Biblical Femininity Is A Lie – Guest Post by Tim Fall

"So let’s have no more nonsense about femininity and masculinity being the key to understanding how to be women and men in Christ, because the Bible doesn’t teach masculine and feminine traits."

Tim Fall

https://timfall.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/biblical-femininity-is-a-lie/Tim's Blog – Just One Train Wreck After Another

One of the the joys of blogging that we didn't anticipate when we launched this forum almost eight years ago is our ever-growing circle of friends. While we knew back then that the internet is a gateway to a vast amount of information, we have been pleasantly surprised to discover that it is also a powerful communication tool. Our once 'obscure blog' has somehow managed to attract followers from around the world. We are exceedingly grateful to our readers and commenters who add so much to the ongoing discussion!

Dee and I have a West Coast friend, Tim Fall, who started his own blog back in 2012. It is humorously named Just One Train Wreck After Another. We have previously featured a couple of Tim's posts, and recently we one of his posts came to our attention that we know our readership will enjoy. 

To learn more about Tim Fall, click on the following – What On Earth Is This Blog About?

At the above link, Tim shares the following:

And I hope everyone who visits this blog is reminded of Jesus as they read from post to post here, and that each post is an encouragement in their relationship with God.

Honoring God and encouraging people.

That’s what I’d like this blog to be about.

This week Tim wrote the following posts, which you may also enjoy:

How to Stay Faithful When Someone Hijacks Your Ministry

God Has Big Plans for Little People


Biblical Femininity Is A Lie (link)

By: Tim Fall

Laura Martin just posted a review of Biblical Femininity, Discovering Clarity and Freedom in God’s Design for Women. She ably discusses the book’s premises, pointing out that its reliance on weak exegeses leads to weakly supported conclusions on the role of women in the kingdom of God.

I think there is another weakness to the book that can influence even those who merely read the title and never look inside. The problem?

There’s no such thing as “Biblical Femininity”.

That’s because the Bible doesn’t say we are created feminine and masculine; it says we are created male and female.

So God created human beings in his own image.
    In the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27.)

Being feminine or masculine is a cultural concept, while being male or female is biological. To oversimplify the biology of sex, if you have two X chromosomes you’re female and if you have an X and a Y chromosome you’re male. Acting feminine or masculine might reflect your gender, but it won’t affect your sex:

50px-Mars_symbol_svgA man can act with what some people call feminine traits but it won’t change his Y chromosome into an X chromosome.

 

50px-Venus_symbol_svgA woman can act with what some people call masculine traits but it won’t give her a Y chromosome in place of one of her X chromosomes.

 

What are feminine and masculine traits anyway? Each culture has traits or behaviors it assigns generally to one sex or another, and other cultures in a different place or time can take those same traits and behaviors and assign them to the opposite sex.

The Bible itself shows differences in gender expectations over time and place:

  • In Proverbs 31 the woman (who is actually a personification of Godly wisdom) is an entrepreneur in the Israelite community and manages all the household finances and personnel.
  • In Paul’s letters and travels to various cities in the Roman Empire (heavily influenced by Greek culture and not at all looking to Jewish history for its guidance) he commended a women who taught a man (Priscilla in Acts 18:24-26, 1 Corinthians 16:9), sent greetings to a woman who was a fellow apostle (Junia in Acts 16:7), and specified that in Ephesus – a city with a centuries-long preexisting matriarchal cult – women in the church should learn about Jesus quietly (1 Timothy 2:11).
  • And on returning to Judea, Paul enjoyed the hospitality of an evangelist whose daughters each had the gift of prophecy (Philip and his four daughters in Acts 21:8-9).

So I wonder where anyone thinks the Bible dictates particularly feminine or masculine traits people must adopt today in order to live “Biblically”.

Perhaps they mean this passage:

Greet each other with a kiss of love. (1 Peter 5:14.)

OK men, when you show up at the men’s breakfast next weekend make sure you’ve got plenty of lip balm because you’re going to be smooching … a lot.

Or perhaps they mean this passage:

… a man must not wear women’s clothing. (Deuteronomy 22:5.)

You hear that Scottish men? I don’t care how tough Braveheart was, no more kilts!

https://timfall.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/biblical-femininity-is-a-lie/

And Maori warriors, no more skirts!

https://timfall.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/biblical-femininity-is-a-lie/

And American male judges, no more robes!

https://timfall.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/biblical-femininity-is-a-lie/All those flowy things are women’s wear! But wait a second … men back in the days of Deuteronomy wore flowing robes, so perhaps we should outlaw pants today.

But the femininity/masculinity proponents will tell us that those Old and New Testament passages must be understood in their contexts, that what men and women wore in Bible times was culturally informed.

I completely agree.

So let’s have no more nonsense about femininity and masculinity being the key to understanding how to be women and men in Christ, because the Bible doesn’t teach masculine and feminine traits. It doesn’t even tell us how to be Biblical men and women.

Rather, the Bible tells us we are:

… growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. (Ephesians 4:15.)

That’s not feminine and it’s not masculine, but it sure is Biblical.

Comments

Biblical Femininity Is A Lie – Guest Post by Tim Fall — 267 Comments

  1. From the post: “There’s no such thing as ‘Biblical Femininity’.”
    This is great – just tell it like it is, TF.

    And what follows in your post is even better.
    Thx so much. God bless.

  2. “men back in the days of Deuteronomy wore flowing robes”
    More recently white silk stockings, lace ruffles, and a powdered wig.

  3. I am so very glad that these outrageous doctrines of men, which have NOTHING to do with The Gospel, are being courageously confronted.

  4. I have been reading the comments at this site and am worried that there is too much of a masculine feel to them. This closes the space to me and is reducing the size of my feminine feel. Or maybe it’s just that I ate too much at dinner last night which caused me to wake up in the middle of the night.

  5. Dale wrote:

    I have been reading the comments at this site and am worried that there is too much of a masculine feel to them. This closes the space to me and is reducing the size of my feminine feel. Or maybe it’s just that I ate too much at dinner last night which caused me to wake up in th

    Prolly just a weird dream.

  6. Thank you, Tim! Your blog isn’t a train wreck. I’ve been meandering over at Doug Wilson’s blog the past few days, and THAT is a train wreck in constant motion. With Wilson, most everything comes down to gender. And the great majority of the ills in society are due to evil Feminists. They are a sad, sorry bunch over there.

  7. Dale wrote:

    I have been reading the comments at this site and am worried that there is too much of a masculine feel to them. This closes the space to me and is reducing the size of my feminine feel. Or maybe it’s just that I ate too much at dinner last night which caused me to wake up in the middle of the night.

    No…no…no…, there’s way too much of a Feminine feel here and we need to invite the Manosphere to join us to bring Balance. 😉

  8. Darlene wrote:

    Thank you, Tim! Your blog isn’t a train wreck. I’ve been meandering over at Doug Wilson’s blog the past few days, and THAT is a train wreck in constant motion. With Wilson, most everything comes down to gender. And the great majority of the ills in society are due to evil Feminists. They are a sad, sorry bunch over there.

    I admire anyone with the gumption to do that, especially given the growing number of manosphere trolls hanging out there. Someone actually qualified to be a pastor would be given serious pause.

    If you’ve got a really strong stomach, there’s always baylyblog.

  9. Bill M wrote:

    More recently white silk stockings, lace ruffles, and a powdered wig.

    And pink wasn’t always the color “girly girls” according to the Smithsonian Institute:

    …a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

  10. Thank you for this. As I’ve said before, the whole idea of gender “roles” implies an artificiality to me, playing a part, that I do not find in Scripture.
    And I’m reminded again of the still-relevant insight of James Freeman Clarke’s assessment of male attitudes towards women in his essay “True and False Manliness” (from Every-Day Religion, 1886):

    “True manliness differs also from the false in its attitude to woman. Its knightly feeling makes it wish to defend her rights, to maintain her claims, to be her protector and advocate. False manliness wishes to show its superiority by treating women as inferiors. It flatters them, but it does not respect them. It fears their competition on equal levels, and wishes to keep them confined, not within walls, as in the Mohammedan regions, but behind the more subtle barriers of opinion, prejudice, and supposed feminine aptitudes. True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ” Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.” Manly strength respects womanly purity, sympathy, and grace of heart. And this is the real chivalry of the present hour.”

  11. Darlene wrote:

    No…no…no…, there’s way too much of a Feminine feel here and we need to invite the Manosphere to join us to bring Balance.

    But does a feminine space leave room for masculine feels?

  12. That’s why I like Queen Athaliah, I don’t see any any different from the kings back in her day; taking power by any means necessary, holding it onto it by any means necessary – and she kept that power for six whole years. Something that not every king had been able to do. Sure, she was recorded as a bad guy in the Bible; and so are a lot of guys who did the same things she did for the same reasons.

  13. Culture is not gospel. Gospel is not culture. Idealized versions of 50s American culture is nothing at all like the cultures in the Bible.

    I’d like to quote Danny Burk on this issue, because it’s clearly portrays the atrocious logic of TGC. I can’t make up something as bad as this:

    “While the gender issue may not be a gospel issue in that narrow sense, it is a gospel issue in a broader sense. Inasmuch as the gospel has necessary implications and entailments, it is a gospel issue in the indirect sense that Keller spoke about. It seems like it’s in that latter sense that T4G reads the way it does. It’s also in that sense that Piper says that TGC emphasizes the gender issue in order to protect, display, and release the gospel for maximum human flourishing.”
    http://www.dennyburk.com/why-complementarianism-is-a-gospel-issue/ (in the comments)

  14. Your spiritual position in Christ is genderless! In the Church of the Living God, there are no distinctions in race, class or gender. New Calvinist teaching otherwise does not make it so!

    “There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, THERE IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].” (Galatians 3:28 AMP)

    A correct “complementarian” teaching would place all believers in complementary roles to each other … each believer has a unique spiritual gifting to complement the gifts of others to advance the Kingdom of God under the banner of Christ.

    “There is one body [of believers] and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when called [to salvation] — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all who is [sovereign] over all and [working] through all and [living] in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6 AMP)

    He has called us to oneness! Each believer has a role in the work of the Kingdom, not defined by race, class or gender. Only the church which understands this truth and operates in this manner is the free church of Jesus Christ … all others are operating with illegitimate authority.

  15. Max wrote:

    A correct “complementarian” teaching would place all believers in complementary roles to each other … each believer has a unique spiritual gifting to complement the gifts of others to advance the Kingdom of God under the banner of Christ.

    And it would have room for supplements as well; Something added to complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the whole.

  16. Darlene wrote:

    I’ve been meandering over at Doug Wilson’s blog the past few days

    Mr. Wilson once called me out by name. He had used horrible language about women he disagreed with and I said it showed a disrespect for all women. He then twisted my comment and said I accused him of using insulting language about all women. He even wrote a blog post on it.

    So I wrote one too: Pastors: Stop Disrespecting Women With Your Chauvinistic Name-Calling.

  17. @ ishy:
    For a guy who talks a lot about “sense” in the quote you provided, Mr. Burk obviously doesn’t have any good sense about this issue. To teach that complementarianism is necessary to “release the gospel for maximum human flourishing” is to be inhuman to female believers in Christ … under such teaching, they don’t flourish – they wither.

  18. Max wrote:

    He has called us to oneness! Each believer has a role in the work of the Kingdom, not defined by race, class or gender. Only the church which understands this truth and operates in this manner is the free church of Jesus Christ … all others are operating with illegitimate authority.

    Amen!

  19. Hi, Tim. From Strong’s Concordance (by way of Biblehub.com, an interlinear site):

    theos: God, a god
    Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ
    Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine

  20. Jamie Carter wrote:

    Something added to complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the whole.

    Amen! That’s exactly the design of correct Biblical “complementarianism” … as opposed to the version taught by New Calvinists. There is to be no subordination of gender in God’s design; we are all co-heirs with Christ with a common mission to fulfill the Great Commission. Whose job is the ministry? All believers have a part! We need to release female believers, not bind them.

  21. Max wrote:

    under such teaching, they don’t flourish – they wither.

    Or as Hug would say
    “Slavery is Freedom,
    Hate is love,”

    And all that jazz taken from “1984”.

    Again, these men think that if they believe it strong enough and preach it hard enough, it will be so, by the force of their inflated view of masculinity.
    But words don’t make it so.
    Their philosophy is built on a foundation of sand because they have rejected the rock, foundation, Jesus Christ.

  22. Lydia wrote:

    Can we discuss cultural femininity without mentioning Jael? :o)

    Yeah, about Jael …….. She was just a simple, everyday person – nothing really special about her. Except, she did take out the commander of a Canaanite army and her actions resulted in a major victory for Israel. So, she is included in OT scripture.
    IMHO, I believe there were a lot more Jael-like women around. How could a people survive 40 years in a wilderness, and so many battles without many strong, smart, brave, independant-thinking women among them?
    Maybe there were many more Deborah-like women, too, only without the position?

  23. Nancy2 wrote:

    IMHO, I believe there were a lot more Jael-like women around. How could a people survive 40 years in a wilderness, and so many battles without many strong, smart, brave, independant-thinking women among them?
    Maybe there were many more Deborah-like women, too, only without the position?

    Bingo. But they were not the ones writing it all down.

    There is also no way Western Expansion could work the way it did without females knowing how to shoot, having babies in the back of covered wagons and strapping the baby to her back to plant the fields. They also buried a lot of babies back then. And moms.

    Most Christian comp people live in an idealized bubble. They don’t think through the obvious.

  24. Gram3 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Jael

    …the picture of joyful, intelligent, feminine winsomeness.

    Bwahaha. And “Robust” in her “role”.

    See, we can define, too. (Wink)

  25. ishy wrote:

    It’s also in that sense that Piper says that TGC emphasizes the gender issue in order to protect, display, and release the gospel for maximum human flourishing.”

    *facepalm*

  26. ishy wrote:

    “It’s also in that sense that Piper says that TGC emphasizes the gender issue in order to protect, display, and release the gospel for maximum human flourishing.”

    Basically, what they are inferring is that Jesus’ birth, life, death, defeat of the enemy, and resurrection was not enough. God’s work is not enough.

  27. Richard wrote:

    There’s a typo – the reference to Junia should be at Romans 16:7, not Acts 16:7.

    Thanks, Richard. I corrected the original post on my blog.

    Dee, Deb or MBTC, can you correct it here?

  28. Mara wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    God’s work is not enough.
    Or, God’s work through Jesus Christ isn’t enough.
    The gospel MUST include God’s work in the genders.

    Although Carson has a correct definition of “gospel”, it’s clear in the comments that’s not how most Calvinistas define it. Several complained that Carson’s use of the word “gospel” was “limited to Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection”.

    When you define “gospel” as Calvinista-run authoritarian churches, as many of them do, their insistence that complementarianism is equal to the gospel makes sense in their context. It’s the primary way they keep a large number of people under their authority.

  29. Bridget wrote:

    Basically, what they are inferring is that Jesus’ birth, life, death, defeat of the enemy, and resurrection was not enough. God’s work is not enough.

    Absolutely. In their minds, Christians have to be under their control to produce new Calvinista churches.

    Not just women, though. Lots of men, too. Their bait and switch that men will get to rule their families and maybe one day rule the church is just a way to enslave men as well.

  30. ishy wrote:

    Their bait and switch that men will get to rule their families and maybe one day rule the church is just a way to enslave men as well.

    As I have been known to say in the past concerning Driscoll, they oppress the ewes in order to garner favor from the rams.

  31. Lydia wrote:

    There is also no way Western Expansion could work the way it did without females knowing how to shoot, having babies in the back of covered wagons and strapping the baby to her back to plant the fields. They also buried a lot of babies back then. And moms.

    Most Christian comp people live in an idealized bubble. They don’t think through the obvious.

    My grandmother had three little kids, none of school age, when she was divorced from my grandfather. She was a sharecropper and had to get up every day and work on the farm. My late father told me that as a little boy, he and his brother were watched by their slightly older sister, as they all played on the porch of their tiny house. Grandma would check on them while plowing every few rows. My other (step) grandmother was a sergeant in the Women’s Army Corps during WWII and later was a secretary. My mother and her siblings basically had to take care of themselves when they weren’t in school and do things like prepare dinner.

    Years ago, I read a book about English medieval life that was drawn from coroners’ records. Basically, the coroner was a guy appointed by the king to investigate unnatural deaths. *sigh* A lot of unnatural deaths involved very small children falling into wells or into the fire or otherwise getting into fatal trouble. Nobody thought it strange that these toddlers were being watched by children of only five or six years old. Why? Because their mothers were not sitting at home. They were out giving their work to the local feudal lord as was required by general agreement!

    Yeah, these guys live in a bubble.

  32. Lydia wrote:

    Most Christian comp people live in an idealized bubble. They don’t think through the obvious.

    1 Timothy 2 women? Titus 2 women? Eph. 5 women?
    No, no, and no!
    I want to be a Judges 4 woman!

  33. Velour wrote:

    I am so very glad that these outrageous doctrines of men, which have NOTHING to do with The Gospel, are being courageously confronted.

    Velour,
    Ugh, you can say that again and again. Was also in a church in the bad old days where we were told what to wear. Strangest thing, with this command from the elder gods in Calvin Land, came the command from the elder gods of what to think too, and when, and why. And whom to talk with, and why; and what to say, and what NOT to say, and where to go and when. All because it was a “stumbling block” for the pervs who posted as men in that false church and its man-made gospel.

    Week after week, men somehow knew how we felt. I was speaking to another lady friend one day, and her husband simply told me to be quiet, as I did not know what I was talking about. It had to to with women’s private things, and I told him as much. Well, he asked if I was subverting my husband’s authority too (former husband, by the way). I did not answer him. He blew up, got red in the face and took his wife and walked away.

    Yes, I was probably not being feminine enough, and this Neo-Calvo “man” was probably simply acting out his “masculine” nonsense, as he had been told at the men’s meetings where they had been fed the DVDs that hammered on this “masculine/feminine” garbage. (Washer, MacArthur, Sproul…the normal wizards of the dark).

    Yes, their doctrines (of grace, they call it; which deliciously, seriously misleading) are an outrageous gospel. Oh, but what do we know? we do not have the mind or the privilege to understand the “sovereign God’s” secrets that he chooses only to impart to his chosen “men.”

    Yes, believers are not defined by masculine and feminine traits and what the hell we wear does not affect our hearts and minds (so, if I want to wear a pair of jeans, it’s not my fault if another man stares while his wife is next to him. How the heck can it even be??? Who is staring? Not I!). We are children of God now.

  34. Boston Lady wrote:

    her husband simply told me to be quiet, as I did not know what I was talking about. It had to to with women’s private things, and I told him as much. Well, he asked if I was subverting my husband’s authority too (former husband, by the way). I did not answer him. He blew up, got red in the face and took his wife and walked away.

    Yeah, when my daughter’s Black and Tan coon hound starts acting up like that, she puts a shock collar on him. …. I’m a bit surprised that we haven’t heard the same tactics being used by some of these men to control their women’s behavior!
    Boston Lady wrote:

    Yes, believers are not defined by masculine and feminine traits and what the hell we wear does not affect our hearts and minds (so, if I want to wear a pair of jeans, it’s not my fault if another man stares while his wife is next to him. How the heck can it even be??? Who is staring? Not I!). We are children of God now.

    If some of these guys stare at women who wear jeans to church, they need to stay away from Walmart and state/county fairs. The way some wome dress in those places would really send them over the edge!

  35. Nancy2 wrote:

    I want to be a Judges 4 woman!

    And THAT should be the name of your blog. Or somebodies blog. It’s way better than the alternatives.

  36. “So let’s have no more nonsense about femininity and masculinity being the key to understanding how to be women and men in Christ, because the Bible doesn’t teach masculine and feminine traits.”

    Well Tim it’s obvious that you don’t believe the Bible and that you don’t go to a Bible-believing church…

  37. Boston Lady wrote:

    Week after week, men somehow knew how we felt. I was speaking to another lady friend one day, and her husband simply told me to be quiet, as I did not know what I was talking about. It had to to with women’s private things, and I told him as much. Well, he asked if I was subverting my husband’s authority too (former husband, by the way). I did not answer him. He blew up, got red in the face and took his wife and walked away.

    I can’t believe people have the nerve to say that sort of thing. Insane.

  38. Muff Potter wrote:

    Well Tim it’s obvious that you don’t believe the Bible and that you don’t go to a Bible-believing church…

    Isn’t it amazing the number of people that go to “Bible-believing” churches that don’t actually know anything about what the Bible actually says?

  39. @ Lea:
    Lea, keep in mind that the “authority” and knowledge of men in this movement supersede everything and everyone, whether they know something about a topic or not. Simply by virtue of being a man, they “know” things. This particular friend never spoke with me again, and I left that particular circus a long time ago. She simply buckled to her husband like a scared little puppy.
    Also keep in mind that men in this false movement are indoctrinated weekly, more than once. But what got me almost the most was the hypocrisy the elders (this guy included) showed when church “service” was on and people were watching (new folk).
    Of course, all men are not the same! What is interesting is that every man I’d ever known/spoken with (with or without written consent) in that movement had an “air” about them… a “god” complex, if you understand correctly. I’m going out on a flaky limb, but men who are from the “lost” (those “fools” who have not been elected) way how to treat women a hundred times better. Maybe, well, because they know the true gospel.
    Yes, those were horrible times. Thank God that I am DONE.

  40. Boston Lady wrote:

    Of course, all men are not the same!

    Most men, Christian or no, are not really like that. At least, they have the good sense not to be like that unless it is tolerated in their subculture! Which it is in these pockets of Christianity, but it wasn’t always that way. I grew up in church (SBC even) and never remember anything like that.

  41. ishy wrote:

    “Piper says that TGC emphasizes the gender issue in order to protect, display, and release the gospel for maximum human flourishing.”
    http://www.dennyburk.com/why-complementarianism-is-a-gospel-issue/ (in the comments)

    You know what the world sees when they look at these men? Insecure wimps who can’t have a mature discussion and make compromises like a reasonable adult.

    I am reminded of when I was in college, and I was telling my dad about an editorial I wrote for the Liberty newspaper. It was a direct response to “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”, and I was explaining to my dad about how Harris insisted that guys have to ask a girl’s father to marry the girl before asking the girl.

    My (non-believing) dad’s response: “They must be a bunch of wimps if they can’t ask the girl first. Those women should dump them.”

    Extreme complementarianism does not further the gospel, because it actually hinders the message of the gospel that Christ is God, and Lord over death and life. If Christ is the Savior and Lord of these men, they don’t need to rule over other people to be fulfilled.

  42. @ Lea:
    Yes, Lea, I am hinting openly at a specific sub-culture and this specific pocket of “Christianity.” But how times have changed. We’d all be more than horrified when we know what goes on in these Christian” homes, my dear. I think you know what I am saying.
    Oh, there are lovely men out there; men who do not think they “know” everything simply by belonging to this specific thing called Neo-Calvinism (or not so new, really).

    I can take you back all the way to the 70s with some lovely tales…of “godly” men living out their “masculinity”. But let’s rather have a lovely day and praise God for His Son. Can’t go wrong there.

  43. ishy wrote:

    Insecure wimps who can’t have a mature discussion and make compromises like a reasonable adult.

    That’s certainly what I see!

    I find this endless loop into ‘but how will we make decisions if no one is in charge?’ and general idea that all relationships are hierarchical maddening. I swear I’ve never had an actual boss that was as bossy as these guys are!

  44. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele:
    Exactly.

    I bet your grandmothers were resourceful and knew how to improvise with very little in many situations. They could teach us a lot about survival. A comp wife can help you decorate, I guess.

    I will add the wives of the radical reformers who were often drowned after their husbands were because they, too, refused to recant. History records them as “wife of ____”.

  45. Bridget wrote:

    Basically, what they are inferring is that Jesus’ birth, life, death, defeat of the enemy, and resurrection was not enough. God’s work is not enough.

    This.is.it.

  46. Lydia wrote:

    I bet your grandmothers were resourceful and knew how to improvise with very little in many situations. They could teach us a lot about survival. A comp wife can help you decorate, I guess.

    I think most of the comp wives who go to these “biblical woman” seminars would get a case of the vapors (or prolly even faint) if some of us tried to teach them to do things our grandmothers taught us to do!

  47. @ Nancy2:
    There are some precious old saints out there. I was shocked to read an essay my kid wrote about the seniors in our former church she has been very close to before they passed, what they taught her not just by example but in relating their own life experiences. she loved spending time around them. She learned that life was tough for most of them but they practiced hard work, savings, frugality, perserverence, etc. She learned those women were tough cookies. I was thrilled she chose that for an essay.

    Those sorts of relationships are gold. A part of the fellowship and interaction we need in the Body.

  48. NJ wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Thank you, Tim! Your blog isn’t a train wreck. I’ve been meandering over at Doug Wilson’s blog the past few days, and THAT is a train wreck in constant motion. With Wilson, most everything comes down to gender. And the great majority of the ills in society are due to evil Feminists. They are a sad, sorry bunch over there.
    I admire anyone with the gumption to do that, especially given the growing number of manosphere trolls hanging out there. Someone actually qualified to be a pastor would be given serious pause.
    If you’ve got a really strong stomach, there’s always baylyblog.

    Oh…I’ve been to the Baylyblog. But unless a woman addresses the Bayly’s in a winsome, submissive tone, they will warn you once and then ban you. At least Blog and Mablog allows dissenters to comment. I wouldn’t be surprised if Wilson enjoys watching all the dust fly as a result of his wordsmithyness.

  49. Darlene wrote:

    Oh…I’ve been to the Baylyblog. But unless a woman addresses the Bayly’s in a winsome, submissive tone, they will warn you once and then ban you.

    Such manly men they are who cannot handle an honest woman’s opinion…

  50. ishy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Oh…I’ve been to the Baylyblog. But unless a woman addresses the Bayly’s in a winsome, submissive tone, they will warn you once and then ban you.

    Such manly men they are who cannot handle an honest woman’s opinion…

    It’s probably a lot easier to win an argument if you won’t let a woman speak.

  51. Lea wrote:

    It’s probably a lot easier to win an argument if you won’t let a woman speak.

    In all fairness, they probably block anyone who disagrees, but they just might give one more chance to a man, because of course, as women are much more easily deceived, men are much more likely to be converted by their brilliant Gospel™ arguments.

    Their block list must be a mile long. I wonder if they need special plugins for that…

  52. ishy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing the number of people that go to “Bible-believing” churches that don’t actually know anything about what the Bible actually says?

    Or what it doesn’t say. I survived for almost two decades in the Calvary Chapel cult. To this day they teach that Genesis 3:16 was the turning point for Eve, that is, when she sought to usurp Adam’s God given and divine authority over her.

  53. Okay, so if men wore robes back in Bible times, what were they wearing that was considered ‘woman’s clothing’ that was then prohibited?

  54. Muff Potter wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing the number of people that go to “Bible-believing” churches that don’t actually know anything about what the Bible actually says?

    Or what it doesn’t say. I survived for almost two decades in the Calvary Chapel cult. To this day they teach that Genesis 3:16 was the turning point for Eve, that is, when she sought to usurp Adam’s God given and divine authority over her.

    so they ditched the classic orthodox tradition, lost touch with the Reformation, walked away from Christ-centered readings of the Bible, and ended up forming their OWN cult with their own ‘male headship’ self-worship complete with misogynistic treatment of females…. very dark stuff, very destructive

  55. Beakerj wrote:

    Okay, so if men wore robes back in Bible times, what were they wearing that was considered ‘woman’s clothing’ that was then prohibited?

    They were basically the same, but men had special Jewish customs, like tassels. These, of course, were much of the Pharisaical law added to Scripture. Women also tended to wear an underdress for modesty, and also longer veils.

    The wiki entry is fairly decent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_clothing#cite_note-JE-Costume-1

    In other words, not much other than extra undergarments.

  56. Muff Potter wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing the number of people that go to “Bible-believing” churches that don’t actually know anything about what the Bible actually says?

    Or what it doesn’t say. I survived for almost two decades in the Calvary Chapel cult. To this day they teach that Genesis 3:16 was the turning point for Eve, that is, when she sought to usurp Adam’s God given and divine authority over her.

    I’m afraid many Southern Baptist churches are teaching the same thing. Are they not familiar with the New Testament?

  57. Beakerj wrote:

    Okay, so if men wore robes back in Bible times, what were they wearing that was considered ‘woman’s clothing’ that was then prohibited?

    Pants. All the women wore pants back then.

  58. ishy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing the number of people that go to “Bible-believing” churches that don’t actually know anything about what the Bible actually says?

    That’s the problem with fundamentalism. It’s about being Bible-believing than Jesus-loving. It’s about obeying the letter and not about walking in the Spirit. They get bogged down in technicalities about each law instead looking at the goal of it – love to God and your neighbour.

  59. From the post….

    Greet each other with a kiss of love. (1 Peter 5:14.)

    OK men, when you show up at the men’s breakfast next weekend make sure you’ve got plenty of lip balm because you’re going to be smooching … a lot.

    ….

    This.happens.

    Some of you know me and my stories and I have a story about this.

    Many years ago, we lived in small town Pennsylvania and befriended an earth-cookie family. You know, homeschooling, farm animals, garden. (I’m not disparaging the lifestyle, just being descriptive.)

    These friends befriended their community neighbors who happened to be old order Mennonites.

    We were invited to our friends’ home for an event as were the Mennonites. I was meeting and greeting in the crowded space when two men who were arm’s length away from me, greeted one another.

    With a holy kiss. On the lips.

    And that started a holy kiss fest with their other Mennonite male brethren.

    Yes, I was wigged out and I must have stuttered the whole night. I was not expecting that. At.all.

    And, FYI, the women did not greet one another in that manner. Which makes me wonder about their doctrine … maybe “brethren” is the key word as the verse does not say “sisters”?

  60. ZechZav wrote:

    That’s the problem with fundamentalism. It’s about being Bible-believing than Jesus-loving. It’s about obeying the letter and not about walking in the Spirit. They get bogged down in technicalities about each law instead looking at the goal of it – love to God and your neighbour.

    I think that’s one of the most succinct explanations of it ever.

    And that’s exactly how the Pharisees lived. I can’t imagine how people still manage to not get it. Oh right…they’re not actually READING the Bible!

  61. ishy wrote:

    And that’s exactly how the Pharisees lived. I can’t imagine how people still manage to not get it. Oh right…they’re not actually READING the Bible!

    That’s it exactly. If people would just read the actual Gospels, they would be inoculated against this nonsense. Because that’s just what it is – nonsense.

    The Gospels are not difficult to read – Jesus wanted to be understood after all. But it’s too much to ask, seemingly, that people actually read the Bible that they carry around ‘religiously’.

  62. So of course this article is excellent as I would expect. However, it does kind of miss one thing – Mohler et al don’t actually care what the Bible teaches (interesting side bar – there is a significant difference between saying “what the Bible says” and “what the Bible teaches”). They are committed to supporting their Baptist social structures, and reading it back into the Bible. They did it with slavery and they are doing it with women. And it is all marketing. The “manhood quest” came first. It was only afterword that Eldridge capitalized on it by making it “Christian”, and only a few years later that Lifeway picked up on the $$ to be had. Kind of like the rash of “sex sermons” we saw circa 2010. The Biblical gender roles thing is just one more way to feed a veracious cultural appetite, get paid to do so, and reinforce everyone’s collective sense of entitlement and self-importance all at the same time.

  63. Christiane wrote:

    so they ditched the classic orthodox tradition, lost touch with the Reformation, w

    The Reformation guys such as Calvin and Luther were very much into male headship and the specially anointed males to lead the peons. I don’t understand the concept of “Orthodoxy” except some special guys in a room deciding what would be truth for everyone else under their control. There are different orthodoxies which makes the concept problematic.

  64. roebuck wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    And that’s exactly how the Pharisees lived. I can’t imagine how people still manage to not get it. Oh right…they’re not actually READING the Bible!

    That’s it exactly. If people would just read the actual Gospels, they would be inoculated against this nonsense. Because that’s just what it is – nonsense.

    The Gospels are not difficult to read – Jesus wanted to be understood after all. But it’s too much to ask, seemingly, that people actually read the Bible that they carry around ‘religiously’.

    The reform boys do not particularly like the Gospels and Jesus IMO.

  65. mot wrote:

    The reform boys do not particularly like the Gospels and Jesus IMO.

    The reform boys are not particularly Christian IMO.

  66. roebuck wrote:

    If people would just read the actual Gospels, they would be inoculated against this nonsense.

    New Calvinists have been taught to hang out in the Pauline epistles. They don’t really need Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since they are more difficult to twist to conform to the tenets of reformed theology. When I get the chance with a young reformer in my area, I advise them to read the Gospels noting that if they read Paul first, they might read Jesus wrong; but if they read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

  67. Max wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    If people would just read the actual Gospels, they would be inoculated against this nonsense.

    New Calvinists have been taught to hang out in the Pauline epistles. They don’t really need Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since they are more difficult to twist to conform to the tenets of reformed theology. When I get the chance with a young reformer in my area, I advise them to read the Gospels noting that if they read Paul first, they might read Jesus wrong; but if they read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

    I don’t understand why anyone would read Paul first, but I guess some do. There is sometimes a tension between the Epistles of Paul and Gospels, and if you haven’t really immersed yourself in the Gospels, the actual words and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can be rather confusing. I am most assuredly a Christian, not a Paulian. I sometimes feel like the neocals are practicing Paulianity…

  68. roebuck wrote:

    Max wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    If people would just read the actual Gospels, they would be inoculated against this nonsense.

    New Calvinists have been taught to hang out in the Pauline epistles. They don’t really need Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since they are more difficult to twist to conform to the tenets of reformed theology. When I get the chance with a young reformer in my area, I advise them to read the Gospels noting that if they read Paul first, they might read Jesus wrong; but if they read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

    I don’t understand why anyone would read Paul first, but I guess some do. There is sometimes a tension between the Epistles of Paul and Gospels, and if you haven’t really immersed yourself in the Gospels, the actual words and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can be rather confusing. I am most assuredly a Christian, not a Paulian. I sometimes feel like the neocals are practicing Paulianity…

    I agree that it seems many in leadership in the SBC world follow the teachings of Paul and not Jesus IMO.

  69. mot wrote:

    I agree that it seems many in leadership in the SBC world follow the teachings of Paul and not Jesus IMO.

    It sure seems that way sometimes…

  70. roebuck wrote:

    mot wrote:

    The reform boys do not particularly like the Gospels and Jesus IMO.

    The reform boys are not particularly Christian IMO.

    But very sadly they have taken over the SBC and I am sure they are not going to give it back.

  71. roebuck wrote:

    I sometimes feel like the neocals are practicing Paulianity…

    They only hang on about a fourth of Paul’s writings, because Paul writes so much about Christ. They spend most of their time in the Old Testament, especially talking about the law and God’s anger.

    Otherwise, they seem to pretend the gospels and the rest of the epistles just don’t exist. And since it’s heavily encouraged to read about the Bible from only their theologians, I don’t think it even occurs to them to study the parts not discussed.

  72. roebuck wrote:

    I don’t understand why anyone would read Paul first, but I guess some do.

    If you come to faith through Calvin, and not Christ, that is what you do. Calvin’s teachings on the doctrines of grace hang on the epistles not the gospels. It’s safer to gamble that Paul was saying something else, than take Jesus on.

  73. Max wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    I don’t understand why anyone would read Paul first, but I guess some do.

    If you come to faith through Calvin, and not Christ, that is what you do. Calvin’s teachings on the doctrines of grace hang on the epistles not the gospels. It’s safer to gamble that Paul was saying something else, than take Jesus on.

    How was that ever able to happen? How did Calvin get away with it?

    Gospels first, Jesus first, that is the whole point. I am so disillusioned by what has happened to Christianity in the last decade or three. What is presented to the world as Christianity largely isn’t.

  74. roebuck wrote:

    How was that ever able to happen?

    The enemy of the Cross of Christ has always been able to find a man here and there who would lead church folks away from the Truth with half-truths carefully crafted to sound convincing. But when you shed the Light on it …

  75. roebuck wrote:

    I don’t understand why anyone would read Paul first, but I guess some do. There is sometimes a tension between the Epistles of Paul and Gospels, and if you haven’t really immersed yourself in the Gospels, the actual words and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can be rather confusing. I am most assuredly a Christian, not a Paulian. I sometimes feel like the neocals are practicing Paulianity…

    I think St. Paul’s words, seen through the lens of Christ, do not show the ‘tension’ you have noticed. St. Paul can only be understood in the Light of Christ. It’s like what some fundamentalists do with the OT, when they try to read it without taking into consideration the revelation of God that came to us revealed by Christ Himself ….. they have a diminished understanding of ‘God’ and a diminished view of Our Lord’s revelation of Him. When fundamentalism turns towards the understanding of men and can only find meaning at that level, it cannot comprehend what was only intended to be seen in the Light of Christ.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qUW7IxapdU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qUW7IxapdU

  76. ishy wrote:

    They spend most of their time in the Old Testament, especially talking about the law and God’s anger.

    Otherwise, they seem to pretend the gospels and the rest of the epistles just don’t exist.

    And they are as were these men BEFORE they encountered Our Risen Lord on the road to Emmaus:
    “15 And as they talked and deliberated, Jesus Himself came up and walked along with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him. 17 He asked them, “What are you discussing so intently as you walk along?” They stood still, with sadness on their faces ….” (from the Holy Gospel of St. Luke, Ch. 24)

  77. Tim wrote:

    Mr. Wilson once called me out by name. He had used horrible language about women he disagreed with and I said it showed a disrespect for all women. He then twisted my comment and said I accused him of using insulting language about all women. He even wrote a blog post on it.

    Isn’t the most common characteristic of a sociopath the ability to instantly turn the tables and play the Poor Poor Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Meanie (i.e. his victim)?

  78. Mara wrote:

    Again, these men think that if they believe it strong enough and preach it hard enough, it will be so, by the force of their inflated view of masculinity.

    “ABRACADABRA” = “I Speak and IT IS SO!”

  79. Nancy2 wrote:

    If some of these guys stare at women who wear jeans to church, they need to stay away from Walmart and state/county fairs. The way some wome dress in those places would really send them over the edge!

    Especially if they’re Muscular Women(TM)…

  80. Lydia wrote:

    I bet your grandmothers were resourceful and knew how to improvise with very little in many situations. They could teach us a lot about survival. A comp wife can help you decorate, I guess.

    And keep the house white-glove-inspection clean.
    And sing praises of your Manly Manless like a 24/7 chatty doll.
    And satisfy every Urrrge in Your Arrreas (no matter how kinky) at the snap of your fingers.

  81. roebuck wrote:

    That’s it exactly. If people would just read the actual Gospels, they would be inoculated against this nonsense.

    Who needs Christ when you have CALVIN?

  82. ishy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing the number of people that go to “Bible-believing” churches that don’t actually know anything about what the Bible actually says?

    I learned from experience that “Bible-Believing” means RUN AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN!

  83. Boston Lady wrote:

    Well, he asked if I was subverting my husband’s authority too (former husband, by the way). I did not answer him. He blew up, got red in the face and took his wife and walked away.

    Did he poop his diaper?
    Hold his breath until he turned blue?
    Smash everything within reach?

  84. Boston Lady wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Lea, keep in mind that the “authority” and knowledge of men in this movement supersede everything and everyone, whether they know something about a topic or not. Simply by virtue of being a man, they “know” things.

    Gnostic = “He Who KNOWS Things”.

  85. Christiane wrote:

    so they ditched the classic orthodox tradition, lost touch with the Reformation, walked away from Christ-centered readings of the Bible, and ended up forming their OWN cult with their own ‘male headship’ self-worship complete with misogynistic treatment of females…. very dark stuff, very destructive

    https://www.nakedpastor.com/2016/12/complementarianism-and-biblical-manhood/

    P.S. What Did You Expect? It was Calvary Chapel, the type example of Born-Again Bible-Believing(TM) in the Image of Papa Chuck.

  86. ishy wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    I sometimes feel like the neocals are practicing Paulianity…

    They only hang on about a fourth of Paul’s writings, because Paul writes so much about Christ.

    Paul even explicitly tells us not to worship him, and tries to put the focus back on Jesus. Paul clearly had respect and affection for the female leadership in the early church. I don’t think Paul would be too pleased with what they are doing with his letters.

  87. mot wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    mot wrote:
    The reform boys do not particularly like the Gospels and Jesus IMO.
    The reform boys are not particularly Christian IMO.
    But very sadly they have taken over the SBC and I am sure they are not going to give it back.

    Who would want it? It will take a few generations to deprogram all the people they have indoctrinated in their seminaries with fatalism and those they, in turn, brainwashed. They are trying to rehab with a more social Gospel but they forgot about patriarchy. :o)

  88. How about when King David was dancing in his undies before the Lord? Have they started a dancing in underwear denomination?

  89. Max wrote:

    New Calvinists have been taught to hang out in the Pauline epistles. They don’t really need Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since they are more difficult to twist to conform to the tenets of reformed theology. When I get the chance with a young reformer in my area, I advise them to read the Gospels noting that if they read Paul first, they might read Jesus wrong; but if they read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

    That’s ironic because the events in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John happened whilst the Mosaic Law was still operational. Paul’s epistles were written after Jesus’ death and resurrection when it ended, which is why Paul could say “there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free male, male nor female”. And they cherry pick the things they like from Paul’s epistles. They love the 1 Timothy passage which says that a woman is not to teach but they ignore the fact that a woman can prophesy in 1 Corinthians (which was considered authoritative) and that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses (Acts). Or they explain it away with a quick answer pulled from a textbook and passed down verbally through history.

  90. emr wrote:

    Great quote from the James Freeman Clarke book:

    True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ”Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.” Manly strength respects womanly purity, sympathy, and grace of heart. And this is the real chivalry of the present hour.”

    While the language may seem a little bit old-fashioned, and I would use “human decency” instead of “chivalry”, and while I would not just name womanly purity, grace, and sympathy, but also strength, I wholeheartedly subscribe to the following:

    ”Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.”

  91. Sorry, messed up all my blockquote tags above. Here’s another try:

    @emr

    Great quote from the James Freeman Clarke book:

    True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ”Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.” Manly strength respects womanly purity, sympathy, and grace of heart. And this is the real chivalry of the present hour.”

    While the language may seem a little bit old-fashioned, and I would use “human decency” instead of “chivalry”, and while I would not just name womanly purity, grace, and sympathy, but also strength, I wholeheartedly subscribe to the following:

    ”Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.”

  92. Christiane wrote:

    St. Paul can only be understood in the Light of Christ.

    That is essentially what I said. Perhaps I should have written ‘there is sometimes a perceived tension…’.

  93. @ roebuck:
    I agree. With the advent of ‘inerrant’ interpretations, we see some Christians saying that the words of St. Paul are as important as the words of Our Lord. But most orthodox Christians realize that Our Lord spoke and acted in the very Person of God in sacred Scripture. St. Paul never claimed the same eminence as Christ, no. He saw himself as Our Lord’s servant, not His ‘equal’. St. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, described Our Lord with these words:
    “9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord …”

    St. Paul lived in the light of Christ, and so his writings need to be read and understood in that same light.

  94. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    the ability to instantly turn the tables and play the Poor Poor Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Meanie

    He did portray himself as being misunderstood and unfairly characterized. Then he called me stupid.

  95. Great post. Haven’t read all the comments but we have to the remember the bible chronicles the history of a very different time.

    I think that people see this culture as “biblical” or endorsed by God when the bible is simply stating what was the norm for that time.

    Ideas of what feminine and masculine as portrayed in the bible are a reflection of the culture and time in which the bible stories were written.

    Our society has changed dramatically. We need to interpret the bible through a 21st century lens, not ignoring our advances in science, technology and civil rights. There are lots of actions in the bible that we would consider barbaric – such as exterminating our enemies to the last man, woman, child and animal. Likewise our ideas of gender should not be guided by edicts that were written in a time that did not even an inkling of the human genome or genetics in general.

    I mean, how could Jesus be of the line of David when Joseph was not his biological father?

  96. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Tim wrote:

    Mr. Wilson once called me out by name. He had used horrible language about women he disagreed with and I said it showed a disrespect for all women. He then twisted my comment and said I accused him of using insulting language about all women. He even wrote a blog post on it.

    Isn’t the most common characteristic of a sociopath the ability to instantly turn the tables and play the Poor Poor Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Meanie (i.e. his victim)?

    I don’t know why it shocked me when Piper promoted Doug Wilson. When I first started blogging, I came across Wilson discussed on forums of people who were coming out of extreme patriarchal groups. The sort of people who move their families across the country to be a part of the cult. I checked out his blog and he reminded me of the pontificating Marlon Brando character in Apocalypse Now. “Oh, the horror.

    Then years later Piper is promoting him. The Piper followers, of course, had never heard of “Black and Tan” or “Slavery As It Was” nor the pedophile marriage because if Piper approves, that is all that matters. It is scary how easily a guru endorsement works.

    Wilson is bone chilling creepy. Now, I see that under the flowery prose and passionate delivery, Piper has much in common with him.

  97. Lydia wrote:

    Wilson is bone chilling creepy. Now, I see that under the flowery prose and passionate delivery, Piper has much in common with him.

    Birds of a feather…

  98. ZechZav wrote:

    they cherry pick the things they like from Paul’s epistles

    No doubt about it! New Calvinists are masters at selecting individual Scriptures, with a text out of context approach, to support their theology. But, in the process, they ignore significant portions of related Scripture which contradict their belief and practice. Such cherry-picking works for them because the Generations Xers and Millenials they have attracted prefer the fast food approach to faith … they ain’t going to discipline themselves to spend time reading the Word themselves. They prefer to be Piperized, rather than spiritualized by the Holy Spirit to help them know Truth.

  99. Jack wrote:

    I mean, how could Jesus be of the line of David when Joseph was not his biological father?

    Apparently Mary traces back to David as well.

  100. Christiane wrote:

    St. Paul lived in the light of Christ, and so his writings need to be read and understood in that same light.

    The Word (Truth) + The Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit) = Revealed Truth

    New Calvinism is operating primarily on their version of “truth”, rather than revealed Truth. The type of disciples created by these two approaches to the study of Scripture differ greatly. If a believer prefers man’s interpretation of Scripture, rather than calling upon the Holy Spirit to teach him, he will drift out of God’s will for his life. Such is the case with New Calvinism. There’s nothing wrong with Paul’s writings when filtered through the Holy Spirit, rather than a reformed theology grid.

  101. Tim wrote:

    He did portray himself as being misunderstood and unfairly characterized. Then he called me stupid.

    He is immature as far as I can tell, and all his fancy words don’t change that fact.

  102. Tim wrote:

    Mary traces back to David as well.

    @ Jack:

    Genealogies. You know. Those parts people skip over? If I remember correctly, Matthew traces David to Joseph and Luke traces David to Mary.

  103. Question: In practical terms, what does it mean to *submit to the leadership?*

    Dee asked this on twitter and I’m pulling this here because I think it’s half relevant…since women are supposed to ‘submit/obey’ according to these guys.

    The truth is, I am not going to ‘obey’ anyone who tells me to do a thing I think is wrong. Morally, emotionally, etc. And I can’t predict what church leaders, or a husband, or anyone might ask me to do. So I cannot agree beforehand to obey anyone in good conscience, as it would be a lie.

  104. Max wrote:

    New Calvinism is operating primarily on their version of “truth”, rather than revealed Truth.

    “Truth is singular. Its ‘versions’ are mistruths.”
    — From David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas

  105. Nancy2 wrote:

    The way some wome dress in those places would really send them over the edge!

    ” …strong she seemed and stern as steel, a daughter of kings”
    (the lady Eowyn …… not exactly Piper’s kind of girl, nope)

  106. Christiane wrote:

    With the advent of ‘inerrant’ interpretations, we see some Christians saying that the words of St. Paul are as important as the words of Our Lord. But most orthodox Christians realize that Our Lord spoke and acted in the very Person of God in sacred Scripture.

    A great deal of their “inerrant” interpretations hang on English translations that aren’t quite accurate, or which don’t convey the full meaning of a passage. This is true for fundamentalists, but the Calvinistas already have gone so far to wrongly translate passages and then claim, “THIS IS RIGHT FOREVER!”, so who knows what lengths they’ll go to. I don’t think many of their leaders care half as much about being biblical as being in charge.

  107. @ MidwesternEasterner:
    Ouch…”guessing G_d isn’t walking through there asking _____ where are you?” . OK, how about the Church where everyone stands on their heads? If one exists, I’ll have to work a different version of facetious

  108. ishy wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    With the advent of ‘inerrant’ interpretations, we see some Christians saying that the words of St. Paul are as important as the words of Our Lord. But most orthodox Christians realize that Our Lord spoke and acted in the very Person of God in sacred Scripture.

    A great deal of their “inerrant” interpretations hang on English translations that aren’t quite accurate, or which don’t convey the full meaning of a passage. This is true for fundamentalists, but the Calvinistas already have gone so far to wrongly translate passages and then claim, “THIS IS RIGHT FOREVER!”, so who knows what lengths they’ll go to. I don’t think many of their leaders care half as much about being biblical as being in charge.

    We are in an age of ‘false news’ and ‘false truth’ where the Fifth Estate is being maligned …. we can expect some strange stuff ….. when those that stand as ‘watchdogs’ are being heavily maligned, you can get ready to hear some genuine ‘false truth’ from the maligners, yes

    for the emperor to successfully parade around with no clothes on, the crowd must not include the innocents who would speak out the real truth

    “It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.” (Eric Hoffer)

  109. ishy wrote:

    who knows what lengths they’ll go to. I don’t think many of their leaders care half as much about being biblical as being in charge.

    I think you are right:

    ” Adrian Rogers (the first SBC president elected by the Patterson- Pressler coalition) said, “If we say pickles have souls, they (seminary professors) better teach that pickles have souls.”
    http://centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/sbc.htm

  110. Christiane wrote:

    “It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.” (Eric Hoffer)

    “Belief can be manipulated, only knowledge is dangerous…”
    — Bene Gesserit saying —

  111. Muff Potter wrote:

    “Belief can be manipulated, only knowledge is dangerous…”
    — Bene Gesserit saying —

    It makes me wonder what people like Mohler really think of the YRR. “I can pretty much do anything because I have an unquestioning army of young, dumb idiots who will do whatever I tell them.”

  112. Christiane wrote:

    We are in an age of ‘false news’ and ‘false truth’ where the Fifth Estate is being maligned …. we can expect some strange stuff ….. when those that stand as ‘watchdogs’ are being heavily maligned, you can get ready to hear some genuine ‘false truth’ from the maligners, yes

    It’s like the pastors who give false truth or news. They expect to be believed because of their gravitas/titles. It is good to question these so called gate keepers. Like the Vatican News Agency that ‘speaks for all Catholics’.

  113. Lydia wrote:

    It’s like the pastors who give false truth or news. They expect to be believed because of their gravitas/titles. It is good to question these so called gate keepers.

    Or the people who come on here and say “You all are wrong! My church does this the right way! You now have to believe everything I say!” but they really have no idea what their church is actually doing.

  114. ishy wrote:

    Or the people who come on here and say “You all are wrong! My church does this the right way! You now have to believe everything I say!” but they really have no idea what their church is actually doing.

    We see this a lot when their church has publically made a huge huge mistake. ‘No, my pastor didn’t do anything wrong’…two months later…’he said he was sorry. We have to forgive!’

  115. ishy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    It’s like the pastors who give false truth or news. They expect to be believed because of their gravitas/titles. It is good to question these so called gate keepers.

    Or the people who come on here and say “You all are wrong! My church does this the right way! You now have to believe everything I say!” but they really have no idea what their church is actually doing.

    The SBC has been telling people what they think or should think for years. And they have their own “news” organ, Baptist Press, which works to make it all fit the agenda.
    And people believe it because they like the leaders or the tribe.

    I say, question all of the gate keepers. We don’t need them much anymore.

  116. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Wilson is bone chilling creepy. Now, I see that under the flowery prose and passionate delivery, Piper has much in common with him.

    Birds of a feather…

    And a good deal of the participants in the comment section of Wilson’s blog are none chilling creepy.

  117. Muff Potter wrote:

    “Truth is singular. Its ‘versions’ are mistruths.” (David Mitchell)

    Great quote! From my estimation, most religious teachings are mistruths, rather than the real thing. When men twist Scripture to make it fit the tenets of their pet theology (e.g., New Calvinism), they are treading on dangerous ground.

  118. Tim wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    The Piper followers, of course, had never heard of “Black and Tan” or “Slavery As It Was”

    I wrote on Wilson’s monograph Southern Slavery As It Was, and how he tries to defend American slavery as better for the slaves than freedom: Pastor Doug Wilson Defends American Slavery As Being Good For Black People.

    Tim, I just read your response to Wilson’s ‘Black and Tan.’ In those quotes from Wilson’s book, I couldn’t help but think that replacing the word “slave” with the word “women” would reveal his misogyny. In Patriarchy, women are equivalent to slaves.

  119. Darlene wrote:

    Tim, I just read your response to Wilson’s ‘Black and Tan.’ In those quotes from Wilson’s book, I couldn’t help but think that replacing the word “slave” with the word “women” would reveal his misogyny. In Patriarchy, women are equivalent to slaves.

    They used Jesus’ submission to the Father to justify American slavery, and they use it today to justify modetn patriarchy.

  120. Tim wrote:

    They used Jesus’ submission to the Father to justify American slavery, and they use it today to justify modetn patriarchy.

    I bet they’d have a totally different theology if they were the ones in slavery.

  121. Christiane wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    who knows what lengths they’ll go to. I don’t think many of their leaders care half as much about being biblical as being in charge.

    I think you are right:

    ” Adrian Rogers (the first SBC president elected by the Patterson- Pressler coalition) said, “If we say pickles have souls, they (seminary professors) better teach that pickles have souls.”
    http://centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/sbc.htm

    The fundamentalist takeover started the slippery slope downfall to where we are today in the SBC with the neo-calvinist taking over from the conservatives.

  122. ishy wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    “Belief can be manipulated, only knowledge is dangerous…”
    — Bene Gesserit saying —

    It makes me wonder what people like Mohler really think of the YRR. “I can pretty much do anything because I have an unquestioning army of young, dumb idiots who will do whatever I tell them.”

    Make no mistake, not all are young. I’m witnessing a subtle change
    of a SBC church currently from a 50 year old. Preaching was his
    second career. He attended SEBTS in the early 2000’s. I had been
    visiting the church when they hired him. From the get go he struck
    me as different and over time has started slowly interjecting his
    theology into his sermons and quoting such people as RC Sproul,
    B. Warfield, Charles Spurgeon and John MacArthur. I made mental
    notes of people and things he said, researched them and discovered
    his true beliefs along with this site.

  123. Whoops, looks like two other posters already pointed that out. Should’ve checked first.

  124. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    Mary was a descendant of David too.

    If only it were that simple. But Mary was not an heir to the throne being female. Some way has to be found to get Jesus into the male line of descent. Numerous ideas have been put forth including from some big names in early Christianity. I find it interesting, especially so with the increasing prevalence of Islamic thought in this country and the ongoing issues of Jewish law in this area.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Explanations_for_divergence

    But this is off the topic, so I am not going down this road at this time. But Jack is correct, how do you link Jesus to Joseph if he is not his biological father? One of the messianic prophecies depends on the answer to that. As far as I can see not one of the theories is irrefutable.

  125. okrapod wrote:

    how do you link Jesus to Joseph if he is not his biological father?

    well, if Mary was an ‘only child’, which tradition tells us she was, then for purposes of keeping inheritance within the ‘family’, she would have married within her own tribe in accordance with the customs of her people ….. likely, she was a distant cousin of Joseph and therefore related to him through that connection as he would have been a member of her same ‘tribe’

  126. Christiane wrote:

    likely, she was a distant cousin of Joseph and therefore related to him through that connection as he would have been a member of her same ‘tribe’

    Joseph was a descendant of Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba. Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David and Bathsheba.

  127. Tim wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    I’ve been meandering over at Doug Wilson’s blog the past few days

    Mr. Wilson once called me out by name. He had used horrible language about women he disagreed with and I said it showed a disrespect for all women. He then twisted my comment and said I accused him of using insulting language about all women. He even wrote a blog post on it.

    So I wrote one too: Pastors: Stop Disrespecting Women With Your Chauvinistic Name-Calling.

    Woo hoo! Go Tim!!

  128. Lane wrote:

    He attended SEBTS in the early 2000’s

    Comes in second to SBTS as an SBC training ground for New Calvinist pastors.

  129. Lane wrote:

    Make no mistake, not all are young. I’m witnessing a subtle change
    of a SBC church currently from a 50 year old. Preaching was his
    second career. He attended SEBTS in the early 2000’s. I had been
    visiting the church when they hired him. From the get go he struck
    me as different and over time has started slowly interjecting his
    theology into his sermons and quoting such people as RC Sproul,
    B. Warfield, Charles Spurgeon and John MacArthur. I made mental
    notes of people and things he said, researched them and discovered
    his true beliefs along with this site.

    I also attended SEBTS in the early 2000s, and it wasn’t until about 2006 that they really began their conversion process. It started in 2004-2005, but most of the students and staff were against it so there wasn’t a strong neo-Calvinist presence yet.

    However, I believe that Mohler and crew have been fairly successful in their social media campaigns, and they have converted others outside of the seminaries. Lifeway has also been busy producing propaganda such as The Gospel Project. Your pastor is probably one of those that read the blogs and books and followed suit.

  130. Lane wrote:

    Make no mistake, not all are young. I’m witnessing a subtle change
    of a SBC church currently from a 50 year old.

    Most likely, he wants to ride the popular wave while he still has some ministry years left. New Calvinism is so exciting, you know … it’s the SBC of tomorrow.

  131. Lane wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    who knows what lengths they’ll go to. I don’t think many of their leaders care half as much about being biblical as being in charge.

    I think you are right:

    ” Adrian Rogers (the first SBC president elected by the Patterson- Pressler coalition) said, “If we say pickles have souls, they (seminary professors) better teach that pickles have souls.”
    http://centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/sbc.htm

    The fundamentalist takeover started the slippery slope downfall to where we are today in the SBC with the neo-calvinist taking over from the conservatives.

    IMO the FUNDAMENTALIST TAKEOVER of the SBC stripped it of its living soul. What the SBC is today is unrecognizable to me. Patterson and Pressler and Mohler and others have created a monster organization.

  132. mot wrote:

    the FUNDAMENTALIST TAKEOVER of the SBC

    The “Conservative Resurgence” was a stepping stone toward the “Calvinist Resurgence” we are seeing today. I don’t think the Conservative Resurgence leaders (with the exception of Mohler) expected that the TULIP would blossom again in SBC ranks, but New Calvinism has quickly filled the vacuum left by exiting liberal and moderate Southern Baptists.

  133. Max wrote:

    The “Conservative Resurgence” was a stepping stone toward the “Calvinist Resurgence” we are seeing today. I don’t think the Conservative Resurgence leaders (with the exception of Mohler) expected that the TULIP would blossom again in SBC ranks, but New Calvinism has quickly filled the vacuum left by exiting liberal and moderate Southern Baptists.

    A Rogers-Patterson-Pressler- etc “conservative” will weocome a neo-cal over a moderate any day of the week!

  134. By the way, since Doug Wilson has been mentioned at least a few times in this thread, I thought to let readers know that the WordSmith man has an article on his blog addressing the Dylan Roof trial. At one point, Mr. Wilson has the nerve to say, “I have been called a racist more times than I can count, and there is absolutely no substance to it.” I posted a response reminding Mr. Wilson and his readers of his despicable historical “fiction”, ‘Black and Tan.’ I also gave a link to Tim Fall’s blog where he exposes Wilson for the racist that he is.

  135. ishy wrote:

    Lane wrote:

    Make no mistake, not all are young. I’m witnessing a subtle change
    of a SBC church currently from a 50 year old. Preaching was his
    second career. He attended SEBTS in the early 2000’s. I had been
    visiting the church when they hired him. From the get go he struck
    me as different and over time has started slowly interjecting his
    theology into his sermons and quoting such people as RC Sproul,
    B. Warfield, Charles Spurgeon and John MacArthur. I made mental
    notes of people and things he said, researched them and discovered
    his true beliefs along with this site.

    I also attended SEBTS in the early 2000s, and it wasn’t until about 2006 that they really began their conversion process. It started in 2004-2005, but most of the students and staff were against it so there wasn’t a strong neo-Calvinist presence yet.

    However, I believe that Mohler and crew have been fairly successful in their social media campaigns, and they have converted others outside of the seminaries. Lifeway has also been busy producing propaganda such as The Gospel Project. Your pastor is probably one of those that read the blogs and books and followed suit.

    I went back and looked at his bio…he actually received his Doctor of Ministry in Expository Preaching in 2009. His Masters was earlier.

    By the time leadership approached me about joining I had already figured out what was going on. Being nice I said I wasn’t a good fit and if I joined I would not stay a wall flower. I haven’t been approached since. I continue to go because it was my spouses home church growing up.

  136. mot wrote:

    Lane wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    who knows what lengths they’ll go to. I don’t think many of their leaders care half as much about being biblical as being in charge.

    I think you are right:

    ” Adrian Rogers (the first SBC president elected by the Patterson- Pressler coalition) said, “If we say pickles have souls, they (seminary professors) better teach that pickles have souls.”
    http://centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/sbc.htm

    The fundamentalist takeover started the slippery slope downfall to where we are today in the SBC with the neo-calvinist taking over from the conservatives.

    IMO the FUNDAMENTALIST TAKEOVER of the SBC stripped it of its living soul. What the SBC is today is unrecognizable to me. Patterson and Pressler and Mohler and others have created a monster organization.

    I’m afraid you are correct. For the most part the SBC today is nothing like the church I grew up in. I refuse to feed the monster. My monetary tithe goes elsewhere.

  137. Some of these guys remind me of Tzekel-Kan, from Road to El Dorado:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-Lv_Q22ww

    “My lord, you are perfect, but in your perfection you cannot see how IMperfect humans are….” before going on to tell Tulio (who he believes is a god) that he needs to demand sacrifices to get the people to fear him.

    Tzekel-Kan might’ve been based on Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor character, in that both are power-hungry men who rule by fear and think they are qualified to tell God how to do his job.

  138. ishy wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    “Belief can be manipulated, only knowledge is dangerous…”
    — Bene Gesserit saying —

    It makes me wonder what people like Mohler really think of the YRR.

    Ask Chairman Mao what he really thought of the Red Guards.

  139. Christiane wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    The way some wome dress in those places would really send them over the edge!

    ” …strong she seemed and stern as steel, a daughter of kings”
    (the lady Eowyn …… not exactly Piper’s kind of girl, nope)

    Too MUSCULAR.

  140. Tim wrote:

    I wrote on Wilson’s monograph Southern Slavery As It Was, and how he tries to defend American slavery as better for the slaves than freedom: Pastor Doug Wilson Defends American Slavery As Being Good For Black People.

    Shouldn’t that be MASSA Doug Wilson?

  141. Max wrote:

    ZechZav wrote:
    they cherry pick the things they like from Paul’s epistles
    No doubt about it! New Calvinists are masters at selecting individual Scriptures, with a text out of context approach, to support their theology.

    “I Know I’m Right —
    I HAVE A VERSE!”

    They prefer to be Piperized, rather than spiritualized by the Holy Spirit to help them know Truth.

    Including the Manly hands-fluttering Drama Queen Histrionics?
    And Twittering while hiding under the bed from those Muscular Women?

  142. Lydia wrote:

    The Piper followers, of course, had never heard of “Black and Tan” or “Slavery As It Was” nor the pedophile marriage because if Piper approves, that is all that matters. It is scary how easily a guru endorsement works.

    “If the Fuehrer decreees such, Two Plus Two Equals Five.”
    — Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering

  143. Tim wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    the ability to instantly turn the tables and play the Poor Poor Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Meanie

    He did portray himself as being misunderstood and unfairly characterized. Then he called me stupid.

    Has anyone ever tried that shtick in your courtroom?

  144. Wayne wrote:

    How about when King David was dancing in his undies before the Lord? Have they started a dancing in underwear denomination?

    DON’T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

  145. Christiane wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Like the Vatican News Agency that ‘speaks for all Catholics’.

    links would be good, thanks

    I was referring to your comment on another thread linking to their article on what Catholics think of Spotlight. There was no survey or evidence of what all Catholics think.

  146. Nancy2 wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    likely, she was a distant cousin of Joseph and therefore related to him through that connection as he would have been a member of her same ‘tribe’

    Joseph was a descendant of Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba. Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David and Bathsheba.

    I bet you won at Bible drill!

  147. @ Lane:
    It’s really deceptive when they are not forthcoming about their beliefs and agenda. It goes back to the playbook, Quiet Revolution, written by Founders type Earnest Reisinger about 40 years ago. According to the playbook, It is actually OK to deceive the congregation of your agenda because they are too ignorant to know the truth and must be taught. There are even strategies in CHP 4 you might recognize. It is so ingrained now, most seminary grads have never read the book. It’s a way of life.

    You are smart. You took note of references and did your own homework. Most don’t.

  148. Max wrote:

    Most likely, he wants to ride the popular wave while he still has some ministry years left. New Calvinism is so exciting, you know … it’s the SBC of tomorrow.

    And “intellectual”. (Wink)

  149. Nancy2 wrote:

    Joseph was a descendant of Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba. Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David and Bathsheba.

    Jack raised the issue, somebody sort of blew it off it seemed, and I said he was correct that there is an issue, and I gave two (2) references such that anybody who is interested can see that there is an issue. The Jews know this, the Muslims know this, and some of the big names among the early church so called fathers knew this. It is about the promise that God made to David and how, according to Jewish law, that person would have to be the biological offspring of some man who what himself the biological offspring, etc, in other words an actual potential heir to the throne according to the law. Some of the suggested solutions to the problem, assuming that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, are extremely complicated. This is important to Jews as to whether someone fulfills the messianic prophecies, it is important to Muslims for slightly different reasons, but Christians tend to not even see it as an issue. Mostly, I think, because we tend to look at things through our own cultural presumptions. Meanwhile Christian simplistic answers are sometimes pitiful, and the early church folks knew this and made several proposed answers. Any thing that sounds like ‘I don’t see any problem here’ will not stand up under scrutiny.

    I don’t plan to get into a long explanation of this, but world events being what they are right now I think it would be a bad choice for Christians not to be aware that some of the things we take for granted like this actually are bound to be thrown in our face sooner or later; and we need at minimum to be informed.

    Jack raised a legitimate question. Noted scholars in the three major monotheistic religions have addressed the issue. I think that it is a valid question.

  150. Nancy2 wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    likely, she was a distant cousin of Joseph and therefore related to him through that connection as he would have been a member of her same ‘tribe’

    Joseph was a descendant of Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba. Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David and Bathsheba.

    Yes, Catholic tradition does support Mary being a descendant of Nathan.

    Also, there is this to think about from the Book of Numbers Chapter 36:
    ” 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of their ancestors. 9 No inheritance may pass from one tribe to another, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

  151. @ okrapod:
    I think it’s valid, too. And, Joseph doesn’t have any recorded tribal influence past that story. He most likely died being much older than a Mary as was custom. I read something a long time ago that asserted the genealogy was important to the Israelites for Tribal reasons at that time due to the Diaspora and show the prophecy was true. There are also some questions concerning the term Messiah which might play into this. Messiah was understood as a savior of Israel. That was thought by many to mean a king like zealot or warrior. Son of God had similar implications as Cesaer was also referred to as a son of god.

    There were important implications concerning Jesus not growing up around the Temple and religious elites. Neither did JTB, the last prophet. I wish I could remember the source. It wasn’t a pastor but some scholar. It’s interesting.

    Similar question is whether Cain married his sister which brings up the literal reading problem with Genesis and the YEC/OEC debate.

    There are still pastors out there teaching that Moses “wrote” Torah.

  152. okrapod wrote:

    Jack raised a legitimate question. Noted scholars in the three major monotheistic religions have addressed the issue. I think that it is a valid question.

    The critical question is whether or not Jesus is legitimately the Messiah. If not, then Christianity is a sham. If so, then there must be an answer to the issue of whether or not Jesus can rightly claim to be a son of David. Whether or not we can discover the answer, a very important point to keep in mind is that the original apostles along with many other people in the 1st century (such as the Jewish teacher Saul/Paul) believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They believed it so strongly that all but John died as martyrs. If Jesus was not a legitimate “son of David” then someone has to come up with a theory explaining why the first century Christians (including many Jewish converts who understood Jewish laws and customs) believed that he was.

  153. Lydia wrote:

    Similar question is whether Cain married his sister which brings up the literal reading problem with Genesis and the YEC/OEC debate.

    Be careful with that argument. There are old earth proponents who believe in a literal Adam and Eve. If they started with a perfect set of genes there would be no problem with siblings interbreeding. That would only become a problem later when damaging mutations would start to accumulate. And it was not against the Jewish law until much later. This does not necessarily make a literal Adam and Eve true, but it’s a viable belief. The problem is how people use Genesis. It’s purpose seems to be to lay the groundwork for the story of redemption. It’s purpose was not to be a scientifically accurate description of how God did it.

  154. @ Ken F:

    That is what I thought I said, but you have said it much more clearly.

    And lots of high profile thought has gone into the arguments about whether or not Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophesies. Or for that matter which prophesies are actually about the messiah.

    Here is why I think it matters. First, these issues will come up and increasingly frequently because of world events, not to mention our own ‘dones’. Example: Somebody on this comment thread brought it up. Second, because the issue of the messianic prophecies is not the only major issue; the bodily resurrection being another issue for example. What is being said is that ‘something happened” but we may have misunderstood what it actually was. Third, because the argument you used, which is about as close to a Christian default position as there is, is demonstrably not adequate in and of itself. Example: look how many people are seeking violent martyrdom right now for a cause and tradition which we do not believe in. Martyrdom does not prove much in and of itself.

    So I am taking up the cause that we need to all make friends not just with what the church has said over the centuries and not just how to quote bible verses but also we need to know what the ‘opposition’ is saying and why that matters. And we need to take people seriously when they have legitimate problems with Christian ideas.

  155. Lydia wrote:

    And “intellectual”.

    New Calvinists have substituted “intellectual” for spiritual. That may get them recognition among their peers, but not in the Kingdom of God. “It’s by my Spirit, thus saith the Lord.”

  156. @ Ken F:
    As I understand it, Cain traveled. He might have been married before exile and conceived in Nod. So it could be a question of exile, time and population growth. But who was Cain afraid of who might kill him in his wanderings?

  157. okrapod wrote:

    Martyrdom does not prove much in and of itself.

    Your observations are good. I think I need to clarify what I wrote. I don’t believe anyone can make an airtight case for or against Christianity (of Islam, Judaism, etc.). The fact that the apostles believed that Jesus was a son of David does not mean it is true, it just means that they believed it. So if we want to say that Jesus could not possibly be a son of David, we need to make a case for why they believed that he was. The case of Paul is especially pertinent because on one can claim that he believed it out of ignorance. If a highly educated Jewish convert believed it, on what basis should be reject it?

    The next question is how do we know that we can believe what is written in the Bible about what the apostles believed. But that goes way off topic because it gets into the nature of truth itself. How can we know if anything is true? And if we can know that truth is knowable, how do we know that any particular historical document is true? This train of thought can really tie your brain into a knot. Skepticism is good, but even skepticism breaks down at one point because the extreme skeptic has to be skeptical even of skepticism.

    I do very much like your comment about the importance of understanding the point of view of our opposition. Not enough people dive into both sides of issues.

  158. @ Lane:

    “By the time leadership approached me about joining I had already figured out what was going on. Being nice I said I wasn’t a good fit and if I joined I would not stay a wall flower.”
    +++++++++++

    why not be forthcoming?

    “nice” is like velveeta “cheese” on saltines. all the nutrients, best flavor and texture, all the goodness has been processed out many times over until all you have left is glob dyed yellow on edible cardboard bleached bright. it can be served up and people will eat it, but it does nothing.

    (Lane, I appreciate your comments here.)

  159. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ask Chairman Mao what he really thought of the Red Guards.

    Back during the wind-down of the Vietnam era (and beyond), Papa Chuck was as revered and obeyed as Chairman Mao was. Calvary Chapel is now undergoing a schism. The old guard longs for a return to those halcyon days. The newer and younger blood wants to move on.

  160. @ okrapod:

    “It is about the promise that God made to David and how, according to Jewish law, that person would have to be the biological offspring of some man who what himself the biological offspring, etc, in other words an actual potential heir to the throne according to the law. Some of the suggested solutions to the problem, assuming that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, are extremely complicated.”
    ***************

    interesting.

    this brings to mind the view of the bible being perfect, inerrant, etc., and Christians With Influence pressuring people to adopt all manner of contortionist poses in living their daily lives so as to be in compliance.

    Whatever information is in the bible (even if misunderstood) is fair game for being declared binding. and to be out of compliance is “SIN”. and that’s when the fear tactics set in.

    all done with all manner of subtlety. and smiles, sweetness, and ‘light’.

    why should I listen to Christians With Influence tell me i have to do this, that, & the other and do it in their prescribed manner because it’s ‘biblical’ when they can’t/won’t/aren’t even aware of the need to address this ‘biblical’ bit?

    yes, there is a logic problem if Jesus is not a legal potential heir to the throne and this is ignored, yet i am required to do ‘biblical’ x, y, z.

  161. @ Ken F:
    From a long view of historical Christianity, the most well known “Christians” were tyrants who sought power. Can truth be divorced from behavior?

  162. @ Lydia:
    I don’t understand your comment. Christianity is true or false independent of how Christians have actually behaved.

  163. Christiane wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I bet you won at Bible drill!
    what is ‘Bible drill’?

    Remnants of a baptist childhood! Thanks Lydia, hadn’t thought of that one in a while.

    On a related note, anyone want to hear me sing the books of the bible in order?

  164. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Lane:

    “By the time leadership approached me about joining I had already figured out what was going on. Being nice I said I wasn’t a good fit and if I joined I would not stay a wall flower.”
    +++++++++++

    why not be forthcoming?

    “nice” is like velveeta “cheese” on saltines. all the nutrients, best flavor and texture, all the goodness has been processed out many times over until all you have left is glob dyed yellow on edible cardboard bleached bright. it can be served up and people will eat it, but it does nothing.

    (Lane, I appreciate your comments here.)

    I was nice in the since that in our “meeting” after saying I wasn’t a good fit and would not be a wall flower if I was a member I expressed my thoughts and beliefs which I knew did not match theirs. Example, I do not adhere to the BFM 2000 thinking it treated women wrong and watered down Priesthood of the Believer. Then produced my copy of the BFM 1963 saying this is more inline with my beliefs and the SBC should not have strayed from it. Needless to say the next sermon the preacher mentioned several of these things I assume in an attempt to rebuff my beliefs.

    I have spoken to a few members my thoughts. A typical response – I was here long before he arrived and I’ll be here after he leaves. The members are older with very few young members. Since his arrival attendance has diminished, some long standing lay leaders and all staff have left and been replaced.

    The church was without a minister for a long time. The associational missionary lead the pulpit committee to hire him. I can only imagine what he is doing in the association to fill other church vacancies.

  165. @ Lane:

    sounds like you were straightforward, indeed. short of saying “You, sirs, are misguided nincompoops!”

  166. Lydia wrote:

    But who was Cain afraid of who might kill him in his wanderings?

    This is a very good, and also common question. One of the things that strike me about the Bible is that its authors did not do a better job of clearing up contradictions and paradoxes. There is no reason to believe that they were less intelligent than us, so surely they could see these problems as easily as we can. Yet they did not apparently do anything to clean up the old texts. Perhaps they left the text as is because that is what was handed down to them, either in paper or in oral tradition.

    There are different ways to look at the problem of the population in Cain’s days. One interesting perspective is that of Hugh Ross: http://www.reasons.org/articles/finding-a-wife-for-cain. The fact that he wrote this does not prove anything. But I do think it leave open the possibility for viable solutions for what appears to be a contradiction. His book “Who Was Adam” is much more recent and provides some thoughts worth thinking about. Ross’ site is on the TWW front page under the blogroll, which means he passes muster with Dee and Deb.

  167. Lane wrote:

    The church was without a minister for a long time. The associational missionary lead the pulpit committee to hire him. I can only imagine what he is doing in the association to fill other church vacancies.

    In the association in which I am a Southern Baptist Pastor the retiring Director of Missions tried to be involved in the hiring of all ministers in the association and yes they must be a FUNDAMENTALIST like him. Its too long of a story but IMO he was heavily involved in making it to where I had to leave my previous church in this association. I thank God he had absolutely nothing to do with me becoming a pastor at another church in his association–I am being sarcastic about calling it his association.

  168. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Lane:

    sounds like you were straightforward, indeed. short of saying “You, sirs, are misguided nincompoops!”

    My spouse has no problem leaving the church I’m dragging my feet fascinated in what he will say or do next.

  169. Lydia wrote:

    From a long view of historical Christianity, the most well known “Christians” were tyrants who sought power. Can truth be divorced from behavior?

    From a long view of historical humanity, most well known “humans” were selfish, ambitious backstabbers who sought power. Can truth be divorced from behavior?

  170. Lane wrote:

    Needless to say the next sermon the preacher mentioned several of these things I assume in an attempt to rebuff my beliefs.

    That is an abuse of his forum, divisive, and totally out of line.

  171. Bill M wrote:

    That is an abuse of his forum, divisive, and totally out of line.

    Good call. It would behoove some to consider the seriousness of their calling and their forum, with attention to consequences in Eternity.

  172. Beakerj wrote:

    Okay, so if men wore robes back in Bible times, what were they wearing that was considered ‘woman’s clothing’ that was then prohibited?

    Head coverings?? lol I’ve no idea.

  173. Bill M wrote:

    Lane wrote:

    Needless to say the next sermon the preacher mentioned several of these things I assume in an attempt to rebuff my beliefs.

    That is an abuse of his forum, divisive, and totally out of line.

    And typical!

  174. ishy wrote:

    ishy UNITED STATES on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 04:51 PM said:

    Beakerj wrote:

    Okay, so if men wore robes back in Bible times, what were they wearing that was considered ‘woman’s clothing’ that was then prohibited?

    They were basically the same, but men had special Jewish customs, like tassels. These, of course, were much of the Pharisaical law added to Scripture. Women also tended to wear an underdress for modesty, and also longer veils.

    The wiki entry is fairly decent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_clothing#cite_note-JE-Costume-1

    In other words, not much other than extra undergarments.

    And for some of the other cultures, men and women wore the same type of clothing – just in different ways. Like the Greek Chiton, women would wear it down to their ankles, but men would wear it so that it stops at the knee. They also wore different accessories. Same goes for the Roman Tunic.

  175. The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    From a long view of historical Christianity, the most well known “Christians” were tyrants who sought power. Can truth be divorced from behavior?

    From a long view of historical humanity, most well known “humans” were selfish, ambitious backstabbers who sought power. Can truth be divorced from behavior?

    system problem? I certainly agree with that. Systems protect and sanitize a lot of evil.

  176. @ Ken F:
    Too cumbersome to get into the whole world of metanoia and forgiveness as it relates to truth in action. I do think there is a contractual component to forgiveness with metanoia. Call it works, most do. :o)

  177. Anyway, back to the original thread topic. Tim is right, ‘Biblical femininity’ is a manufactured lie, and that’s the troof. Jack raised a salient point up-thread (or was it on another one?), of how gender hierarchy as practiced in many fundagelical sects is the result of the old descriptive vs. prescriptive conflict which is not more than 40-45 years old and almost exclusively American in origin.

  178. Muff Potter wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Ask Chairman Mao what he really thought of the Red Guards.
    Back during the wind-down of the Vietnam era (and beyond), Papa Chuck was as revered and obeyed as Chairman Mao was. Calvary Chapel is now undergoing a schism.

    Most cults don’t outlive their founder/leader for long.
    Few Joseph Smiths are followed by a Brigham Young who can rework them into a self-sustaining religious system.

  179. Lydia wrote:

    I do think there is a contractual component to forgiveness with metanoia. Call it works, most do. :o)

    I do too. I’m firmly convinced that your (generic ‘your’) works define you. The old ‘faith vs. works’ debate is (in my opinion) just an old shibboleth whose time is past.

  180. Dear Tim,

    This is the BEST post I have read in a long, long time regarding feminism, and a Biblical one at that! Gender hierarchy teachings divide, while the “there are neither male or female, Greek or Jew” Scriptures seeking to unite the Body of Jesus Christ.

    Keep preachin’ it Tim…..the truth!

  181. Muff Potter wrote:

    I do too. I’m firmly convinced that your (generic ‘your’) works define you. The old ‘faith vs. works’ debate is (in my opinion) just an old shibboleth whose time is past.

    No doubt this is why James wrote that faith devoid of any expression through works is not really faith at all.

    I kind of wonder if the crux of this whole problem is in trying to define it to/for people who do not really believe to begin with. They hold ‘to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power’. They are trying to live a Christian life when they don’t know Christ. Religion is a huge part of the human experience. People get involved in it due to all sorts of motives and desires. “The Lord knows those who are his.”

  182. Christiane wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    With the advent of ‘inerrant’ interpretations, we see some Christians saying that the words of St. Paul are as important as the words of Our Lord. But most orthodox Christians realize that Our Lord spoke and acted in the very Person of God in sacred Scripture. St. Paul never claimed the same eminence as Christ, no. He saw himself as Our Lord’s servant, not His ‘equal’. St. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, described Our Lord with these words:
    “9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord …”

    St. Paul lived in the light of Christ, and so his writings need to be read and understood in that same light.

    A late response to your comment, Christiane, but thanks. That was interesting and helpful.

  183. Muff Potter wrote:

    Anyway, back to the original thread topic. Tim is right, ‘Biblical femininity’ is a manufactured lie, and that’s the troof. Jack raised a salient point up-thread (or was it on another one?), of how gender hierarchy as practiced in many fundagelical sects is the result of the old descriptive vs. prescriptive conflict which is not more than 40-45 years old and almost exclusively American in origin.

    So I read and re-read Luke’s genealogy. There is nowhere to indicate that Mary is of the line of David.

    I think that this does work into this thread and the conversation in general very nicely.

    Whether Jesus is the Messiah and who believes that is not the issue at hand, and I’m not arguing for or against that point. That’s a matter of faith between the believer and God.

    What this does is highlights how some churches use the literal readings of the bible to subjugate and abuse but then play word games when the bible doesn’t state what they want it to.

    Or play word games so they can eat hamburgers and enjoy the surf n turf at Red Lobster (you know, the “dream” where gentiles can eat what they want, I’ve had dreams like that too when I’m trying to stick to my diet)

    It only works when you realize that the biological lineage was not fully understood by the initial storytellers (keeping in mind that the actual gospels would have been put to paper up to 100 years after Jesus’ ministry – even after the letters of Paul).

  184. Jack wrote:

    (keeping in mind that the actual gospels would have been put to paper up to 100 years after Jesus’ ministry – even after the letters of Paul)

    That assumption is probably false. There is good evidence that the Gospels were all written during the lifetime of the Apostles.

  185. Jack wrote:

    Whether Jesus is the Messiah and who believes that is not the issue at hand, and I’m not arguing for or against that point. That’s a matter of faith between the believer and God.

    Good point again. For me personally, I don’t need an iron-clad Euclidean style proof of Messiah’s lineage from the house of David or no. Nor do I have to subscribe to an absolutely linearized ‘inerrant’ view of Scripture in order to believe that Mary’s ovum was promised by the Almighty himself to destroy the works of the Devil.
    Just the fetching beauty of Luke’s Magnificat is enough for me. I choose to believe it based on my own internal gut-resonance. I trust in his very person and nothing more.

  186. Muff Potter wrote:

    For me personally, I don’t need an iron-clad Euclidean style proof of Messiah’s lineage from the house of David or no.

    Paul clearly taught that Jesus was a physically descended from David: “was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). The gospel of Matthew also has multiple references to Jesus being a son of David. Has anyone seen an argument for why The Bible describes Jesus as a son of David if in fact there is no way he could have been according to Jewish law/custom?

  187. Ken F wrote:

    That assumption is probably false. There is good evidence that the Gospels were all written during the lifetime of the Apostles.

    Nearly everything I’ve read points to the contrary but if you’ve got some book titles, I’d be happy to read them. I’ve been bitten by the history bug so I’m interested in all points of view.

  188. Ken F wrote:

    The Bible describes Jesus as a son of David if in fact there is no way he could have been according to Jewish law/custom?

    Another good point. It suggests that the old way of doing things through males only got overturned.

  189. Ken F wrote:

    The gospel of Matthew also has multiple references to Jesus being a son of David. Has anyone seen an argument for why The Bible describes Jesus as a son of David if in fact there is no way he could have been according to Jewish law/custom?

    This comes from the position that the bible is trustworthy as a true document. We know that there is a lot in the bible from a historical point of view that does not jive with archaeology or cosmology. I don’t know Jewish/law or custom but I’m also pretty sure Paul didn’t understand genetics, nor the writer of Matthew for that matter. Now this probably a discussion for the “open discussion” page.

    But what does relate to the matter at hand is that there is a big trend towards the bible being an “all or nothing” document. That the edicts where Jesus shows mercy and compassion are on the same footing as the edicts proclaiming who shall be put to death in the old testament to Paul’s more misogynistic sayings about the submission of women.

    Ultimately it comes down to knowing right from wrong. Church abuse is wrong, child abuse is wrong, domestic abuse is wrong – whether mental or physical.

    When is comes to women’s roles in society, I often reflect on how many “Einsteins” or “Edisons” we’ve lost over the millennia and how many we’ll continue to lose to authoritarian religion.

    The loss in human potential is staggering.

  190. Pingback: Random links/blogs to share: Bible, biblical femininity, feeling invisible at church, quotes… | Enough Light UNITED STATES

  191. Jack wrote:

    So I read and re-read Luke’s genealogy. There is nowhere to indicate that Mary is of the line of David.

    It is my understanding that Matt. 1 gives the line of Joseph. Luke 3 gives the line of Mary. Mary’s father had daughters, but no sons. Therefore, according to Mosaic Law, when Joseph married Mary, he became the legal heir …… the legal son of Heli.

    “Moreover, in the genealogy, Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, who had 2 daughters. The first is Mary, and the other was Zebedee’s unnamed wife (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11; Numbers 36:1–12), the husband would become the son upon marriage to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.”

  192. Jack wrote:

    This comes from the position that the bible is trustworthy as a true document.

    Yes, it does come down to that. It is either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or something in between. How we approach that issue will be largely shaped by what we already believe about it or want to believe about it. It’s pretty easy to find articles on the internet that argue for all of the Gospels being written before AD 70, with some stating at least one was complete before AD 50. There are also articles stating that none could have been written before the 2nd century AD. I’ve read quite a few books on apologetics that make a very good case for middle 1st century. I’ve also read books that make the case for a later date. My bet is on the early dates because later dates make it difficult to explain things like the rapid rise of Christianity or no mention in the Bible of the 70 AD temple destruction. If you are interested in reading about the case for completion of the gospels in the 1st century it will not be hard for you to find good sources. If your mind is already made up then there are no sources that I could recommend that would convince you. It really comes down to a matter of faith for both sides of the argument because at one point we have to choose to accept one person’s theory over another.

  193. Jack wrote:

    When is comes to women’s roles in society, I often reflect on how many “Einsteins” or “Edisons” we’ve lost over the millennia and how many we’ll continue to lose to authoritarian religion.

    Authoritarian ttheism has an arguably worse track record, like Stalin. Or authoritarian occultism, like Hitler.

  194. Ken F wrote:

    Jack wrote:

    This comes from the position that the bible is trustworthy as a true document.

    Yes, it does come down to that. It is either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or something in between. How we approach that issue will be largely shaped by what we already believe about it or want to believe about it. It’s pretty easy to find articles on the internet that argue for all of the Gospels being written before AD 70, with some stating at least one was complete before AD 50. There are also articles stating that none could have been written before the 2nd century AD. I’ve read quite a few books on apologetics that make a very good case for middle 1st century. I’ve also read books that make the case for a later date. My bet is on the early dates because later dates make it difficult to explain things like the rapid rise of Christianity or no mention in the Bible of the 70 AD temple destruction. If you are interested in reading about the case for completion of the gospels in the 1st century it will not be hard for you to find good sources. If your mind is already made up then there are no sources that I could recommend that would convince you. It really comes down to a matter of faith for both sides of the argument because at one point we have to choose to accept one person’s theory over another.

    It isn’t necessarily a good idea to speak of “The Bible” as a singular document, though, since (unlike the Quran) it wasn’t originally written as one.

    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/51637

  195. Ken F wrote:

    Jack wrote:

    When is comes to women’s roles in society, I often reflect on how many “Einsteins” or “Edisons” we’ve lost over the millennia and how many we’ll continue to lose to authoritarian religion.

    Authoritarian ttheism has an arguably worse track record, like Stalin. Or authoritarian occultism, like Hitler.

    You mean _A_theism, right? I initially read it as “theism”, but one could not describe Stalin as theistic in any way (even though he did study to become a priest early on, but renounced his belief in God shortly afterward).

  196. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    Jack wrote:

    This comes from the position that the bible is trustworthy as a true document.

    Yes, it does come down to that. It is either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or something in between. How we approach that issue will be largely shaped by what we already believe about it or want to believe about it. It’s pretty easy to find articles on the internet that argue for all of the Gospels being written before AD 70, with some stating at least one was complete before AD 50. There are also articles stating that none could have been written before the 2nd century AD. I’ve read quite a few books on apologetics that make a very good case for middle 1st century. I’ve also read books that make the case for a later date. My bet is on the early dates because later dates make it difficult to explain things like the rapid rise of Christianity or no mention in the Bible of the 70 AD temple destruction. If you are interested in reading about the case for completion of the gospels in the 1st century it will not be hard for you to find good sources. If your mind is already made up then there are no sources that I could recommend that would convince you. It really comes down to a matter of faith for both sides of the argument because at one point we have to choose to accept one person’s theory over another.

    It isn’t necessarily a good idea to speak of “The Bible” as a singular document, though, since (unlike the Quran) it wasn’t originally written as one.

    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/51637

    By the way, Muslims arguably have a bigger problem in this regard. Islam teaches that the Quran was literally dictated to Muhammad in its complete form. However, there exist older documents (some of them in the Syriac language, and originating from various quasi-Christian sects) with very similar passages to the Quran.

  197. @ Ken F:
    I was thinking of this one:

    “During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by child-bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is constant in faith and love and holiness (1 Tim. 2: 11-15).”

    But fairs fair, he was a guy in the first century so it doesn’t prove he hated women only that he held to the mores of his time. I strike the comment from the record.

  198. Ken F wrote:

    Authoritarian ttheism has an arguably worse track record, like Stalin. Or authoritarian occultism, like Hitler.

    Stalin studied to be priest, his version of communism and the occult practices of Nazism were forms of religion (and had much in common with the cults of personality that this blog has discussed in authoritarian churches, one could make a case that both men drew on some great examples of “how it’s done” from religion)

  199. @ Nancy2:
    Thanks for this. Still not sure I fully understand how they get their conclusion but I appreciate you providing a source.

  200. Jack wrote:

    I don’t know Jewish/law or custom but I’m also pretty sure Paul didn’t understand genetics, nor the writer of Matthew for that matter.

    Are you suggesting that people back then were unaware that pregnancy requires a father? I don’t see how an understanding of genetics is relevant to whether or not they believed that Jesus was a son of David.

  201. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    It isn’t necessarily a good idea to speak of “The Bible” as a singular document, though, since (unlike the Quran) it wasn’t originally written as one.

    Apparently Mark was first, then luke and matthew have mostly the same stuff, with some very interesting deviations. In sunday school, a guy said he thought matthew was 90ad or so.

  202. Jack wrote:

    Thanks for this. Still not sure I fully understand how they get their conclusion but I appreciate you providing a source.

    From Wiki: “Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli”.[42] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.”[43] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[41] A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law,[44] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[45] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh”[46] but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter.[47] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.”

    Matthew’s account tracks back to King Solomon. Luke’s account tracks back to Nathan, King Solomon’s brother. If you compare the two accounts, several of the names are different. The only way the two accounts can make sense to me is for one account to be patrilineal, while the other is matrilineal.

    Jews use the assumption that, since Joseph is not Jesus’ father, Jesus is not of the House of David. Ergo, Jesus cannot be the prophesied Messiah.

  203. Ken F wrote:

    Are you suggesting that people back then were unaware that pregnancy requires a father? I don’t see how an understanding of genetics is relevant to whether or not they believed that Jesus was a son of David.

    And in retrospect neither can I. If our ancestors didn’t know how that worked there wouldn’t 7 billion of us on the planet. I retract that comment as well. If I had a point on that, then I misplaced it. I think I was trying to get that maybe they were thinking that the lineage through Joseph’s was valid because of his marriage to Mary but that has nothing to do with genetics or an understanding of genetics.

  204. Nancy2 wrote:

    The only way the two accounts can make sense to me is for one account to be patrilineal, while the other is matrilineal.

    But that’s based on an interpretation. It appears that we’re trying to bash it into place. Note I said “it appears”. At this point, I’m going to admit that I need to do a lot more reading before delving into the world of theology. I barely paid attention in Sunday school and even though I’ve read the bible, I can’t say with honesty that I understand it.

    Bringing it back to “Christian trends”, I can see where your a less informed parishioner could certainly get their head turned around by interpretations in some of the more authoritarian churches.

  205. Jack wrote:

    Bringing it back to “Christian trends”, I can see where your a less informed parishioner could certainly get their head turned around by interpretations in some of the more authoritarian churches.

    Yes! This is exactly how they do this. They try to convince us that only they can understand the complexities. That said, there are many complexities, with few issues that are clear cut. It’s a fascinating journey.

  206. Jack wrote:

    I barely paid attention in Sunday school and even though I’ve read the bible, I can’t say with honesty that I understand it.

    There are some things I think we will never understand. My assumption may be wrong. I don’t know.
    Like the old saying goes, the more we learn, the less we realize we realize we really know.

  207. “It’s also in that sense that Piper says that TGC emphasizes the _____ issue in order to protect, display, and release the gospel for maximum human flourishing.”

    These people, who seek to control and manipulate others, have been staking out a stance on what scripture calls ‘debatable’ issues and ignoring scripture’s call to avoid such things forever. It doesn’t matter if you call them neo-cals or Augustine. The point is, one can twist scripture to say anything one wants, and then draw a line in the sand, saying ‘All true believers must stand here’.

    What does this accomplish? Does it ‘defend’ truth? No, it defends the doctrines of men. Does it promote righteousness, love, grace, wisdom, growth and maturity? No, it promotes needless debate and divisiveness – the very things scripture says to avoid.

    Dogmatism, self-righteousness, hypocrisy – these are the things such ‘orthodoxy’ and creedalism breeds. I don’t need you to believe or understand ‘truth’ in the exact same manner I do. In fact, I don’t even agree with what I believed a year ago, and I hope I never do. Love God, love others, pour yourself sacrificially into caring for those who most need it, and you will find little time to spare debating spurious details.

  208. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    By the way, Muslims arguably have a bigger problem in this regard. Islam teaches that the Quran was literally dictated to Muhammad in its complete form.

    Not that much different from the Verbal Plenary Inspiration/KJV Only types.

  209. Muff Potter wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    The Bible describes Jesus as a son of David if in fact there is no way he could have been according to Jewish law/custom?

    Another good point. It suggests that the old way of doing things through males only got overturned.

    And today’s Biblical Manhood types still haven’t gotten the news.