan wrote:
LoL! Yes, that is the logical conclusion of their belief system. Of course, if they believe that there is marriage in heaven, then what happens with those who have had more than one husband? Or what happens to the women who have never been married? To whom do they submit? Any way you look at it, they’ve got problems.
@ JYJames:
“That is so weird. There is no marriage in the Trinity, and the same with the Gospel. How could they get so off track? What’s the end game?”
+++++++++++
saving face
(it’s no secret that there is so much invested in this — income, careers, reputation, empires, pride, ego — they will look continue to look utterly stupid and lose all kinds of standing as evangelical patriarchy is dismantled. yes, it is very weird. the more desperate they get, the weirder it will become.)
@ R2:
Good thing not many ‘female derivatives’ at Southern anymore. You might view Ware differently as a female. I know some women who visited his church for a while who were a bit taken back with his view and treatment of women.
@ R2:
On the other hand, Mohler was on the board of Metroversity at one point and Boyce has benefited from the earn and learn at UPS. Russ Moore made some business people angry here years back with some of his editorials.
Remnant wrote:
Very glad to see you back. I have often wondered about you. I loved reading your perspective!
@ K.D.:
They changed it to worship. It is very SGM oriented. Bob Kauflin stuff is what is coming out of there now into churches.
@ Bridget:
I agree.
I’m pleased to report that Mortification of Spin are keeping up the pressure on the ESS Complementarian Arians with another couple of posts today. This is one of them
http://mortificationofspin.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=31509d4cdf6ec477c01e86205&id=a7ed832fb3&e=b504d9ab42
This quote from Michael Bird is particularly apposite.
Michael Bird offers the following timely counsel that I hope will be heeded:
To be honest, I mean Bruce Ware and friends no ill, I think they are sincere, they’re trying their best to be faithful theologians and readers of Scripture, and wanting to pursue practical applications. But I just don’t know if it is possible to salvage the subordinationist argument for marital submission after Lewis Ayres and Michel R. Barnes have left nothing but debris in their wake. Let me add- and this was not at my behest or invitation – that when two of the biggest names in fourth century trinitarian theology graciously dismantle your theological argument for basing human relationships on a subordinationist trinitarianism, the game is over. Time to abandon the SS Subordinationism, man the life boats, look for a nice Nicene Island for refuge to land on, and find less complicated ways of arguing for complementarianism.
To be fair to Owen Strachan, I posted the following comment on his blog earlier today and he has let it stand (but curiously deleted a number of his supporters’ comments.”
I said “I’m afraid that changing the acronym from ESS to ERAS does not hide the fact that it is still heresy. Arianism includes the ideas contained in ESS and no amount of theological side-stepping can alter that fact. It is also a pity that you set the tone of your reply in such a disrespectful and slightly mocking manner-“God bless your little socks”.
Also it is not Scholasticism to adhere to the basics of the faith as set out in the Nicene Creed. It is defending the faith. Nor can ESS be called advanced theological enquiry because ESS is just a form of Arianism in another guise.
Finally division is not the easy way out and to make such a suggestion is to try and divert attention away from the real nature of the debate which is that a certain group within the evangelical wing of the church is introducing heresy to justify complementarianism in marital relations and, dare I also suggest, hierarchical authoritarianism in the church.
In the Editor’s introduction to WGT Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology he writes of his thankfulness that evangelical scholars, such as Wayne Grudem, are “writing good theological systems. He acknowledges that Grudem’s work is biblically based, sets forth a high view of scriptural authority, and breathes an evangelical, biblical piety throughout.” But he also says that ” no one work can do everything equally well.and Shedd supplements Grudem’s volume very nicely because modern evavangelical systems tend to be weaker precisely where Shedd’s is most robust. The differences are especially evident where a doctrine benefits from careful metaphysical, abstract, and speculative consideration.” He then says that Shedd’s sections on the Trinity among others, for example, are greatly beneficial ” if one seeks to obtain a full-orbed grasp of these doctrines.” It is precisely this lack of understanding and interest that has led to ESS being rolled out as Reformed doctrine when it clearly is not.
@ Law Prof:
Thanks for your comment.
Everyone has bad experiences and poor church experience is, for many here, an experience shared in common.
I don’t know if being exposed to the wrong way of doing thing is “learning the hard way” or not, but its certainly a means by which we can compare the good with the bad.
I’m sure many of us have heard the analogy of how experts are trained to spot counterfeit bills. I’ve read they are initially given stacks of the real money that they spend all their time focusing on and becoming familiar with. Afterwards, counterfeits are slipped in, and they’re easier to spot only because the senses have been trained to know the real thing so well.
Similarly, knowing the truth helps us to recognize a lie. The truth also equips us to separate out the falsehoods. As with counterfeit money and aberrant forms of the gospel, both are illegal (if you will). Counterfeit bills need to be identified and removed from circulation because they have zero value. Same with a counterfeit gospel; there’s no power in it. An expert is trained to recognize both real and counterfeit money. As Christians, we, too, are trained to recognize know both the truth and recognize error.
Will a person suffer loss from being given counterfeit money week after week, later to discover the deposits were worthless? No doubt. Should the loss cause a person to learn to recognize fake money so they don’t make the same mistake in the future? It’d be foolish not to.
I’ve learned to recognize a false gospel, as well as those who believe in a false gospel, or who believe in something false.
The Gospel radically transforms lives, and the believer knows they will never be the same. I know my identity has changed, and I know this so well that no one can tell me otherwise. I can point to a false description of myself and expose it for what it is. Like a counterfeit bill, it should be removed from circulation because its illegality has the potential to harm someone.
Counterfeits are all about blending in because that’s how they stay in circulation. Some lawless people may argue for assimilation, promoting the idea that prosecuting counterfeits is wrong, that both the real and the fake should be allowed to circulate, the only trouble stemming from those who go after it like it’s a crime.
The British first used the song ‘Yankee Doodle’ to mock the Colonists. We turned their insults into a cause for patriotism, and our band played the tune back at them when they surrendered at Yorktown. For some reason the tune keeps playing in my head. How handy it’s nearly the 4th of July!
Let’s get in the Spirit!
https://youtu.be/al5xTL1wU6s
@ Velour:
Since this has gotten so lengthy, and I’ve enjoyed the topic of Southern food so much, I posted my version of blackeyed peas for you over on the Interesting tab, on the recipe thread.
All of you would be welcome at my table anytime, once I got over freaking out over the housecleaning process 🙂
Lea wrote:
Does not the Lord by necessity have some secret will that only the most elite of followers may ascertain? Why would the Lord not provide some special gnosis to make the young, restless and reformed feel like the special forces warriors (far above the lowly pew dwellers) that they know in their hearts that they must be?
The idea that there are no special people, no great hidden knowledge, no towering personages to lead them to this promised land of personal greatness, just Jesus Who died for simple people who submit one to another–that would be a reality too painful to contemplate.
Daisy wrote:
He sure is. Just don’t get caught having sex with another consenting adult on more than one occasion.
Gram3 wrote:
Those who really know Jesus but are young and gullible and caught in this movement will eventually open their eyes, say “enough” and get out–and face the loss of careers, relationships and standing in the group. They’ll become older and wiser. Those who don’t have the Holy Spirit will likely double down until eventually they have no choice but to break from conventional Christianity and become a full on cult like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The way they’re going now, that day is almost at hand.
Darlene wrote:
This is what ensues when attempts to fully linearize the Bible run their courses. The heavy black dots and the heavy dark lines connecting the dots just don’t add up any more.
Law Prof wrote:
The reason I have hope–not for the Usual Suspects–is that I have seen young people come out of the fog. We have also seen many older people leave in disgust because we remember when this was not the way things are. Not that there was an ideal time for the church, but there was a time before SBC churches went for the worldly ring of fame and fortune.
Since being a pastor became a possibly lucrative career path for mush-headed guys who cannot produce in the real world (or who do not believe that they could), many of those kinds of guys have flocked to it. It is almost like we need to apply a filter of bi-vocational or low-paid to avoid this corruption. Such a filter would not be fair to the many pastors who labor faithfully for low compensation, but I do not know the solution for the pewpeons who are faced with the Goliath Gospel Glitterati machine that seems to be producing PodPastors by the boatload.
Stan wrote:
I would like to see them how they would respond to Jesus’ assertion regarding His kingdom:
Or what He meant when He said that the ‘valleys would be filled’ (thus bringing them UP) and the ‘mountains will be lowered’ (thus bringing them down.)
Perhaps they should consider that Jesus doesn’t play by their rules. He pays people who just showed up for the last hour of work the same wages as the people who worked all day.
Instead of working so hard to establish the eternal subordination of women, perhaps they might want to look a little more deeply into that “last shall be first” thing…
Muff Potter wrote:
Yes, indeed. The Bible becomes a mere tool to advance the System supposedly derived from it but actually forced upon it.
Gram3 wrote:
Frankly, we would do well to have more tent-makers in leadership.
In the shep/disc church I was in, the leadership all came from a ‘white-collar’ background.
They had no clue what life was like for coal miners, tire makers, auto assemblyline workers, roofers and carpenters amongst the pewishioners.
Leadership life was the basic 8-5, so they had no concept of the impact that shift-work can have. None of them did manual labor to put food on the table, so they had no idea how physically wrung out someone who actually *works* for a living can be.
If there was a meeting at 5 am in the morning, no problem for them – they could always catch a late morning nap. Meetings going long into the weeknight – no problem for them – they could sleep in the next morning.
Men who truly lived by the sweat of their brow 40-60 hours a week, often spent their weekend (or other days off) providing MORE free service (labor) for the leadership.
Painting their homes, babysitting their houses & children, landscaping their yards, washing their cars, shining their shoes, cleaning out garages, general handymen for repairs – there were very few weekends in a year that several lowly members were NOT providing *some* sort of free service for the leadership.
Having bi-vocational leadership as a norm would be a benefit to both leadership and pewishioners, IMO.
Bookbolter wrote:
Thank you for your graciousness.
Cleaning. I use the http://www.flylady.net website which is free. Marla in North Carolina runs it.
@ Gram3:
Gram3,
Off topic. But if you have a good Key Lime recipe that you use could you please post it at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Cooking tab. Posters wanted to try it out.
Hey, maybe we should re-name it: “Keyed Out Lime Pie”!
Velour wrote:
Hah. The recipe is in my recipe box. Somewhere. Genuine Key Lime Pie has very few ingredients: Condensed milk, egg yolks, key lime juice. Baked in a graham cracker crust and topped with piped whipped cream around the edges. The whipped cream topping is not authentic since the whole purpose of key lime pie was to use ingredients which were readily available in Key West in the days without refrigeration. But that’s what I prefer over meringue which should be reserved for Swiss buttercream, IMO. 🙂
Mix together 1 can condensed milk with 4-5 beaten egg yolks until creamy. Mix in 1/2 cup key lime juice quickly and pour into prepared but unbaked graham cracker crust. Bake at 375 for 15 minutes. Cool and top with fresh sweetened whipped cream piped in rosettes around the edge of the crust. Garnish with key lime slices. Options: meringue topping made with egg whites left over from filling plus, key lime zest added to custard. Key lime juice amount may be adjusted to taste.
Velour wrote:
That’s great!
I made key lime pie a bunch of times the last few years, after I realized how easy it is. I don’t want meringue on it either – that doesn’t make sense to me in a hot climate. I save it for chocolate pie in winter.
@ Gram3:
Thanks, Gram3 for the “Keyed-Out Lime Pie” (TM) recipe.
I will copy it over to the Interesting tab, Cooking tab, at the top of the page for everybody’s future enjoyment!
@ Lea:
Another pie lover. Great. I must confess, I make chocolate pudding from scratch (and I even make the heart-healthy vegan kind – for health reasons because my doctor gave me such a good talking to). I made some just last week. It was delicious. (I used rice milk, cocoa powder, an egg substitute that is dried from a box at Whole Foods).
Gram3 wrote:
It has become almost a cliche: Underachiever with delusions of grandeur (alternating with periods of self-loathing), social misfit, the type who often seemed to flock to disheveled, mom’s-and-dad’s basement doesn’t-know-enough-to-know-they-don’t-know-enough atheism, is now tending to flock to the pastorate. At least the disheveled atheist is honest and forthright in their contempt for those who follow Jesus.
Velour wrote:
I don’t care too much for pudding, but pots de crème? Yes please. They’re not vegan, though.
Lea wrote:
Sounds yummy.
Law Prof wrote:
I actually know quite a few atheists where I live. They are pleasant, kind, loving, decent, open-minded, accepting.
I have never met so many hateful, unloving people as at my ex-church, who professed Christ with their lips but not their behavior.
Daisy–yes–and thanks for posting the link.
We are still cleaning up from yesterday’s tornadic storm. We were only hit with hail and heavy rain at our house, but have been quite busy cleaning up and repairing what those huge balls of ice damaged. Twister hit rangeland only, thank the Lord!
But this is huge stuff, when someone or group of someones is actually teaching GOD LIES.
Velour wrote:
Not in disagreement with you necessarily, and I’ve generally had better relations with atheists than the average YRR Calvinist, but there is a certain type of atheist, they oddball basement dweller, cut exactly along the lines I describe, too ignorant to know they’re ignorant, having accomplished exactly nothing in life, thinking somehow that they, a tiny thing not even distinguished on a tiny speck of a planet in a vast universe, can claim enough knowledge and insight to rule out the possibility of a God. That is the height of stupidity.
Law Prof wrote:
I haven’t run across the basement type of dweller atheist. If I did I would let them be. It’s a free county.
I look at the example of Mother Teresa (I’m a Protestant) who had a far greater impact on people believing in God by just loving them than all of the lectures and Scripture verses in the world.
I’m much more concerned about the NeoCalvinists who link their insufferable Comp doctrine to The Gospel, their Young Earth Creation linked to The Gospel. Those are big turnoffs for people, including Christians and for unbelievers that we’re trying to evangelize.
Velour wrote:
That’s an interesting perspective. I’m not about bashing scripture over one’s head but love is presenting the truth… The truth is what sets us free. 🙂 Wouldn’t you agree?
John 8:32
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
I think it’s also important to have a balanced perspective. I realize people have come out of abusive churches where the bible was in fact used as a weapon. But, it is still full of truth that guide us in our daily lives and bring us closer to the Lord. It’s the truth that brings salvation to people, not necessarily pointing out the wrongs in the world.
Velour wrote:
I’ve run across my share, and have on occasion told them what I think of their belief system…because it’s a free country, which of course protects our rights to speak our beliefs. That said, I do not consider even the average venom-spewing atheist the primary enemy of the Christian, the real enemy, aside from Satan himself, is the one who infiltrates the church body and seeks to by all means direct the attention to themselves rather than Jesus and punish all who refuse to pay them homage.
Law Prof wrote:
So true.
Linda wrote:
Yep, there are things that sovereign God cannot do. He can’t lie, cheat, steal, sin. He cannot do evil – it’s contrary to His character.
Velour wrote:
And we share some hard-earned and painful experience in that arena, do we not?
Law Prof wrote:
Aye.
@ ibelieve:
“That’s an interesting perspective. I’m not about bashing scripture over one’s head but love is presenting the truth… The truth is what sets us free. 🙂 Wouldn’t you agree?
John 8:32
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
I think it’s also important to have a balanced perspective. I realize people have come out of abusive churches where the bible was in fact used as a weapon. But, it is still full of truth that guide us in our daily lives and bring us closer to the Lord. It’s the truth that brings salvation to people, not necessarily pointing out the wrongs in the world.”
++++++++++++++++++
I struggle with what you’re saying. ‘The truth’…. about what? I just read John 8 — whatever ‘the truth’ is seemed a bit nebulous. the closest thing I could come up with is something about abiding (?) forever, and perhaps no longer being a slave to sin. kind of sketchy.
we could extrapolate and fill in details. but my real problem is that the extrapolation never stops, and turns into conjecture. the piling on of details and more details, requirements and more requirements, conjecture upon conjecture, weirdness and more weirdness (like ‘marriage enfleshes the gospel’ and ‘men are called to shepherd their wives’ hearts just as much as women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality’ — yuck!)
and so many other weird-to-asinine-to-illogical-to-impossible things I’ve heard over the years that are biblical and scriptural and ‘vital to the gospel’.
‘the truth shall set you free’ — interesting statement. not as simple as it sounds. ‘the truth’ is now a tangle of convoluted, contradictory, and self-serving conjecture dressed up as mandates.
that kind of truth I can do without.
Janey wrote:
I believe that such a person’s real calling is stocking the shelves at Walmart. But I know I sometimes/often have a somewhat cranky reaction to such folk as the YRR crew…..
Velour wrote:
As a complementary perspective, I often ponder some observations by renowned naturalist David Attenborough, at the end of a TV series he presented a couple of years ago devoted to the world of insects (the series title was “Life in the Undergrowth”). At the end, he made the following observation which I paraphrase as closely as I can remember it.
If humans, and all the large animals, were to disappear from planet earth overnight, the rest of the ecosystem would continue quite happily as if nothing had happened. But if the insects were to disappear, everything else would quickly collapse.
A few years ago, a certain disgraced motivational speaker * from Seattle claimed that the UK christian scene was weak because it lacked young celebrity preachers. Men such as he are doing their level best to prove they don’t understand even the first thing about the real (indeed, the only) Servant King; they actually claim that fame and wealth are necessary for the gospel, rather than snares for believers. What actually makes the Church effective are the thousands of Christians around the world who, with no fanfare and no fame, quietly lay down their lives for others in step with their Lord and Master who did it before them. There are many pastors among them, of course, who do not devote themselves to writing books and speaking at conferences but to serving in whatever obscurity it takes.
If the celebrity pastors were all to disappear (and I’m not being macabre here – it is the same thought experiment as David Attenborough’s) overnight, most of the Church would continue praying, gathering together, and living out the Gospel. If the “christian insects” disappeared, by contrast, the Church would vanish from the earth.
* Rhymes with “park fiscal”.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Wow. You’ve got it nailed down. Great comment!
Posted yesterday … an eloquent response by Carl Trueman to speculation about his character and motivation versus the clear arguments and logic of recent Trinitarian dialogue.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/motivated-by-feminism-a-response-to-a-recent-criticism#.V2E2muNf19N
Lydia wrote:
Yes, I agree, good point. And Romans 2 emphasizes that love is something that is produced within us inwardly, by the Spirit, not through some outward adherence to a written code.
I like what it says in 1 John 4:19, “We love because he first loved us.”
Velour wrote:
do you think that ill-will acts like a virus in some settings and spreads unless there is an intervention (an event or a person who turns it around)? Or do you think that ill-will flows from the top down as an example of mean-spirited malevolence is displayed by the ‘head’ authority figure?
I do know that good-will is contagious. And that patience can be a healing intervention in severe settings where people are stressed and lashing out.
But some communities seem toxic in their ethos, and it goes beyond ‘stressed out’ into something particularly ugly, yes.
The article at Mortification of Spin written by Carl Trueman linked to in an above comment points out the approach some take to the discussion of a polemic in which one attempts to dismiss what the other is saying based on their character and motivation.
We see this happen, for example, when one is busy writing and actively engaging on social media, but turn around and say they’re too busy to engage with a polemic, because they’re so busy with other more noble pursuits that they can’t be bothered to address a concern brought forward by someone they then paint as unkind and a victim (character & motivation).
“All it means,” Digory said to himself, “Is that he thinks he can do anything he likes to get anything he wants.”
Christiane wrote:
I would agree. For instance, I once took a job with a small company I didn’t know was family owned and operated. I quickly became aware of a toxic work environment that I thought at first stemmed from the attitude of a few long time employees. However, I suspected their attitudes were a reflection of the management since they had been there so long, and I was right. The family members at the top were awful people who were naturally enabling an environment that was a reflection of themselves.
What I find curious about your situation is that you’re associated with a church where both the structure itself and the man at the top are believed to be perfect and beyond reproach. Doesn’t it breed condescension, when those at the time cannot be questioned and regard themselves as royalty?
Sorry, typo. “Doesn’t it breed condescension, when those at the top cannot be questioned and regard themselves as royalty?
Velour wrote:
This would be the ‘snearing about the spaghetti monster and how stupid you are to believe in god’ style of atheist. I have run into many online for sure…People are people. It’s silly to act as if all good or all bad are relegated to any particular denomination or lack thereof. Good and bad people can be found everywhere.
A New York Times article on the Orlando Shooter that has bearing on Complementarianism(TM) and the Subordination of Wimmen:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/control-and-fear-what-mass-killings-and-domestic-violence-have-in-common/ar-AAh4Dcq?li=BBnbcA1&OCID=msnHomepage
Lea wrote:
There’s a phenomenon called “Net Drunk Syndrome”, where a guy gets real belligerent and abusive while safely anonymous online and well out of fist range.
Paula Rice wrote:
“Peasants are livestock who walk on two legs and grunt words.”
— attr to a late Medieval French Higborn Nobleman
Someone asked about the music program.
I am not up to speed on SBTS news. I recall them eliminating the Master of Music program in favor of a church music specialty for their MDiv program. Mohler said it was because few churches hired pure musicians. The trend instead is to hire an assistant pastor who can also oversee the music. Classes like musical theory would be eliminated as well as faculty positions. He said that he wished it didn’t have to happen but had a responsibility to adapt the seminary to the times. I think he was being honest as far as that goes.
Paula Rice wrote:
“Ours is a High and Lonely Destiny, Digory.”
Max wrote:
I’ve heard it said that Islam (and Truly Reformed) emphasize the Omnipotence and Power of God while Christianity emphasizes the Nature and Character of God.
Look at the fruits.
Velour wrote:
Paraphrase of St Augustine of Hippo:
“If you talk nonsense about things I do know, why should I believe you when you talk of things (like the Gospel) I don’t know?”
And there’s always the principle behind vaccination: Expose the immune system to a weakened or harmless version of the disease organism and the patient will become immune to the real thing.
Lowlandseer wrote:
ChEKA changed its acronym to OGPU who changed their acronym to NKVD who changed their acronym to KGB, but the Liquidation Quotas in GULAG were met & surpassed without interruption.
Darlene wrote:
I believe some Rabbi from Nazareth had to field that exact same question…
Gram3 wrote:
Ask the Killing Fields of Cambodia about Perfect Ideology.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This is the same principle I apply to the news media…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
If the god of the neo-cals and the god of wahhabi islam have only power as a claim for legitimacy, what does that really say about them?
Paula Rice wrote:
Hi PAULA,
No, I don’t belong to a neo-Cal Church. (just kidding) Actually, the pope is basically a bishop and he goes to confession like any other Catholic. Francis is not ‘perfect’ and he would be the first to say it, which he has done. “Who am I to judge?” is a known ‘francisism’. That ‘infallibility’ thing is something different than ‘perfection’ in people and institutions. But that’s another story.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nicely said, Nick.
Christiane wrote:
I can only speak about my experience at my ex-NeoCalvinist church. It was authoritarian. They, perhaps, started off with the best of intentions: wanting a Biblical church, structure, etc. They have, as many former members who fled said, become blinded to the harm they’ve done.
I think the un-checked power, the lack of a congregational vote, the closed-system, and then the (abusive) personality of the senior pastor all contributed.
Brad/FuturistGuy has studied toxic systems. He probably has some important thoughts to share about this.
Ditto Gram3, Max, Lydia, and others.
CARM does not correctly set out the debate concerning will, nature and person nor place it the proper context of debate over monothelitism and dythelitism.
It was debated for some time whether “will” was an attribute of persons or of natures. Historic orthodoxy, including reformed orthodoxy, landed on the conclusion that will is an attribute or aspect of nature, and not of personhood. Hence, the three persons of the trinity share one will because they share one nature. Jesus, because he has both a divine nature and a human nature has therefore both a divine will and a human will. In Jesus the human will had to be made subject to the divine will. This orthodox understanding helps explain why Jesus could pray to the father (in the garden) that the father’s will be done and not his. That is, Jesus prays that the divine will be accomplished and not the human will, which would in its humanness shrink from the enormous evil about to befall him.
Velour wrote:
You are right to begin your list with “un-checked power.” When you put the New Calvinist wheel in the hand of pastors and “elders” in their 20s-30s, you are headed for a certain wreck. The spiritual maturity is just not there to steer clear of the ditch. The un-checked authority of a plurality of young elders as church governance is a recipe for disaster … and the watchblogs are documenting this.
As Lord Acton said “”Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Certainly, the young reformers don’t start out with corrupt power as their mission … but they just don’t have the experience and discernment to avoid it. The old church model of putting young seminary graduates under a senior pastor before they established their own ministry was not only a good idea, it was Biblical. We are now turning them loose on the church with little or no wisdom.
Could this have any ramifications on Churches who teach wives to stay in abusive marriages (which are generally churches that are big believers in gender complementarianism – male headship, etc)?
Woman awarded $21 million in domestic-violence decision
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/06/14/Domestic-violence-award.html
Snippet:
—-
June 14, 2016
A Franklin County jury has awarded more than $21 million in damages to a domestic-violence victim who sued her abusive husband.
The case, thought to be a first for Ohio, sends a fresh message about holding perpetrators accountable and making them pay for the pain and suffering they cause, said Michael King, attorney for plaintiff Jennifer Bailey.
Muff Potter wrote:
It says they agree with Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series:
“There is no Right, there is No Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Once has a pastor acquaintance at a mega, who said “Chairman Mao was the greatest revivalist in world history; he did it by shutting down the institutional church and imprisoning the pastors.”
Christiane wrote:
I think you get what I was saying. When someone is considered not capable of erring or exempt from liability to mistake, it’s not difficult to see the similarity between the definitions of “not capable of error” and something “where all defect is precluded.”
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Funny. The ESS proponents are worried that Trueman is “motivated by some kind of incipient feminism” while they attempt to deny that their ESS is motivated by and founded upon a desire to subjugate women forever. Their concerns regarding Trueman all the more reveal their motivations. They are misogynists who use their particular interpretation of the Scriptures to justify their misogyny.
whoops….I should have said “*driven* by some kind of incipient feminism”
Paula Rice wrote:
Paula, I hope you learn to dialogue some day in a way which tears down walls instead of erecting them. Your last paragraph is an example of doing the former. And your m.o. here seems to be that of antagonizing those with whom you disagree. I dunno. Perhaps it has something to do with your past, SGM and all the spiritual abuse there. Sometimes we carry baggage with us many years after leaving an abusive situation. That certainly was the case for me after leaving an abusive Christian cult. In ways, I see myself in you. That is, the way I was for a number of years after leaving that toxic place.
One comments not approved.
The Deebs were talking today about how to handle a commenters whose main goal is to prove that we are heretics or to cause a n antagonistic discussion that goes on and on and one and does not address the post.
If we ask someone to stop the discussion and return to the topic OR We ask a person to answer a specific question regarding their situation and the person does not respond to our question and continues on with their single minded obsession, we have decided to not allow the comments to continue.
My mother in law is continuing to fail and is having some tough days. My days are filled with caring for the elderly folks in my family. I do not have the time or patience to deal with the heresy hunters. These folks will be permitted a couple of comments and then further comments will be not allowed if they continue in the same vein after warnings.
Hopefully this makes sense. Please keep us in your prayers.
dee wrote:
Dee, may God’s presence be especially palpable for you and your dear mother-in-law right now. Prayers will be said on everyone’s behalf.
dee wrote:
Praying for you and your family, sweet lady.
Thanks for all you do. Sorry for the people who are getting on your last raw nerve – and ours – and not following the rules of common courtesy.
@ Paula Rice:
Um, are you familiar with the tetm “ex cathedra”? Speaking ex cathedra is actually quite rare. And Christiane is entirely correct about how popes are regarded these dsys. Human, just like you, me and everyone else who comments here.
@ dee:
I am so sorry that things are hard. Wish there was something practical that i could do to help.
As for your thoughts about handling comments, i believe it’s a good idea and realize that you folks are dependent on our goodwill here. Unfortunately, people will abuse that trust at times. And nobody can keep an eye on comments 24/7.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I disagree. I don’t see a single “fruit” from Ware that indicates that he is in the least bit respectful of Scripture. He is pretty blatantly twisting Scripture for his own agenda, and has been for decades.
Darlene wrote:
Can we just go ahead and call Strachan a Pharisee and be done with it. Funny the kind of theology one ends up with when beginning by ignoring Jesus.
dee wrote:
Let me make this offer, but feel free to reject it if you want to. My daughter is a member of an Episcopal women’s lay order called the Order of the Daughters of the King. They pray for people. It is what they do. People at the church put in prayer requests and the Daughters pray for that request twice a day for thirty days at a time. You can ask them to keep on or you can ask them to quit or you can just do nothing. They don’t send you pamphlets or anything like that. They don’t try to convert people or sell them stuff or anything at all There is nothing weird or superstitious or fanatical or odd about this. There is no catch to it whatsoever. They just pray for prayer requests. Our chapter is a bunch of school teachers and a couple of nurse anesthetists and a few others. Just people. If you would like for me to I could ask my daughter to add you to the prayer list. We would like to do that for you.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
If Bruce Ware were a sincere, faithful theologian – open to correction – he would hear from all of the others who don’t find the same things in Scripture that he claims that are there about Comp doctrine and his heresy about the Trinity. He’s done enough damage to enough churches, peoples, marriages, families, and peoples’ faith. He’s done enough damage to the cause of Christ, to our witness.
He has sold another Gospel…and that’s why the fruit is so rotten.
R2 wrote:
No wonder modern church music is terrible. 1st, 5th, 4th, 2m. Repeat.
dee wrote:
Bless you guys…
Lea wrote:
You got that right. In the old Lutheran Church I grew up in, classical music holds sway. There’s a lot of more than mediocre talent there. I’m told that just last year they performed Beethoven’s violin concerto with a young Korean woman as soloist.
Pingback: Wayne Grudem’s Un-Orthodox View of the Trinity and the Question that Must Be Asked: Can the ESV Bible be Trusted? | Wondering Eagle
On Christianity Today:
Gender and the Trinity: From Proxy War to Civil War
Page:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html
(Complementarians are referring to ESS as “ERAS” now.)
The ceiling came down, so it’s time to inspect the whole building. (ERAS Part 2)
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/06/20/the-ceiling-came-down-so-its-time-to-inspect-the-whole-building-eras-part-2/
Daisy wrote:
I was just reading this article and just noticed this update:
[UPDATE] A number of our readers have written in and rightly identified a lack of female voices in our coverage.
Typical.
Contemporary Revisions to Trinitarian Theology: A Concise Assessment
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/contemporary-revisions-trinitarian-theology-concise-assessment
Snippet:
A final reply to Wayne Grudem demolishing his view on the Trinity,imo, by Carl Trueman.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/once-more-unto-the-breach-and-then-no-more-a-final-reply-to-dr-grude?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=128b276d97-Postcards+From+Palookaville&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-128b276d97-119263361
Lowlandseer wrote:
Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
It ends with this:
“It also brings me back to the point of my very first post: whatever else Dr. Grudem is advocating and however sincere his motives may be (which I do not question), it is not Nicene Trinitarianism.
Another wonderful exposé of the emptiness of New Calvinistic Complementarity by Aimee Byrd
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/the-silence-of-our-friends?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=74312b0b9a-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-74312b0b9a-119263361#.V20XKJB4WK0
The Silence of Our Friends
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/the-silence-of-our-friends
@ Lowlandseer:
Oh, sorry!! I posted the same link a moment ago but didn’t see you had already posted it…
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/the-silence-of-our-friends
Complementarianism and the Trinity: Is Wayne Grudem a dangerous heretic?
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/complementarianism.and.the.trinity.is.wayne.grudem.a.dangerous.heretic/89445.htm