(Updated)Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller Attacked by Real Life Calvinistas: Genevan Commons Current Members…Be Ashamed.

NGC 7027: Like a Metallic Jewel Bug in the Sky

(I made a mistake quite late last night 6.29) and said the names under the OPC letter were the names of those over at GC. I had made a shortlist of GC names and didn’t post them. I should never post so late at night since I am not thinking as clearly. I apologize.)

As most readers know, I am not Reformed in my thinking. This is not due to a  lack of reading and praying on the matter. In 2001, my family and I moved from Dallas to Raleigh. I had some time on my hands since I had no connections in the local church, etc. I decided, once and for all, to read extensively on the matter of Calvinism/ Reformed thinking. I even started a notebook in which I wrote the pros and cons of the theology. I read the typical thinkers of that time: Sproul, MacArthur, Grudem, Piper, Calvin (The Institutes), and others. I was truly open and, if truth be told, I really wanted to buy into the theology. I knew it would be easier for me to confess the TULIP (yes, I know that many Reformed thinkers reject that way of dumbing down their beliefs,), etc. No matter how hard I tried, I could not overcome my concern regarding predestination (knowing it is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before) and limited atonement.

However, I truly respected those who confessed the theology, believing that we have more in common than we have different. Oh, how naive I was! I believed this until I was introduced to the rise of the young, restless, and reformed Calvinists. I called them Calvinistas because it seemed to me they were involved in an all-out war to restore all churches to their peculiar brand of Reformed theology. They seemed to be warriors who were so self-absorbed that they were willing to stomp on those who didn’t march in their carefully constructed paths. Thankfully, I met Wade Burleson early on. He is a Reformed Baptist (yes, I know that some Reformed people claim one cannot be Baptist and Reformed but bear with me here.) Early on, I heard a sermon that he preached called *Don’t Let Your Theology Trump Your Love.* Here is one blog post he wrote on the matter. I have watched how he lives this out in his life, even when he is bitterly challenged. Both Todd Wilhelm and Wade Burleson are examples to me of relentless love and kindness

The weirdness I found when reading the original Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Muscular women are a no-no

But then, I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This book was all the rage and won all sorts of awards like *best Christian book.* The Calvinistas felt this book was so important to the world that they decided to make it free in a pdf.

And that is when I realized that my differences ran far deeper than predestination. Can you imagine a section by John Piper in which he discusses that women who are muscular have unsatisfying sex. Here is a Piper(apparently believing he is the Masters and Johnson of the Calvinist set) writing in his section of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood(RBMW). I wrote about it in this post.

“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.

But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.

The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”

Wayne Grudem’s gender rules.

Then there is the infamous *83 gender rules* by Wayne Grudem which spells out what a woman can and cannot do in the church.I wrote about it Wayne Grudem: 83 Biblical Rules for Gospel Women. Here is an example. There are lots of lists in the post. Oh, did I forget to say this was in RBMW?

List 2 -Bible teaching ministries

1. Teaching Bible or theology in a theological seminary
5. Preaching (teaching the Bible) regularly to the whole church on Sunday mornings
6. Occasional preaching (teaching the Bible) to the whole church on Sunday mornings
7. Occasional Bible teaching at less formal meetings of the whole church (such as Sunday evening or at a mid-week service)
8. Bible teaching to an adult Sunday school class (both men and women members)
9. Bible teaching at a home Bible study (both men and women members)
10. Bible teaching to a college age Sunday school class
14. Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible
16. Writing or editing a study Bible intended primarily for women
17. Bible teaching to a women’s Sunday school class
19. Bible teaching to a junior high Sunday school class
22. Working as an evangelistic missionary in other cultures
23. Moderating a discussion in a small group Bible study (men and women members)
24. Reading Scripture aloud on Sunday morning
35. Singing hymns with the congregation (in this activity, sometimes we “teach” and exhort one another in some sense: Col. 3:16)
Here is where Grudem draws his line.

With regard to areas of Bible teaching, I would personally draw the line between points 10 and 11. Once again, I think there is a strong similarity between a home Bible study which is taught by a woman (item 9) and the local church meeting in a home in the ancient world. Therefore I do not think it would be appropriate for a woman to be the regular instructor in a home Bible study.

Enter Aimee Byrd with her book, Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Amazon describes it:

Do men and women benefit equally from God’s word? Are they equally responsible in sharpening one another in the faith and passing it down to the next generation? While radical feminists claim that the Bible is a hopelessly patriarchal construction by powerful men that oppresses women, evangelical churches simply reinforce this teaching when we constantly separate men and women, customizing women’s resources and studies according to a culturally based understanding of roles. Do we need men’s Bibles and women’s Bibles, or can the one, holy Bible guide us all? Is the Bible, God’s word, so male-centered and authored that women need to create their own resources to relate to it? No! And in it, we also learn from women. Women play an active role as witnesses to the faith, passing it on to the new generations.

…The troubling teaching under the rubric of “biblical manhood and womanhood” has thrived with the help of popular Biblicist interpretive methods. And Biblicist interpretive methods ironically flourish in our individualistic culture that works against the “traditional values” of family and community that the biblical manhood and womanhood movement is trying to uphold. This book helps to correct Biblicist trends in the church today, affirming that we do not read God’s word alone, we read it within our interpretive covenant communities–our churches.

Needless to say, she recognized that there were problems with the original RBMW and that is just not allowed in the Calvinista circles. Little did she know she was about to be Calvinized. (That’s what happens when the warrior Calvinistas go for blood. Been there myself.)

Aimee also disagreed with the Reformed powers that be on the Eternal Subordination of the Son which led to a new doctrine on the eternal subordination of all women to all men in eternity. (Can you imagine? And they wonder why attendance in church is declining?))

According to Julie Roys in Aimee Byrd, Cyberbullying & the Battle Over Manhood & Womanhood

In 2016, Byrd touched off what Christianity Today termed a “civil war” between complementarians over something termed the Eternal Subordination of the Son or ESS. ESS holds that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. And, drawing on the analogy of the Trinity, proponents of ESS argue that just as Jesus is subordinate to God, so women should be subordinate to men.

ESS is also promoted in the so-called “blue book” of the CBMW—“Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.”  (ed. note: uh oh…)

Aimee also published an earlier book Why Can’t We Be Friends?: Avoidance Is Not Purity. 

According to Amazon:

Society says we are merely sexual beings and should embrace this, and in the church we use this same view as an excuse to distrust and avoid each other! We shy away from healthy friendship, and even our siblingship in Christ, in the name of purity and reputation . . . but is this what we are called to do?

Aimee Byrd reminds us that the way to stand against culture is not by allowing it to drive us apart–it is by seeking the brother-and-sister closeness we are privileged to have as Christians. Here is a plan for true, godly friendship between the sexes that embraces the family we truly are in Christ and serves as the exact witness the watching world needs.

These boys believe that men and women cannot be friends without it becoming a sexualized thing. In the years that I worked, men and women had lunch meetings with one another, met in offices, and even traveled together. It was required for the job and it is actually possible to do this. Not everyone is Harvey Weinstein. Also, for all of the blather I’ve heard about pastors refusing to be alone with women, there still seems to be a fair amount of pastor failures.

And an outcry against Aimee began to build.

  • Aimee and Rachel are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC.) They practice traditional Reformed theology. For example, only men may serve as elders and deacons because one must be ordained to serve in those offices.
  • Aimee and Rachel agree with this mandate.
  • Women are occasionally allowed to teach classes in the church. This allowance varies from church to church.
  • Aimee spoke out against the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son which upset the typical Gospel boys: Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, Denny Burk
  • She said men and women the church could be friends.
  • And she disagreed with some of the assertions of RBMW.
  • CBMW was displeased. Those boys really loved the ESS.

She was removed from a podcast that she had done for years called The Mortification of Spin.

MOS included Aimee, Carl Truman and Todd Pruitt. This is a ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

The Mortification of Spin is a ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. The Alliance is a coalition of pastors, scholars, and churchmen who hold the historic creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith and who proclaim biblical doctrine in order to foster a Reformed awakening in today’s Church. Learn more about the Alliance at AllianceNet.org.

Apparently, Aimee miffed off some Calvinistas who believe in the *my highway of else* maxim. She wrote about this experience on her new website.

During this time, I was informed by our producer that she was notified not to book new recordings at this time and that they will be airing reruns of the Mortification of Spin. Then I noticed that they’ve discontinued my credentials to log in to post blog articles. While no reference was made to my future participation in the podcast, I later received an email from the Director in which they thanked me for the work I contributed for them and said that they “will strive to be gracious upon my exit.”  Technically, ACE has related to me as an independent contractor.  That’s all I really know.

Dee has something to say about this. Aimee was the lifeblood of MOS. Todd told me that she was the only one worth listening to. I concur. I am sitting here, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for Carl Truman or Todd Pruitt to makes some sort of public statement of support. Crickets…(Unless they have done so privately which doesn’t count in my book.) Todd Pruitt has closed his account on Twitter because he doesn’t like the negativity of the whole thing. I wonder if he was being held to account and doesn’t have the guts to face it?

I almost forgot. Carl Truman was involved in exonerating CJ Mahaney, along with Kevin DeYoung and Ray Ortland. Well, it appears we miffed off Todd Pruitt when we brought it up for conversation. Brent Detweiler wrote about it here: Todd Pruitt Defiantly Tells Readers at The Wartburg Watch that “Carl Trueman Does Not Owe Them Answers” Regarding His Vindication of C.J. Mahaney

In July 2011, Carl Trueman declared C.J. Mahaney qualified for ministry and a model of godliness to be followed by the Body of Christ.  In April 2016, he reversed course and declared Mahaney unqualified to be a church leader.

Deb Martin at The Wartburg Watch wrote about this radical reversal.  Readers by the hundreds wanted to know why Trueman changed his mind and how he viewed his previous vindication of Mahaney now.  They began to ask good questions.

In response, Trueman’s colleague and friend, Todd Pruitt charged, “Carl Trueman does not owe you answers.  And based upon the way some of these threads go I would discourage him from doing it.”  Throughout, Pruitt made wild and bizarre accusations against those asking questions and making comments.  Moreover, he accused them of slander when there was no slander.  Only legitimate and reasonable inquires and observations.

Despite his belligerence, no one at The Wartburg Watch responded in kind.  In fact, the moderators and most readers responded with kindness and patience.  Nevertheless, once Pruitt was done commenting on The Wartburg Watch, he took to his Facebook page and Twitter account and audaciously misrepresented what actually transpired during the blog conversation.  It was a genuine piece of slander.  Even worse, Pruitt made himself out to be a hero for bravely “answering objections on a grievance blog’s comment section.”  Rarely, have I seen such hubris and abuse.

Yep, I really liked Aimee Byrd a whole lot more than Pruitt and Truman.

So Aimee has managed to irritate a whole bunch of rigid, complementation men who didn’t get what she was saying. However, this provided me with an opportunity to show the difference between a Calvinist (Reformed) and a Calvinista. Aimee is Reformed and thoughtful. Todd Pruitt is a Calvinista along with the following men.

The Calvinistas have been spotted at the Genevan Commons.

The comments you are about to read are deeply disturbing. It is hard to see any love at all being exhibited by these men. Most of them are pastors or ordained church leaders which would include deacons and elders. Most of these men are members of the PCA and OPC. This is the part of the story that is deeply distressing.You see, when I think of a Reformed Baptist pastor I admire, I think of Wade Burleson. I cannot imagine him ever speaking in this fashion about anybody, even if he thought he was being protected by a  *members only* website. Wade Burleson often talks about not letting our theology trump our love. When Love Trumps Theology: The Moore Tornado

I was given access to some screenshots.





A comment expressing distaste of homosexuality.

A disturbing racial comment

These men will die to prevent feminism as they define it.


Is this enough for you to realize that the boys of the Genevan Commons are problematic? Would you want any of them as your pastor, even if you if you were Reformed and complementarian?

The OPC comes to the defense of Byrd.

Aimee posted AN OPEN LETTER FROM CONCERNED MINISTERS AND ELDERS IN THE OPC

We the undersigned, as ministers, elders, and members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), present and publish this open letter in order to express our deep concern with regard to many comments and posts which were published on the “Genevan Commons” Facebook group and which were recently made public.

Our concerns include these:

We are greatly concerned that members of our church, including Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller, along with others, have been subjected to disparaging comments which are “corrupt,” “foolish talking,” and “coarse jesting” (Eph 4:29; 5:5). Such words are never acceptable, and certainly not from officers of the church.
We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have sworn to be accountable to “their brethren in the Lord” (4th ministerial ordination vow), would attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy, as if “locker room talk” could somehow be exempted from the accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to privacy. Indeed, our Lord warns us that “whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops” (Luk 12:3).
We are greatly concerned about the overtly misogynistic tone of the critiques leveled at women authors, whom many Geneva Commons members have not honored as fellow image bearers (Gen 1:27), as fellow heirs of the grace of life (1 Pet 3:7), and as members of Christ’s body who are endowed with many glorious and useful gifts for the building up of the church (Eph 4:7). Rather than thoughtful critique, we are dismayed to find officers of the church deriding and mocking others. Such behavior is completely unacceptable towards our sisters in Christ. It is the opposite of love.
The ninth commandment forbids “undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others” (WLC 145); therefore, we cannot remain silent after the public revelation of such unedifying words.
Such sins are an outrage and are extremely grievous in the sight of God. They bring shame and reproach on the church of Jesus Christ, and they encourage a culture of disrespect and derision in the very body which is to be known for its love (John 13:35). Rather than honoring women the way that Christ has honored his precious bride, these men have encouraged each other (and indirectly, the rest of the church and the world now that these words are made public) to disparage women.

To be clear, we the undersigned do not believe all members of the Geneva Commons group to be engaged in these sins, nor are we endorsing the books which they have attacked.

Update: Last night I had planned to place a list of names of those over at GC. I didn’t and made a mistake saying these names under this letter were those individuals. I am so sorry

These OPC guys did the right thing.

Rachel Miller, another member of the OPC, has also been subjected to what I believe are dismissive and unloving comments by these men.

The boys think she is one of the feminists out to destroy their church.  She is also a member of the OPC and I have enjoyed getting to know her more recently. I may try to rite a separate post about her experiences. Here is a link to her blog A Daughter of the Reformation.

Julie Roys posted on Aimee’s story: Aimee Byrd, Cyberbullying & the Battle Over Manhood & Womanhood

She wrote an excellent post, as usual. It is well worth the read. The opinions in this post in no way represent the opinions of Rachel Miller and Aimee Bird. They are far nicer than me.

Finally, want to do something?

Comments

(Updated)Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller Attacked by Real Life Calvinistas: Genevan Commons Current Members…Be Ashamed. — 468 Comments

  1. Thank you, Dee! We need this post, everything neatly documented and organized. (I’m weighing in while waiting for someone else to jump start.)

    My background yonder on the mission field of Gospel & survival does not gift me with Reformed, 5 soleils, etc. I worked in Switzerland but we didn’t get to the Calvin legend. Moreover, as demonstrated in recent exchanges regarding theology, it passes me. Thanks for explaining your journey.

    However, agency, mutual respect, and boundaries are where my antennae are directed and there are lines crossed here with gravity, … whatever theology the offenders use to mount their hubris. This is not love.

    God bless Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller. May they pivot to a better place; may this be a promotion for each, upward & onward to higher ground.

  2. List of names at end of letter are not “those accused of problematic comments.”

    They are signatories of the Open Letter, expressing grave concern about the GC comments.

  3. Well what logic do these guys have? Scripture mentions a woman submitting to her husband – as he loves and cares for her. It does NOT say she is to submit to ALL men in general. There is NO marriage in heaven!!!!! (Jesus said that by the way) so how would women then have to be “eternally submissive” in HEAVEN???????

  4. A wise person whose name I do not recall said that one can tell something about a person’s quality by the quality of those who oppose him or her. Judging from the character of the remarks of the critics, I would assess that Aimee and Rachel are people of very high quality.

  5. Long-time reader, first time commenter (or maybe second?). I was in the OPC a long time, and would be fine with being in it again. No movement or group is monolithic, of course, but the OPC started in the 1930’s from a conflict between theological conservatives and theological liberals, so the OPC has tended to be much less likely to wade into culture war issues than have other denominations of a reformed stripe. With the passage of time, that distinction has eroded some, as was illustrated in 1998.

    In 1998, many pushed the OPC to take a position on women in the military. You can read the reports here, https://www.opc.org/GA/WomenInMilitary.html, but in the interest of time, go near the end (search for “177. PROTEST”) and read the short, but IMO good, protest. Note the names that signed the protest. This was from 2001, but you’ll see a lot of the names on that protest defending Aimee. Other signatories on Aimee’s defense are too young to have been around in 2001, but likely would have signed on as well.

    As a long-time, but now former listener to the podcast, I felt that if an audio program could just automatically skip Rev. Pruitt’s speaking part, it would save time and make for a better listening experience.

  6. Dee,

    First, the guys in Geneva Commons are jerks, no doubt about it.

    Second, I’m not looking to start a debate, but I have a question here:

    “No matter how hard I tried, I could not overcome my concern regarding predestination (knowing it is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before) and limited atonement.”

    I get your rejection of limited atonement as a Lutheran. But The Lutheran confessions affirm single predestination. I understand that Lutherans reject double predestination, but once you have single predestination, salvation is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or before. The number of the elect is fixed and can’t be added to or subtracted from, right?

    From my understanding, Lutherans are exhorted not to peer into the secret counsels of God regarding predestination but to seek God in Word and sacrament, knowing that God will not turn away anyone who comes to him in faith. But you can find the same exhortations not to peer into God’s secret counsels and to come to God in Word and sacrament and in other Reformed thinkers in Calvin.

    In fact, if you look at the Synod of Dort, election in Reformed theology is typically seen as God looking at all of fallen humanity, positively choosing some for salvation while passing over others and leaving them in their sins. That doesn’t seem at all substantially different than what the Lutheran confessions teach on the matter. The only difference I see is that the Reformed say that God’s passing over in some sense confirms the reprobate to hell whereas the Lutheran confessions do not affirm that.

    But set the issue of double predestination aside. If my reading of the Lutheran confessions and their doctrine of single predestination is correct, then in Lutheranism, if you aren’t elect, you aren’t going to be saved, and I would think that in Lutheranism God’s elective decree can’t be changed. In Reformed thought, if you aren’t elect you aren’t going to be saved, and God’s elective decree can’t be changed.

    What am I missing? How in Lutheranism is predestination not “a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before”?

  7. ishy,

    But the antecedent verb is “submit.” Verse 22 has no verb, so you have to use the antecedent verb in v. 21. The debate is not whether the verb “submit” should be there but what it actually means in verse 22. That is where egalitarians and complementarians differ.

  8. Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns
    Singing and making melody
    Giving thanks
    Being subject to one another

    Here’s a list of [url=http://www.smallgroupchurches.com/the-59-one-anothers-of-the-bible/] 59 “one-another” verses in the Bible. [/url]

    The mandate for mutual behavior of all Christians is obvious and the husband is not exempt from these.

  9. This was shocking to see played out as Aimee began to publish this stuff online. Just reprehensible misogynistic abuse, with levels of casual sexism that I associate with drunk men down the pub, not Pastors & other so-called Christian men on a message board.

    If you didn’t grow up with it, or have become aware of it if you did, you can hear the desire to dominate running throughout their criticisms. It doesn’t matter whether you believe that the Bible teaches a certain kind of structure in marriage, when both parties are emulating Christ’s character then serving the other, not putting them in their place is uppermost.

    And I haven’t seen Grudem’s list for ages. This form of reductionistic thinking about women is painful.

  10. Abigail: Well what logic do these guys have? Scripture mentions a woman submitting to her husband – as he loves and cares for her. It does NOT say she is to submit to ALL men in general. There is NO marriage in heaven!!!!! (Jesus said that by the way) so how would women then have to be “eternally submissive” in HEAVEN???????

    Because they think God thinks like them…that he hates women from eternity past to eternity future, just like they hate women. Sounds harsh…but I don’t think so. In fact, if I were able to carefully question these men, I imagine I’d find out that their loathing for women is unfathomably deep.

  11. Robert:
    ishy,

    But the antecedent verb is “submit.” Verse 22 has no verb, so you have to use the antecedent verb in v. 21. The debate is not whether the verb “submit” should be there but what it actually means in verse 22. That is where egalitarians and complementarians differ.

    It isn’t a verb. It’s a participle. The only verb in the chapter, and the only verb in the imperative, is in verse 1 “be filled” (with the Holy Spirit).

    Even if you take “submitting” from verse 21, that ties them together. It’s hard to argue that wives are to submit and husbands aren’t when you try take “submitting” from verse 21. The way many English translations change these verses is to put a period at the end of verse 21 (the whole chapter is one sentence) and then put a heading before verse 22 like it’s the start of a new section on marriage. I feel like that is very dishonest to the text.

    There’s another interpretation, which I think is perfectly valid, that Paul is quoting Roman household codes here and dropping or changing certain words. If that’s true, then the household codes say wives submit to your husbands and then Paul intentionally dropped that word.

    There are more interpretations, but most complementarian arguments that “wives submit and husbands don’t” base their arguments on the English text and not the Greek. Denny Burk is very upfront about the fact, though I don’t think it does him justice.

  12. After reading Aimee Byrd’s post on her own website, and the screenshots posted at https://gcscreenshots.wordpress.com/screenshots/, you want to ask the “Geneva commons” posters “What’s wrong with you guys?” But that is, of course, the altogether inappropriate question. The appropriate question is “What’s right with you guys?”. What’s wrong with them is glaringly obvious, and it’s difficult to know where to even begin.

    • Apart from the fact, that they treat someone who is a sister in the faith – I hope they can agree on that at least – like an enemy: didn’t Jesus (Heard of him?) say something about loving your enemies?

    • In any of the jobs I have had, behaviour like this would not have been tolerated.

    • Apart from the fact that the whole conversation is so teenage and male-puberty snarky, so partisan, so “We’re going to win at *any* price!” that the lack of intellectual and mental maturity is striking. (But that has always been a hallmark of some of these neo-cals and “complementarians” – remember Frank Turk, Phil Johnson, JD Hall?)

    • It’s becoming more and more obvious that “biblical manhood and womanhood” is actually about the men, not the women. They do not know how to be men without artificial “authority” to prop up their helpless little … egos.

    • The whole obsession with manhood in some parts of the American church and American society as a whole is very strange to me. What is it with these people? I have worked for male and female bosses, I’ve never had a problem taking instructions or orders from them, and I’ve never had a problem telling any of them – male and female – when they were wrong. Sometimes the consequences were a little unpleasant, but hey, we had some fun before and after that. I’ve never had to “prove” my manhood.

    • Why do men fear not being male enough so much? Why do the have to stress that they are real men? Why the plaid shirts, the SUVs, the guns, the “manly” outdoor clothes in inappropriate settings?

    WRT the current brouhaha:

    • After Aimee Byrd published some of the screenshots from the gcscreenshots website in her article, one Shane D. Anderson, who seems to be the instigator of the facebook group, left a comment on her website complaining that she had “doxxed” so many people. He used the word “doxxed”, but does not seem to know what it means. Dear Shane: “If you do not want your bad behaviour established over a longer period of time to become public, just resist! Don’t do it!”

    • Anderson also complained that some of the people whose names had been listed on the gcscreenshots website were minors. That makes the whole thing even worse. You know that minors are present and still indulge in this behaviour? What next? Start a secret facebook group for OPC pastors and elders (and those minors who aspire to these positions) to swap off-colour jokes?

    • Anderson then adds “If I lose my reputation in a worldly age for having opposed you, it’s no big deal, I live for the Lord Jesus, not the mob.” In reality, he seems to care more for his own sorry a** than for the minors whose names may have been inadvertently revealed. I say to him: “Shane, man up and repent and ask for forgiveness!”

    • Excusing one’s bad behaviour by saying “If I lose my reputation in a worldly age for having opposed you, it’s no big deal, I live for the Lord Jesus, not the mob.” seems to me to be a prime example of taking the Lord’s name in vain. Just sayin’.

  13. Gus: Apart from the fact, that they treat someone who is a sister in the faith – I hope they can agree on that at least – like an enemy: didn’t Jesus (Heard of him?) say something about loving your enemies?

    I doubt they do believe she’s a “sister”. My experience with many of these guys if that if you don’t toe their line entirely, particularly if you are female, then you are not elect, and therefore, an enemy.

  14. [url=http://www.smallgroupchurches.com/the-59-one-anothers-of-the-bible] 59 One-Anothers”[/url] in scripture

  15. “A college education makes women too headstrong”… Ugh! I guess weak-minded people don’t like being questioned.

  16. “I truly respected those who confessed the theology, believing that we have more in common than we have different. Oh, how naive I was!” (Dee)

    Millions of mainline (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists will someday wake up to their naivety in this regard. But that revelation will arrive too late – the Calvinistas already control the denomination (seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, church planting and ‘replanting’ programs). The new reformers are out and about to change the belief and practice of the next generation of Southern Baptists – within 5-10 years, Calvinism will be the default theology of a once-great evangelistic denomination.

  17. “Needless to say, she (Aimee Byrd) recognized that there were problems with the original RBMW and that is just not allowed in the Calvinista circles. Little did she know she was about to be Calvinized. (That’s what happens when the warrior Calvinistas go for blood. Been there myself.)” (Dee)

    The warrior Calvinistas (that would be most of them) will not stop their oppression/persecution of female believers until their voices in church are completely silenced, any personal ministry they pursue is annihilated, and their spirits are crushed into total submission to authoritative men and their aberrant theology.

  18. “It is hard to see any love at all being exhibited by these men.” (Dee)

    I have been following the men, message, and method of New Calvinism from its inception. I have yet to hear anyone accuse them of being a loving bunch! Arrogance, not love, is the first descriptor which comes to mind.

  19. Dever/Mahaney/Mohler/Duncan were all on ‘the Council’ of this ‘Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ outfit for a number of years in the early 2000s, before their own T4G endeavor (and TGC) eclipsed it:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20091228033808/http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID798774_CIID1920170,00.html

    (2009) “A council…chosen by the Board, serves as the strategic network and the public face of the Alliance”

    [as of 2020 there is no ‘Council’ listed on the website. A Board of Directors exists but they are not named on the website. I got this email response from the Alliance when I inquired about the board’s current members:

    “Per the Alliance’s IRS-990 filing found online:
    Ed Barnhill
    Jay Bruce
    Jay Volk
    Mike Cuzzolina
    Rick Phillips
    Bob Doll
    Michael Rogers
    Wendell McBurney”]

    https://julieroys.com/aimee-byrd-cyberbullying-the-battle-over-manhood-womanhood/

    “Byrd…received a private email from the chairman of the ACE board, asking for answers on the behalf of the board. But Byrd said she didn’t even know who was on the board. ‘It felt like a trap…I felt I was being given a trial by this unnamed jury’.”

  20. The only one of the current board I’ve heard of is Rick Phillips (aka Richard D. Phillips, a TGC Council Member). He wrote a book on the “Masculine Mandate”.

    Phillips says has “long been an admirer of CBMW (Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), though I am not formally associated with them”:

    https://www.theaquilareport.com/4-approaches-to-a-balanced-complementarianism/

    (Phillips denies women can publicly pray or read Scripture at church)

    more gender dogma from him:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdnGWAp6TI0

    [26:37-28:03 Phillips explains his thing about no public praying by women during ‘worship services’ (says however that he’s let women publicly pray for their children during a midweek prayer meeting)]

  21. The Alliance is credited as being a forerunner of T4G & TGC:

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/extra-ecclesial-gospel-partnerships/

    Kevin DeYoung: “T4G and TGC are distinct and prominent on the landscape of American evangelicalism, but they are not novel or unique. Other ministries share many of the same aims and inhabit the same theological universe of evangelical Calvinism. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE)…is something of a forerunner”

  22. Robert: “No matter how hard I tried, I could not overcome my concern regarding predestination (knowing it is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before) and limited atonement.”

    I freed myself from this stuff long ago.
    Sarah Connor makes way more sense than these Grand Poobahs of Religion:

    “The future is not set…
    There is no future but what me make for ourselves…”

  23. Beakerj: And I haven’t seen Grudem’s list for ages. This form of reductionistic thinking about women is painful.

    This shouldn’t surprise you. They do after all worship a reductionist god.

  24. Don’t believe that the Genevan Commons group are just a band of radical Neo-Cals. IMO, most of the young reformers are bent this way; they are venomous defenders of their theological aberrations, and particularly hostile to female believers. For the life of me, I don’t understand why young women put up with this – they need to rise up en masse, declare “Enough is enough!”, and drag their sorry husbands/boyfriends out of the mess! In so doing, they might just rescue their souls.

    In the “Genevan Commons” of 16th century Geneva, the magisterial reformers ruled with an iron fist. Backed by enforcement of the magistrate, Calvin was tough on dissenters; failure to comply with his brand of theology resulted in exile, imprisonment, torture, and execution.

    Thank God that the Genevan Commons are tormenting women only in cyberspace! They are weak little men with big mouths, heading to eternal darkness while believing themselves to be the predestined elect. Repent or else!

  25. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: In fact, if I were able to carefully question these men, I imagine I’d find out that their loathing for women is unfathomably deep.

    It is what it is.
    Let’s call a spade a spade.
    These guys do hate women to the core.
    Totally oblivious to what powerful allies they can be.

  26. Robert: The debate is not whether the verb “submit” should be there but what it actually means in verse 22. That is where egalitarians and complementarians differ.

    I think Lewis Carroll had it pegged perfectly when he wrote:

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

  27. ishy,

    The participle is from the verb hypotasso; it’s the antecedent. The wives have to be doing something to/toward their husbands; if not submitting, then what?

    I’m not interested in debating the specific meaning hypotasso here, because both complementarians and egalitarians can accept that it is the assumed but not stated term. Verse 24 confirms it when it draws the analogy of Christ’s submission, using the word, to the wives submission.

    If all Paul is doing is dropping out a word from a household code, then you have “wives, _________ your husband.” Maybe hypotasso doesn’t mean what complementarians says it means, but I don’t see how you can just drop it and have Paul saying anything to the wives. What do you think Paul is telling wives to do?

    Inserting the period isn’t dishonest. It might be wrong, but not dishonest. The original text has no punctuation. It’s reflecting the translator’s opinion of the flow of the text.

  28. I think that these types of men basically believe that women are good for sex, cooking and taking their clothes off the floor…..

  29. I didn’t know Aimee had been kicked off MOS! Neither Carl T. nor Todd P. commented about it at all? Neither could/would stand up for her? But Carl T. could stood up (wrongly) for Mahaney whom he admitted he hardly knew?

    These two men are spineless.

  30. Max: Thank God that the Genevan Commons are tormenting women only in cyberspace!

    Although I suspect that they are at home and church, also.

  31. In 2016, Byrd touched off what Christianity Today termed a “civil war” between complementarians over something termed the Eternal
    ..”Subordination of the Son or ESS. ESS holds that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. And, drawing on the analogy of the Trinity, proponents of ESS argue that just as Jesus is subordinate to God, so women should be subordinate to men.”..

    How does this statement differ from my belief in a future civil war in Heaven. Gender roles will just be another division line.

  32. The iteration of the heresy of ESS has been around since the early 1990s, at least; that’s when RBMW was first published.

    This is not simply a bad teaching – though it is that – but it is a real heresy: promulgating something about who Christ is and the Trinity that is not true, according to the early Church councils.

  33. dainca: The iteration of the heresy of ESS has been around since the early 1990s, at least; that’s when RBMW was first published.

    Doesn’t ESS resemble Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine (Jesus started out as the Archangel Michael) more than anything else?

  34. Abigail:
    I think that these types of men basically believe that women are good for sex, cooking and taking their clothes off the floor…..

    … with “GOD SAITH!” for Cosmic-level Justification.

  35. Max: The warrior Calvinistas (that would be most of them) will not stop their oppression/persecution of female believers until their voices in church are completely silenced, any personal ministry they pursue is annihilated, and their spirits are crushed into total submission to authoritative men and their aberrant theology.

    Handmaid’s Tale for Real.
    Now to force it upon all those Heretics and Apostates in our Restored Reformed CHRISTIAN Nation.

  36. It is a shame that these pastors are so focused on women and keeping them submissive. If more of these pastors would focusing on preaching Christ crucified from a Trinitarian perspective maybe the religious pluralism, syncretism, and racism in our society would not be so prevalent. However, I assume that preaching for women to be submissive plays well to weak mean who lack a backbone and do not want to be challenged to have to think for themselves. Make no mistake, a lot of these calvinistas are syncretic and combine nationalism with religion and patriarchy, muddling all three. This processes loses focus on the person and work of Jesus Christ.

  37. Robert: I’m not interested in debating the specific meaning hypotasso here, because both complementarians and egalitarians can accept that it is the assumed but not stated term.

    You seem to hinge your argument on this, but it’s not true. There are more interpretations. There are also always more than two sides.

    There is a very similar construction in English we use every year in church liturgy: “Unto you a child is given.” We use this construction in English sometimes, but it is a lot more common in Greek because cases can imply motion.

  38. dainca: The iteration of the heresy of ESS has been around since the early 1990s, at least; that’s when RBMW was first published.

    This is not simply a bad teaching – though it is that – but it is a real heresy: promulgating something about who Christ is and the Trinity that is not true, according to the early Church councils.

    I don’t doubt it, but it’s pretty much because the same people who came up with it are still around.

    I think ESS is less of a worry than what they are currently using, though. ESS is ridiculous enough that it was sidelined pretty quickly by even other conservative scholars. But they’ve started to push the theology that women are derivative to men, and therefore created to serve them. This theology is very similar to the theology of slaves that the SBC was founded on. With their insistence that the SBC has to return to its founding theology, returning to slave-owning theology is really concerning to me.

    Both theologies come from Bruce Ware, who I am sure still ties them together, but they are pretending outwardly they are not following ESS anymore even though I’m pretty sure it’s being taught at the SBC seminaries.

  39. Headless Unicorn Guy: Handmaid’s Tale for Real.
    Now to force it upon all those Heretics and Apostates in our Restored Reformed CHRISTIAN Nation.

    This is what really scares me. These men believe that the rest of humanity should be subordinate to them while half of humanity is subordinate to their followers. And I’ve met enough of these guys to know that they don’t seem to have consciences that overrides their egos.

    I think Atwood nailed their dream world entirely…

  40. Robert: The original text has no punctuation. It’s reflecting the translator’s opinion of the flow of the text.

    This is the best explanation I have heard on that text for why “wives submit to your husbands” is a bad translation. If Paul Young’s analysis is wrong, where and why is it wrong?
    https://youtu.be/iqZQLAvgIWc

  41. ishy: ESS is ridiculous enough that it was sidelined pretty quickly by even other conservative scholars. But they’ve started to push the theology that women are derivative to men, and therefore created to serve them.

    If you can get folks to believe that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God, it’s an easier jump to get them to believe that women are lesser beings than men (mere derivatives of their image).

    Jesus, of course, ‘is’ God.

    Women, of course, are genuine 100% human beings created by Holy God who instructed Paul to write: “Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

    Eternal Subordination of the Son to God and Eternal Submission of Women to Men are false teachings … and those who proclaim it are false teachers. New Calvinism is dangerous to dabble in. Those of you who have been drawn into it, Jesus shouts from Heaven “Repent or else!”

  42. ishy: But they’ve started to push the theology that women are derivative to men, and therefore created to serve them.

    The Gospel According to Aristotle?

    Plus echoing the Apartheid-era attitude among Afrikaaners that “God Created the Black to serve the White.”

  43. ishy: This is what really scares me. These men believe that the rest of humanity should be subordinate to them while half of humanity is subordinate to their followers.

    When you have someone whose ideal is Herrenvolk and Untermenschen, notice which category they always place themselves into. Always Holding the Whip, never feeling it.

  44. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    I really like Young’s exegesis. I’d been meaning to read more from him, particularly his views on universal reconciliation, but I was so exasperated with the world during quarantine that I avoided theology. So I just wandered over to his site and that was the topic of the most recent article. But! Wade wrote it! Wade did a good job of explaining Young’s view, though, particularly in constrasting it with Mohler/New Cals. I can speak their language fluently enough that I saw Young’s point easily. I haven’t read The Shack. I should put that on my list.

  45. Max: Jesus, of course, ‘is’ God.

    The New-Calvinists will say they agree with this, but in practice they don’t. John MacArthur once gave a sermon on penal substitution where he said, “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.” Apparently he did not recognize that his statement expresses his belief that Jesus is not God. Is that his ultimate realty?

  46. ishy: I haven’t read The Shack. I should put that on my list.

    I highly recommend it. Especially because all of the New-Calvinists say it is full of heresies and blasphemies. You should also read his book “Eve.” It is the teachings of Katherine Bushnell turned into a novel.

  47. Aimee is a BRAVE lady. These type of guys are the majority report in the OPC. I’ve seen it first hand and am very glad to no longer be in the OPC.

    Sent alliance@alliancenet.org an email to express my disgust at how they have treated Aimee Byrd. Also purchased her latest book. Pray for her as the OPC will likely try to crush her and do nothing to the vile peacocks who are attacking her rather than interacting with her book.

  48. Ken F (aka Tweed): Max: Jesus, of course, ‘is’ God.

    The New-Calvinists will say they agree with this, but in practice they don’t.

    When I first became aware of New Calvinism sweeping through SBC, I listened to numerous sermon podcasts by SBC-YRR church planters in my area (to hear what made them tick). I sat with a 4-column pad of paper marked “God”, “Jesus”, “Holy Spirit”, “New Calvinist Icon” (Piper et. al). As the sermons progressed, I made a check mark when these names were mentioned. God received a lot of sermon time, Jesus was hardly mentioned, and the Holy Spirit received little recognition. Reformed icons got more sermon time than Jesus! They live in an upside down religious world. They’ve not only subordinated Jesus … they’ve darn near erased His name!

  49. Ken F (aka Tweed): You should also read his book “Eve.” It is the teachings of Katherine Bushnell turned into a novel.

    I put them both on my list. I love Katherine Bushnell. I’m reading Sacred Wounds by Teresa Pasquale right now. It’s very good, but a difficult read for me after all the church junk that led me here.

    I recently came across the concept of “bibliotherapy”. In some ways, I guess it’s similar to evangelical thought on the Bible fixing everything, but the key is to read outside your comfort zone and try to be open to what is discomfiting and why. I don’t feel like evangelicals read the Bible that way, but with strong preconceptions of what they think the Bible should say instead of what it does say. If they were, more of them would be preaching on greed and pride and helping the poor. They don’t have a practice of reading authors outside their belief framework, either, so they aren’t confronted with other perspectives.

  50. Ken F (aka Tweed): John MacArthur once gave a sermon on penal substitution where he said, “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.”

    That’s why I keep praying that God will save believers from MacArthur et. al.

  51. ishy: They don’t have a practice of reading authors outside their belief framework, either, so they aren’t confronted with other perspectives.

    That is one of their biggest weaknesses. I suppose I have fallen off the fence on the other side lately – quite a lot of coloring outside the lines. The odd thing is, some of things I have read that seemed way outside the lines were actually viable positions in ancient Christianity. So much for me trying to ne a rebel…

  52. GM: As a long-time, but now former listener to the podcast, I felt that if an audio program could just automatically skip Rev. Pruitt’s speaking part, it would save time and make for a better listening experience.

    Haha! I totally agree with you. It seems Pruitt always got around to condemning social media as an evil thing, I guess podcasts and his Twitter excepted.

    He recently shut down his Twitter account, so he has excised that demon.

  53. Robert,

    “What do you think Paul is telling wives to do?”
    ++++++++++

    does it really matter??

    for the amount of time spent imagining all the many ways to shackle and silence a woman (except her sexual service) by replacing her humanity with ‘gendered thing’ and call it Jesus’ command, we all could have been working individually and together to help, comfort, heal, feed, support huge numbers of human beings and living things.

    what a ridiculous waste.

  54. Thanks Dee for saying nice things about some of us reformed folks!!

    Anyway… this is sick what these lightweights posted about Aimee. I am glad you exposed it. With all the things going on in the world today that you think we should be uniting around… these men have time to do this?
    I know that sometimes I can be a pain in the neck Calvinist, but at the very least I try to set my priorities the same way Jesus did when engaging others. It is sad that the simple rules of engagement seem to be ignored.

  55. elastigirl: for the amount of time spent imagining all the many ways to shackle and silence a woman (except her sexual service)

    Phrased like that, it sounds seriously kinky.
    And maybe that’s the whole point —
    Sexual Dominance Display, indulging their secret kinks while making long prayers.

  56. George: I know that sometimes I can be a pain in the neck Calvinist

    Believe me George … there are plenty of pain in the neck non-Calvinists! As a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist for 70+ years (I’m a “Done” now), I worshiped alongside several classical Calvinists. I found them to be civil in their discourse and respectful of other expressions of faith. But this New Calvinist tribe is a totally different beast … they are an arrogant, aggressive, militant pain in the neck bunch! There is very little in their movement that is of God – one just doesn’t see His hand in it … no love.

  57. Todd Wilhelm,

    My personal observation-Twitter makes some people careless. It’s so easy to be verbally aggressive, saying all the things you probably wouldn’t say in public-except Twitter is so public!

  58. ishy: I doubt they do believe she’s a “sister”.

    I would assume that it is difficult, if not impossible to see chattel property as members of a “family”.

  59. readingalong:
    “A college education makes women too headstrong”…

    I laughed when I read that! My daughter and I were both headstrong before we even started our elementary educations!

  60. I am not reformed, but I have read quite a few posts by both Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller. Although I disagree with each of them on a few things, I believe we could disagree agreeably — and thoroughly enjoy a meal together. (Hey, I’ll do the cooking, in spite of the fact that I am what Gram3 would have called a mutualist!)
    I often enjoy reading their well thought out, educated posts.

  61. Bridget: I didn’t know Aimee had been kicked off MOS! Neither Carl T. nor Todd P. commented about it at all? Neither could/would stand up for her? But Carl T. could stood up (wrongly) for Mahaney whom he admitted he hardly knew?

    It makes me think of one of my woman heroes, Clarice Starling (from the pen of Thomas Harris).
    When the career jackals of the bureau (FBI) gathered against her and rent her limb from limb so to speak for the media fallout she generated from acting with courage and conviction, her boss meekly stood by in his own office and let them have their way.

  62. Linn: My personal observation-Twitter makes some people careless.

    On Social Media, everyone is off their meds.

  63. Ah the ESS, which I discovered during a quick Google search is actually the old Arianism heresy resurrected. It’s also one of the reasons the Orthodox Church rejects the filioque. 😉

    The issue of Lutheran views on predestination also caused me a lot of confusion many years ago when I was figuring out which denomination to follow. The hubby (LCMS) and a Lutheran blogger recognized single predestination as part of the doctrine; meanwhile, my sister-in-law insisted that there was no predestination in Lutheranism.

  64. Bridget,

    Most of my heroes are women:
    Boudica, Harriet Tubman, Hypatia of Alexandria, Marie Curie, Ellen Ripley, Clarice Starling, Norma Cenva, Corrie Ten Boom,……the list is long and they will be remembered by many long after Carl T. and Todd P. are forgotten.

  65. Ava Aaronson: Nancy2(aka Kevlar): disagree agreeably — and thoroughly enjoy a meal together
    Sounds like NT living to me. But what do I know. How about y’all?

    I too have noticed how important shared meals seem to have been both in the Gospels and later. “Who you are willing to have table-fellowship with” was a big deal for Paul, as was the question of voluntary limitations on what one would eat in the presence of believers of weaker conscience.

    Which suggests that the comps are taking a completely wrong approach in their arguments with the egalitarians. They should be employing Paul’s appeal to “the law of love” — “you egalitarians may be easy in your consciences with your practices, but you are damaging ours. Our consciences have a more constrained conception of what is permitted by our liberty in Christ, and we appeal to you, for the sake of our own consciences, that you conform to our standards.”

  66. Samuel Conner: “Who you are willing to have table-fellowship with”

    The GC remark that the women should meekly prepare food for the men reminds me of the behavior I have observed in an older generation of Koreans. The women prepare the meals for the men, but don’t partake while the men are eating. The GC remark has that feel for me — the women prepare the food, which is enjoyed by the men at the table. Are there women at the table too? It’s as if they don’t really belong at table-fellowship when men are present. I have no doubt that Paul would have strongly disagreed. He had too many female fellow-laborers.

  67. Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about. The Bible is clear about who is to be an Elder in the Church. In other words, roles exist. The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

  68. Reading all of these things against women such Aimee Byrd, Julie Roys etc; has grieved my heart. It is disgusting to the core and demonic. As a man who loves Christ with all of his heart (not perfectly), it has sicken me. Being married and a father of two daughters, my desire is to model Christ likeness, that I may be an example to them. I will quote Ray Ortlund, I love Reformed theology but I hate the culture it creates. I am so angry that men who went to seminary, and graduated, privilege of being ordained for the work of our Lord and be abusive in word as they have. I hope they step down, and repent, and show the truth of what the Holy Spirit does in hearts that are contrite and broken before Him.
    It is disgusting when we as a church attack women because they decide to be weight lifters, or want to be athletic, or decide to have a career. I am sorry to say but I will not raise my daughters or teach my wife to be something that they are not. God has called me as a man to disciple my wife and children by being a mirror image of Christ, not preach nor teaching what other men think.
    I prayer for 1 Peter 4:17
    May God purge us, correct His bride, I see to many wolves lately who dress the costume of sheep
    God help us.

  69. John Piper is a strange little man. He would be hilarious if so many people didn’t listen to him.

    Research has shown that one of the few ways to increase bone density is weightlifting. This is especially important for anyone who is dealing with osteoporosis. Statistically this is more common in women.

    So, the question must be asked: is John Piper in favor of osteoporosis? Maybe he will do a podcast about it right after answering a question about whether a certain sex act is biblical (again, he’s a weird dude). Maybe Grudem will write a list of 99 ways you can fight osteoporosis without gaining muscle, or Kevin DeYoung will write 9 gospel-centered takeaways about femal powerlifters.

    Thesis: these people are the worst. Humans are almost infinitely variable. Stop trying to dictate what people do, especially on lifestyle issues that are actually a positive, like physical fitness.

  70. Todd McCauley,

    You apparently did not read the entire aricle. Aimee Byrd and Rachel miller adhere to the OPC belief system which does not allow women pastors. Case closed. Take a deep breath and scurry back to your church and relax.

  71. Todd McCauley,

    Hot take alert!!!

    It’s always “interesting” when someone claims to know the hidden motivations of someone else. Is mind reading even biblical, bro? /sarc

  72. Robert: If all Paul is doing is dropping out a word from a household code, then you have “wives, _________ your husband.” Maybe hypotasso doesn’t mean what complementarians says it means, but I don’t see how you can just drop it and have Paul saying anything to the wives. What do you think Paul is telling wives to do?

    Inserting the period isn’t dishonest. It might be wrong, but not dishonest. The original text has no punctuation. It’s reflecting the translator’s opinion of the flow of the text.

    Paul is saying, coordinate with your husbands. Typically husbands and wives would maintain rival establishments.

    And in the other oft quoted example husbands were asked by Paul to honour their wives by sharing catechesis with them at home so they didn’t have to ask so many questions in big sessions (and show their husbands up).

    Life had been rough for women who had typically been in some peculiar cults. Paul is actually taking Roman life to new levels.

    Paul has been asked specific questions in prior correspondence. When Greek texts use the definite article it is not general at all – the opposite to French usage.

  73. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    That’s why I stay off of certain discussions on Facebook and I don’t have a Twitter account. I prefer to remain anonymous, and express my views on something like The Wartburg Watch, where civility is required. That’s something that doesn’t seem to be encouraged by the pastors critical of Byrd and Miller, however.

  74. Todd McCauley:
    Let’s just sum this up.All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors.This is what this debate has always been about.The Bible is clear about who is to be an Elder in the Church.In other words, roles exist. The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    Did you know that there are both male and female elders in Titus? Just because it’s translated “older women” doesn’t change that the words are the exactly same in Greek with masculine and feminine endings. So yes, the Bible is pretty clear in the original language who is to be an elder, and it’s not just men.

    But, it’s really not about the authority of Scripture, is it?

  75. Linn: That’s something that doesn’t seem to be encouraged by the pastors critical of Byrd and Miller, however.

    I’ve noticed that they require that of women and people who disagree with them. They consider themselves exceptions because it’s “the truth”.

  76. Ricco: John Piper is a strange little man. He would be hilarious if so many people didn’t listen to him.

    You could say the same about Elron Hubbard or that strange little Austrian with the strange little mustache.

  77. drstevej: I did my PhD at an OPC seminary and I wash my wife’s clothes regularly.

    After getting my higher education, I received further instruction through the hardknocks of daily living and fighting devils in church. I do most of the cooking around here because I like to; something my dear wife truly appreciates. I’ve even been known to wash dishes and rock babies. We have a “complementarian” marriage; my wife’s spiritual gifts complement mine … it’s worked for over 50 years.

  78. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    I’m not sure how this follows. Calvinists typically believe that we are saved by God from the wrath of God. God saves us from Himself. You might disagree, but it doesn’t entail that Jesus isn’t God in MacArthur’s theology.

  79. Todd McCauley: All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about.

    “I’ll pour out my Spirit on those who serve me, men and women both, and they’ll prophesy.” (Acts 2)

  80. Todd McCauley: The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    Authority?
    What you really mean is the Scripture Police and what they say it means.

  81. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    HUG, it’s more like Arianism, with Christ being not-quite-God and therefore women not-quite-human. Scot McKnight agreed with me when we were talking about it over coffee at a pastor’s conference (more than a decade ago, now – it’s not like I call him up on the phone!).

  82. Ricco: John Piper is a strange little man.

    Ahh, give him a break! He is just trying to save you from the tuna factory!

    “They’ll be happily swimming along. Your net of truth will entangle them. They will resist. Then they will see you saved them from the tuna factory. Put them in a new river.” (John Piper, Twitter, 06-17-2020)

  83. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Young’s argument fails because he ignores Ephesians 5:24, which says that wives should submit to their husbands, using the verb hypotasso, just as Christ submits to the church. The missing verb in the contested verse is hypotasso, no doubt about it. The only question is what the verb means.

    Young also makes an error at the start of the video that the ESS also make, and that he assumes that we can make interTrinitarian relations the model for male-female relationships. We shouldn’t do that at all. Human beings are made in the image of God, but the interTrinitarian relations can’t be the model because divine personhood isn’t the same as human personhood. Father, Son, and Spirit have the same mind, will, and affections. I don’t have the same mind or affections with my wife or as any other human being for that matter.

    I would say that both complementarians and egalitarians need to restrict themselves to the analogies the Bible actually draws. In Eph. 5, it’s an analogy with the church—incarnate Christ relationship. It’s not an analogy with the eternal relations of origin in the Trinity. Complementarian ESS guys mess things up by imputing authority into the relations of origin. If egalitarians try to draw the parallel to make men and women functionally equivalent in every way based on the interTrinitarian relations, they will end up ultimately ignoring the order of priority of the persons to do so. Either way, Trinitarian doctrine is going to get messed up. It comes out in Young’s The Shack, where he basically presents a social Trinitarian view that borders on Tritheism. It’s a work of fiction, so maybe he’s not trying to do that, but I’ve read the book and that is what happens.

    In sum, if egalitarians are right, it’s not because we image interTrinitarian relations of origin. If complementarians are right, it’s not because we image interTrinitarian relations of origin. The missing verb in the Ephesians passage is certainly hypotasso, but that doesn’t prove complementarianism or disprove egalitarianism.

  84. Ricco,

    To be fair, I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

  85. dainca: HUG, it’s more like Arianism, with Christ being not-quite-God and therefore women not-quite-human.

    Yeah, it’s like a semi-Arianism without going quite so far, at least on paper. And they often only bring Jesus up for this issue and atonement, so in a practical sense, it is Arianism.

    Though, I also think more should be said about the comparison of men to God the Father here. It’s not just comparing women to a subjected Jesus, but attributing power and authority on earth to men like God would have. Jesus said He had all authority, so that is a flat-out heresy in itself. These constant claims to authority over others is heretical.

  86. Robert: I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

    When did that become a secret?

  87. Muff Potter: Todd McCauley: The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    Authority?
    What you really mean is the Scripture Police and what they say it means.

    i.e. “EES PARTY LINE, COMRADES!”

    There is a reason I cannot say the word “Scripture” without nausea.
    I even have to bypass that one line in the Nicene Creed every Mass.
    SCRIPTURE(TM) has been completely Weaponized.
    A Virtue-Signalling Beatdown Weapon for The Righteous(TM), nothing more.

  88. ishy: dainca: HUG, it’s more like Arianism, with Christ being not-quite-God and therefore women not-quite-human.

    Yeah, it’s like a semi-Arianism without going quite so far, at least on paper.

    Arianism + Plausible Deniability?

  89. dainca: HUG, it’s more like Arianism, with Christ being not-quite-God and therefore women not-quite-human.

    Not-quite-human ……… that’s my take, as a woman, a wife, and a life-long (until recently) Southern Baptist.

    A few years ago, when my husband decided “we” were going to move 1200 miles away, he told everybody at church all about it ….. Except he so much as breathe a word about it to me. When I finally found out through overhearing a conversation at church, I asked hubby, “What were you planning to do? Put me in a pet carrier and throw me in the truck with the other dogs??!!!”

    We didn’t move.

  90. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): my husband decided “we” were going to move 1200 miles away … I finally found out through overhearing a conversation at church … We didn’t move

    Nancy, the church needs more women like you, but the men are scared to death to think of that possibility! 🙂

  91. Ava Aaronson,

    Nancy2(aka Kevlar): “disagree agreeably — and thoroughly enjoy a meal” together

    Ava: “Sounds like NT living to me. But what do I know. How about y’all?

    Discuss.”
    ++++++++++++

    to me it’s just reasonable. and pro-cognitive integrity, pro-mutual respect, and pro-community.

    (emulating NT living is a valid idea, but i don’t think it’s necessary — and potentially problematic)

    however, i reserve the right not to spend any of my precious time on earth with the jackasses at Genevan Commons, who seem to relish wearing the “jerk” badge.

    it takes an especially confused kind of man to measure his masculinity by his capacity for rude, snide cruelty.

    the fact that such a man thinks he is being godly or Christ-like is just…. well, i’m laughing, but not because it’s funny.

  92. Headless Unicorn Guy: Arianism + Plausible Deniability?

    Probably. They tried to keep their “women are derivative of men” theology on the down low, but I dunno why they still keep trying that in the age of the internet. Still, I don’t think many Southern Baptists have any idea what is really being taught at the seminaries they pay for…

  93. Todd McCauley,

    “Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about.”
    ++++++++++++++

    has it, now….

    Todd, i’m correcting you and i exhort you to receive it:

    this is because women are wholly human beings.

  94. elastigirl: Todd, i’m correcting you and i exhort you to receive it:

    this is because women are wholly human beings

    The jury is still out on whether or not New Calvinists are wholly human beings.

  95. Jerome: 26:37-28:03 Phillips explains his thing about no public praying by women during ‘worship services’ (says however that he’s let women publicly pray for their children during a midweek prayer meeting)]

    Because clearly a weekday is less holy than a Sunday.

    Elder, “Shall we also let women read the Bible passage out loud in small group?”
    Learned honored doctor who publishes books and gets speaking gigs at mega churches , “Only if there are less than 14 people and never in the holy sanctuary no matter how many people are present.”
    Jesus, “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”

  96. Todd McCauley: Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors.

    ***Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women protesting about not being able to be Humans. ***

    As elastigirl would say, “There, fixed it!”

  97. Fisher,

    AMEN!
    If God forbids the voices of women in church….. a sanctuary built specifically for those created in his image to gather and praise, honor, worship, and give thanks to Him …….. then, how can there possibly be anywhere on this earth where He would want to hear the voices of women?

  98. Todd McCauley: Let’s just sum this up.

    Since you asked so sweetly, I’ll try to help because helping is what you seem to need right about now. I’m not going to rehash what I’ve said a lot about textually in the distant past at TWW on this topic, but I’ll just invite you to point to the Biblical text where these supposed ROLES are prescribed. That would be far more effective than your argument by assertion. I’m a conservative inerrantist, so you can’t tag me as a liberal. But I also stick rigorously to the actual text, and that proves inconvenient to the Complementarians who cling to ROLES that have to be inserted into it.

    I will defend Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt *a little bit* because they were on the case several years ago when this blew up before the ETS. To put some perspective on this, ESS is a touchy subject for those in the PCA and the OPC. Way back before you children were born, the PCA birthed itself out of the PCUS in 1973, and one of the primary issues was the status of women’s ordination. Take one guess who solved that problem for them and who is the theologian who is the authority on the offices in the PCA/OPC today. You all may be shocked, shocked to know that the one theologian is George W. Knight III, the very one who invented the doctrine of ESS, and this work all took place before 1976. His authoritative book on these matters was published in 1977. ESS was ESSential to shore up an exclusive male office in the PCA against the scholarship that was happening, and I say that as a textual conservative.

    Rachel and Aimee have touched the Third Rail of ESS which supports all Complementarians but which affects the Reformed Complementarians at a much deeper level because it impinges on a core doctrine of exclusive male office. George Knight III did not invent ESS because he had nothing better to do in 1973 or because it was a really good idea. It was not a good idea then or now. But it served the purpose. Now, due to fear of some that the doctrine of the exclusivity of the elder/deacon office is under threat and the fear by others that it is genuinely displeasing to God, Aimee and Rachel must endure abuse that is irrational, unfounded, and untethered to the actual text or any confessional documents. Fear causes many not to examine the actual texts. Fear causes many to throw up chaff to frighten those who honor God.

    As far as I know, Dr. Knight is still a teaching elder in the OPC and is a professor at Greenville Theological Seminary. So, it would be exceedingly awkward for Trueman or Pruitt or any of the others to call him out at this point, though of course it would be the right and honorable thing for them to do for the Church as well as for Aimee and Rachel. It would be the right thing for Dr. Knight to recant his false teaching of ESS, along with Grudem, Ware, all of the luminaries at SBTS, SEBTS, MWBTS, and TGC, Piper, etc. But let’s be realistic. It’s not going to happen. All ESS documents have been scrubbed from websites without being recanted. It’s like the false teaching never happened before ETS.

    I’m a Baptist, but I speak somewhat fluent Presbyterian. From what I have read, Rachel and Aimee are faithful OPC women. Baptists don’t have offices and sacraments, so it’s not as complicated. Presbyterians do, and so ESS and Offices are sort of superglued together in a way that Knight and I suspect that other theologians understand, because I suspect that Knight and the other theologians understand the problems that the actual text presents when interpreted conservatively and consistently but they are human just like the rest of us. Nevertheless, Aimee and Rachel honor their vows, and they should be honored. The men and women who are bashing them are very small persons who do not understand what these women are saying. There is nothing they are saying which is unBiblical or against any of the confessions or catechisms. So what is really the problem?

    P.S. IIRC I think I said several years ago before my self-imposed quarantine that Aimee and Rachel, among others, would be rising stars.

  99. I heard a bit about this and saw the post at Aimee’s site, but i hadn’t heard they kicked her off the podcast! And so rudely and slyly too.

    I find Aimee fascinating because she is trying to stick with some of the people at her church/their rules while also being more reasonable about women and they constantly keep proving that her quest to be reasonable amidst all the misogyny is actually hopeless. One day she will quit it altogether i think.

  100. elastigirl:
    Gram3,

    Gram3!is it really you??

    Awesome! I posted without reading comments and now i’m excited to read what she has to say! I guess I will read everything else for it to make sense. How nice to see that handle 🙂

  101. Also YIKES at that guy talking about husbands being kings and administering discipline.

    These people have long been disgusting.

  102. Gram3: the PCA birthed itself out of the PCUS in 1973, and one of the primary issues was the status of women’s ordination. Take one guess who solved that problem for them and who is the theologian who is the authority on the offices in the PCA/OPC today. You all may be shocked, shocked to know that the one theologian is George W. Knight III, the very one who invented the doctrine of ESS

    I’m pcusa so i was aware some of why they left but I never heard this connection with Knight before. Fascinating!

  103. Beakerj: Just reprehensible misogynistic abuse, with levels of casual sexism that I associate with drunk men down the pub, not Pastors & other so-called Christian men on a message board.

    Yes. I think increasingly we are just seeing who these people are. They didn’t arrive at their position through careful study…they just plain hate women. It’s much simpler to understand when you realize that you don’t have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    John S Smith: This pretty well sums things up

    “Encouraging one on one time, e.g. sharing a meal with a woman who is not your wife (4), is foolishness that undermines the chastity of Christian women and men. ”

    I’m fascinated by the people who think having lunch with a coworker of the opposite sex is going to undermine anyone’s chastity who isn’t already thinking that way. So dumb.

  104. Robert: To be fair, I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

    To my previous point, I consider it misogynistic to tell women that they can’t be godly and lift weights. I’m not speaking to his motives because I can’t know those. Just what he says publicly (and he says a LOT publicly).

  105. Gram3,

    Thank you very much for this. You are correct that this happened before my birth. I was raised PCA/OPC (nothing like being a military brat to hop back and forth). This little tidbit is enlightening to know… and I think I recognize the cover of that book from my parent’s bookshelf.

  106. Ricco,

    a comic strip…

    i can see the pen & ink sketches in my mind’s eye. if only i was a cartoonist…

    i’ll gladly fill the speech and thought bubbles, though. so much material to work with!

  107. Samuel Conner: Which suggests that the comps are taking a completely wrong approach in their arguments with the egalitarians. They should be employing Paul’s appeal to “the law of love” — “you egalitarians may be easy in your consciences with your practices, but you are damaging ours. Our consciences have a more constrained conception of what is permitted by our liberty in Christ, and we appeal to you, for the sake of our own consciences, that you conform to our standards.”

    Well, if someone dismisses my humanity entirely, i don’t think i’m going to be persuaded to conform to their standards? I’m not sure that this is as good an argument as you think it is.

    Not eating idol meat is a comparatively small thing.

  108. Let me state up front I wish we never had this coronavirus enter our world. I loathe everything about it. But we are at risk seniors and so have been isolating for 3 1/2 months. Lots of time to study.

    We have been part of several groups through the last many years. Usually those changes were brought about by geographical moves, and I have learned much from the many faith families.

    Lutheran, to be specific LCMS has been a star in the show. But this pandemic has given me plenty of time to try and tease out that niggling NO I find with this whole single predestination thing. Really, the outcome is indeed the same as double predestination. But for me that is less an issue than its root:

    What is God’s purpose in creating human beings? What is this all about, this life and faith? I come back to there being two choices that I can find (maybe you find more): either the Calvinists, Lutherans, and classical or Reformed Arminians (its thing. google it.) are right and it is all to show God’s glory, or the nonreformed Arminians (Wesleyans, etc) are right and it is all to show His love.

    I believe it is the latter. My church is caught up in it being the former. Which means when I can go back to church I likely will lose my church family. But I am convinced this whole unilateral election thing paints God to be a monster. It is blasphemy.

    From that root grow all sorts of puny men trying to walk in God’s shoes. They think I cannot access Him without their rites and rituals. They think I am under their authority, not His. They think they can forgive my sins. They think they can dispense Him to me, or deny that should they feel it best.

    No. Just no. I believe His purpose is to show His love. He seeks us. He comes to us before we come to Him. (Prevenient grace.) He wants our love to be free, not coerced. He woos, not forcing Himself upon us. (Vile concept makes Him a perp, a less than god God.) He is not the author of sin. He does not create human beings for the express purpose of frying them in hell. He is always available to the humble, seeking heart. He does deal strongly with sin because it hurts us. He will allow us the dreadful consequences of our sins. He does not give us the authority to decide for ourselves what sin is. Rather, only He defines it. He is and always will be the only spiritual authority over us.

    To sum it up: some see God as an angry parent, disgusted with His creation. He might decide to fix up some of them and keep them around, but mainly He just wants to put them in the burn barrel. Others see God as a loving parent, willing to do anything He can to show His love to His kids, to save them from their own sins and that of others.

    Perhaps after this pandemic ends what will ultimately have died is the body of lies that paints our Lord as a cosmic tantrum throwing bully. Perhaps the religious abuse will stop.

    And perhaps, just perhaps, we will see Jesus again.

  109. Todd McCauley: All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about.

    I have zero interest in being a pastor.

    This not so casual misogyny displayed, hatred and dismissal of women as lesser? It affects all of us.

    It’s not about being a pastor, it’s about being a person.

  110. Robert:
    Ricco,

    To be fair, I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

    The dudes telling aimee to go make a sandwich are not very ‘secret’ about their motivations…

    Piper, otoh, is just really really weird. He’s confused about himself in some way and trying to sort it out through theology.

  111. Lea,

    Sure, but are you saying the position that women should not be pastors/elders dismisses your humanity or that some professed complementarians dismiss your humanity?

  112. ES,

    You’re very welcome. It’s too bad that history is being scrubbed everywhere. Conveniently for some, but it hinders learning from mistakes. People make mistakes for all sorts of reasons. There were scary things happening in the PCUS in 1973 (from my perspective) so I don’t want paint a distorted picture. It’s just that our solutions are really bad ones sometimes. ESS is one example, and the conservative church is having a really hard time recovering from it. Not the first time I’ve addressed Dr. Knight’s theology on TWW, but it’s tough seeing a couple of faithful sisters being piled on and slandered for no good reason at all while powerful men remain silent.

  113. ishy,

    I think you’re right. I was conversing with a few of them (or men like-minded) on FB who told me Aimee in their estimation is a false teacher and not a sister in Christ.

  114. Gram3,

    What it means critically for me, is that my parents were teaching an extreme form of wives submitting to husbands while also expressly teaching us that Arianism was a heresy… but I can see the connection between ESS and Arianism. Which is yet another self-contradiction within the faith I was taught in my childhood. And I had no idea that ESS was possibly specifically related to what my parents taught me about men’s and women’s “roles” – and yet, it makes so much sense.

    I really feel for both Aimee and Rachel. Based on my personal experience, neither the OPC nor the PCA is really poised to appropriately respond to this situation.

  115. John S Smith: This pretty well sums things up, at Cross Politic: https://crosspolitic.com/will-someone-love-aimee-byrd/

    I checked out Cross Politic!!! Uhm, OMG, OMG, OMG!!
    Hubby needs to shove me into that pet carrier and get me to the vet, quickly! I haven’t had my rabies shots – shoot, I’m not even leash broke!

    Seriously, I went through a few pages and found an article on Johnny Mac and Beth Moore. It appears that these prime examples of Holy Misogyny believe that we wimmenfolk will be judged by our homemaking abilities when when stand before the Bema seat of Judgement …….. I’m not kidding you! If God’s gonna question Beth Moore about her homemaking, I reckon He’ll be coming after us all!

  116. Gram3: It’s too bad that history is being scrubbed everywhere.

    Scrubbing history is what Winston Smith did in the Ministry of Truth (Orwell’s 1984).

  117. Gram3,

    Does my heart so good to see you back, Gram3! I, for one, have missed you, and your knowledge/wisdom.

    Now, if y’all will excuse me, I need to go get some green tomatoes ready to fry. Yeah, I do the cooking around here. Hubby doesn’t do very well with cook stoves, bless his heart. After supper we will work together making blackberry jelly. When we’re finished, guess who is doing the dishes? Hint: not me!

  118. Muff Potter: What you really mean is the Scripture Police and what they say it means.

    The scripture police
    They live inside of my head
    The scripture police
    They come to me in my bed

    Apologies to Cheap Trick

  119. Gram3: I’m a Baptist, but I speak somewhat fluent Presbyterian. From what I have read, Rachel and Aimee are faithful OPC women. Baptists don’t have offices and sacraments, so it’s not as complicated.

    Glad to see you back, Gram3!

    The New Cals do believe in offices, though. This is why they rush to switch churches from congregational vote to elder-run. The big problem with this, and the difference between Baptist and Presbyterian leaders, is that Baptist leaders make sure they don’t have to have any accountability in that office to anyone else, while expecting those within the church to answer absolutely to them. This fails a bit at the institutional level, but that’s why they’ve stacked every committee with their people.

    But eventually, I think the egos are going to clash too much and they will destroy each other.

  120. Gram3: faithful sisters being piled on and slandered for no good reason at all while powerful men remain silent

    Good men (or good anyone for that matter) that do nothing are not good men.

    Qualifier and a weeder.

  121. ishy: The New Cals do believe in offices, though.

    I hear you. Certainly the Founders are 1689 LBCF, so arguably severely confused Presbyterians. 🙂 No, I don’t really mean that, my Presbyterian friends! Grudem is WTS. Not recalling Piper’s background. I think that covers the source of the YRR phenomenon. Their disciples’ might be expected to follow their Presbyish lead. Also many Baptists have been informed by the Bible Church movement which came out of Presbyterianism in the 20th century which gave them the idea of elders. Baptists historically, have not had a conception of “office-bearers” quite like Presbyterians have had, and the YRR movement has, mercifully, been a relatively recent development that has not been good for either Baptists or Presbyterians IMO.

    I think that you would find that people find accountability lacking in both Baptist and Presbyterian polity structures, mainly because human nature will find a way to be sinful. They may push it up and bury it, while we just bury it in-house. I’m not a pessimist, but I am experienced.

  122. Muff Potter,

    Thanks, Muff. Not sure how long I’ll last. This is very sad. I want our people to do better, and I know they can but don’t understand why they won’t.

  123. Gram3: I think that you would find that people find accountability lacking in both Baptist and Presbyterian polity structures, mainly because human nature will find a way to be sinful. They may push it up and bury it, while we just bury it in-house. I’m not a pessimist, but I am experienced.

    I think you’re right, though I have to admit I’ve only visited a Presbyterian church on occasion.

    You’d think after so long we’d have figured out better ways to deal with human nature. I’ve been in churches who promised everything would work out “if you just have faith and pray”. And people believe it, even when their pastor is getting arrested for something he clearly did…

  124. Robert,

    “It matters because Paul’s words are Jesus’ words.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    now that claim should be qualified.

    in case i wasn’t clear, please qualify.

  125. Todd McCauley: Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about. The Bible is clear about who is to be an Elder in the Church. In other words, roles exist. The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    *Tartly* This isn’t about women being pastors. This IS about women being full human beings and not second class people.

    As for your Biblical exegesis, I would note that a lot of people who are much smarter than both you and I disagree on whether only men should be elders. I would also note that you do not practice or believe everything in the Bible. Although, to be perfectly sarcastic, I do wonder if you want to go back to the days when women were property of their fathers, husbands or closest male relative.

    Also, are you a complementarian? If so, can you explain to me how complementarianism is supposed to work for women who are not married? In all the nonsense surrounding comp, nobody who adheres to the dogma has been able to tell me how it applies in practice to single, divorced or widowed women. Who, by the way, make up just slightly over half the adult woman population in the USA.

    For the record, my late father raised me and my sister to be self-sufficient. I’ve supported myself for decades. My sister has been married nearly 35 years and she’s been the family breadwinner most of that time. So yeah, do tell us how comp works in a world where there are millions of us who don’t have male headships, don’t need male headships and don’t need male headships.

    I’m waiting…

  126. ishy: You’d think after so long we’d have figured out better ways to deal with human nature.

    I’ve wondered at this too. I get the sense that while there is an accumulation of dogma as theology is developed, there is not much of an accumulation of wisdom in terms of “the life of the churches as communities of flesh and blood people, ‘saints’ in some sense of set-apartness, but still very much sinners.” Will any of what has been learned about how pastoral ministry can go wrong (to highlight one problem among many) be remembered a generation from now? I rather doubt it. New ways of being the church will be devised, and the same mistakes will be made, world without end.

  127. Robert: The missing verb in the contested verse is hypotasso, no doubt about it. The only question is what the verb means.

    Others disagree. Why should I believe you? By what authority is your interpretation more correct than others?

  128. Robert:
    Lea,

    Sure, but are you saying the position that women should not be pastors/elders dismisses your humanity or that some professed complementarians dismiss your humanity?

    I think the majority of professed complementarians dismiss my humanity as less important, less equal, less everything, of they could not arrive at their conclusions. They may think they’re being ‘nice’ about it but the end result is the same.

    the position, however it is arrived at, concludes that women are different, women are less.

  129. Robert: It matters because Paul’s words are Jesus’ words.

    Of all the people who have written books of the Bible, and all of the people who are quoted in the writings, how does one tell which words are Jesus’ words and which are not?

    Paul- ahem…………Peter? Luke? Matthew? Mark? Isaiah? Ruth? James? ………..

  130. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): I need to go get some green tomatoes ready to fry

    You wouldn’t happen to have some ripe ones to go on top of my sacred cow burgers, would you? And save some blackberries for cobbler, too!

  131. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: Are you serious? *shakes head*

    He’s very serious. In many Protestant sects, Paul has the same gravitas that Moses had when the Almighty thundered out of Horeb to the children of Israel.

  132. Robert: It matters because Paul’s words are Jesus’ words.

    “To the rest I declare — I, not the Lord, since Jesus did not discuss this …” (1 Corinthians 7:12 AMP)

    “I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion …” (1 Corinthians 7:25 AMP)

  133. Gram3,

    We’ve got about 3 or4 ripe ‘maters on the vines and more comin’, and blackberries are coming in abundantly, big fat wild blackberries that make great cobblers – and jam, too!

  134. Muff Potter,

    I’ve had Maine perch and liked it, and the friends and family. I expect that Wisconsin perch, as well as the friends and family, would be at least as good!

  135. Max: Nancy, the church needs more women like you, but the men are scared to death to think of that possibility!

    Tee hee hee. I personally know a lot of Baptist’s that would disagree with that statement.
    Hubby …… well, he might like having a few more women like me at church (I enjoy teaching teenagers, and he knows I work hard at it!), but just one of me at home is more than he can handle.

  136. Robert,
    Nancy2(aka Kevlar,

    “It matters because Paul’s words are Jesus’ words.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”

    i mean, hey, Jesus said it, right?

    (better be nice, Robert)

  137. ES: What it means critically for me, is that my parents were teaching an extreme form of wives submitting to husbands while also expressly teaching us that Arianism was a heresy

    I can imagine that your parents had no idea where the extreme ideas of submission came from and they were trying to live as faithfully as they knew how to do at the time. There were many ideas in the 70’s which included that, including Gothardism (Baptist), Reconstructionism (P&R), and offshoots too numerous to mention which I’ve forgotten. And that doesn’t include traditional denominations that were perhaps not as cultic. The 60’s and 70’s were a time of great turbulence and disruption, and people were frightened. We made mistakes, as people do when we are fearful.

    I want to draw a distinction between submission and subordination, though. We are all called to submit to one another, and that is a very good thing. Subordination, especially subordination that is demanded and no where prescribed, or even described, in scripture is a very bad thing. Making up stuff and calling it scripture is always a bad thing, if you’re a conservative, as I am. RBMW has lots of made-up stuff that sounds super-spiritual and plausibly good. But it’s not what God has said, so it’s not good. Aimee is pointing some of that out. I’ve pointed more of it out a long time ago here. She’s nicer than I am.

    So much toxicity has been introduced into relationships by framing them as power relationships. That may be necessary in the world. It must not be so among those who are in Christ. Tragically, church leaders are also the leaders in perpetuating a model of relationships based on power. That is not what Jesus taught nor what he modeled. It’s not what Paul taught, either. Not even in the pastorals.

  138. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): I checked out Cross Politic!!!Uhm, OMG, OMG, OMG!!
    Hubby needs to shove me into that pet carrier and get me to the vet, quickly! I haven’t had my rabies shots –shoot, I’m not even leash broke!

    Seriously, I went through a few pages and found an article on Johnny Mac and Beth Moore.It appears that these prime examples of Holy Misogyny believe that we wimmenfolk will be judged by our homemaking abilities when when stand before the Bema seat of Judgement …….. I’m not kidding you!If God’s gonna question Beth Moore about her homemaking, I reckon He’ll be coming after us all!

    Yes Nancy.
    The doctrines being created are for application in this life. Biblical manhood is as was fortold in the beginning, the man would rule over the Woman. The Woman would have sorrow.

    But the objective is the afterlife. What matters is the subordination of women in Heaven. The current teachings have no, zero, no expiration at the reconstitution of all things.

    The same goes for ESS. It has no practicle effect in this life. ESS is only created for the life to come. Both these belief systems will cause unavoidable conflict. The difference between the two is ESS is a direct challenge to the authority and divinity of Jesus Christ.

  139. Gram3: So much toxicity has been introduced into relationships by framing them as power relationships. That may be necessary in the world. It must not be so among those who are in Christ. Tragically, church leaders are also the leaders in perpetuating a model of relationships based on power. That is not what Jesus taught nor what he modeled. It’s not what Paul taught, either. Not even in the pastorals.

    The simple fact of the matter is if these men were treated the way they treat women, and if the theology was reversed, they’d be in a different religion. They wouldn’t follow the God they’ve created in their minds.

  140. Robert,

    Complementarian is female SLAVERY. It is Christian men concluding they are entitled to a trapped female slave.

    Complementarian men have also concluded that if they decide to beat or rape their wife she can’t divorce him for it.

    Complementarian men look at their own baby daughters and all they see and think of is sex.

    Complementarian men do not love their wives or their little girls. They are the most selfish, childish, self-worshiping, abusive, and embarrassing men in all of Christendom.

    Complementarian men have every bit the belligerent condescending contempt for 2 year old baby girls as they have for 35 year old women.

    I was born and raised in complementarian. I became suicidal at age 11 and told my mother at age 16 I wish she had aborted me. If my parents had loved me they would not have raised me in in the male supremacy pro female slavery cult that is complementarian. My mother should have aborted me before having me with a complementarian man. But, she was a brainwashed underage girl who was also born and raised in the wicked cult that is comp. She was nothing but a trapped slave for my child-marrying comp father.

    Pedophilia and incest is the obvious evolution of complementarian.

    Can you not see that complementarian causes women and little girls intense pain? Or, are you like all the complementarian men I have ever known who believe it is women’s and little girl’s job to hurt to make Christian men feel good?

    John Piper giggles about men abusing their wives and he also wants women to take abuse from abusive husbands.

  141. Guest: men concluding they are entitled

    This is what Denhollander writes about: “What is a Girl Worth?”
    And Christa Brown documents in the church: “This Little Light”
    And my own novel maps this out, in church: “Legal Grounds”

    Church, get a grip, on reality here, with creating a hunting ground.

  142. Max: Doesn’t sound like “heaven” for women!

    If women where emancipated upon death from effects of the original curse, it seems like it would be important enough to mention. I can’t recall ever hearing of any future freedom.

  143. elastigirl: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”
    i mean, hey, Jesus said it, right?
    (better be nice, Robert)

    You and Nancy crack me up like nothing else, Elastigirl! XD

  144. Gram3: Way back before you children were born, the PCA birthed itself out of the PCUS in 1973, and one of the primary issues was the status of women’s ordination.

    Actually, that’s exactly the year I was born! Not that I would remember anything that happened then…

    So good to hear from you again, Gram! Please stay well and take care of yourself.

  145. Gram3: So much toxicity has been introduced into relationships by framing them as power relationships.

    Yep, & a lot of the language used by several in the private chat group about Aimee Byrd emulates that which comes from the Manosphere, or Men’s Rights Activism, which is a cesspit of misogyny, & berates men they see as sympathetic to women (holding they are equal) as simps or cucks.

    Weird that they don’t seem to see MRA as as much as a threat to Biblical Manhood as feminism is to Biblical Womanhood. I guess it’s because a fair few of them, at heart, see themselves as truly human, & women just as helpers to the truly human, like the House Elves in Harry Potter.

  146. Here is the Westminster Confession Chapter 24 – Of Marriage and Divorce.

    I would point out the lack of any protections afforded women in cases other sexually related. That does not grant an exit from the marriage, just the right to sue.

    .”.V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”.

    Paragraph 6 does allow for divorce for willful abandonment, but does not allow for abuse. Also, any suit is not a private matter. Chapter 6 grants authority to both civil and Church authorities in oversight of litigating persons. Any such litigation automatically involves assets, liabilities and children. Specifically worded here, is “cause sufficient.” This would mean a determination, of some sort, must be made on the sufficiency of the underlying claims of the suit.

    .”..VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.”..

  147. ishy,

    “The simple fact of the matter is if these men were treated the way they treat women, and if the theology was reversed, they’d be in a different religion. They wouldn’t follow the God they’ve created in their minds.”
    ++++++++++++++

    i think that is the purpose of male headship/complementarianism/CBMW:

    marketing strategies to make men feel better about going to church, dreamed up around a conference table.

    a majority of girlpower is simply too frightening a prospect.

  148. Gram3: I can imagine that your parents had no idea where the extreme ideas of submission came from and they were trying to live as faithfully as they knew how to do at the time.

    My mother had a year of seminary, and my father very strongly believes in power struggles as the basis of marriage and most other relationships. Yes, they were absolutely teaching what they really believe. But as a little girl, I was told that I needed to make sure I married a man who was strong enough to control me, because I was very headstrong and there probably weren’t many men who were strong enough for me.

    I understand your division between submission and subordination – and my husband and I have spent a great deal of time working that out (which means my dad has expressly said that I “wear the pants”). What I think is really critical to understand though is that there is a group of us who were taught/raised to an alternate definition of “submission” and it is far closer to slavery than it is to subordination. It is a loaded word and we need to parse out what exactly the speaker or writer actually means when they say “submission.” My mother and I have had conversations about how her spiritual journey through the Anglican church, followed by several other groups and ending in the PCA means that she has a more nuanced view than any of her children learned via solely the PCA with OPC influences.

    The main problem I ended up having with the OPC, PCA and eventually the ARP (Associate Reformed Presbyterian) was their fuzzy “submission” definition. In practice it seemed to mean that a woman had as much “freedom” as her husband allowed her to have. As long as her husband appeared to be the head, others would stay out of it. I watched way too many instances of men becoming selfish dictators in their own homes, and the women being told they must submit in order to be godly.

    The OPC’s response to the Aimee Byrd situation is still fuzzy on the issue of submission. Notice, in spite of their defense of Aimee, they expressly say that they are not endorsing her teachings. In my opinion, that is because there are many in the OPC who firmly believe that “submission” is literally in all things, without any exceptions. Essentially, that document rightly called out the ad hominem attacks, but when it came to the content of Aimee’s teaching they are not just silent, they outright refuse to take a side. One would think that the pastor, and the elders of her church, along with those within her Presbytery would have taken the time to read her book and figure out if they agreed with her theology. One would also think that they could outright state their theological position on a theological book – especially if they, as the men, are supposed to be leading and the woman is not supposed to be teaching outside of their supervision and authority. Instead they wrote a letter telling people to stop calling her names – and conveniently avoided the sticky theology question.

  149. Beakerj: Yep, & a lot of the language used by several in the private chat group about Aimee Byrd emulates that which comes from the Manosphere, or Men’s Rights Activism, which is a cesspit of misogyny,

    Yes, it absolutely read that way to me too. It’s the worst of reddit misogyny but ‘christianized’ to make women feel bad for calling it out. Disgusting.

  150. ES: But as a little girl, I was told that I needed to make sure I married a man who was strong enough to control me, because I was very headstrong and there probably weren’t many men who were strong enough for me.

    You know, i definitely remember thinking growing up that I needed a man who was strong enough to stand up to me, not necessarily control me. I guess that’s not quite the same thing though.

    Of course, here i am lo these years later not married (although i am seeing someone great atm).

  151. ES,

    Also my mom read one of those books about raising a strong willed child, which i kind of have thoughts about…

  152. ES: But as a little girl, I was told that I needed to make sure I married a man who was strong enough to control me, because I was very headstrong and there probably weren’t many men who were strong enough for me.

    I think demanding or manipulating to get own way is much easier than working with others and compromising. I think even just truly listening to someone who has different views than you is very hard for most people. This view has developed that being controlling is strength is really just the most cowardly way of dealing with problems. And it usually results in injury to themselves and those around them that just makes their problems worse.

    Some people are just narcissists, but I think many are terrified and think controlling their lives is the way to safety. But it never ends up being any safer and usually just alienates others from them.

  153. ES,

    “The OPC’s response to the Aimee Byrd situation is still fuzzy on the issue of submission.

    …when it came to the content of Aimee’s teaching they are not just silent, they outright refuse to take a side.

    …Instead they wrote a letter telling people to stop calling her names – and conveniently avoided the sticky theology question.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    protecting their own power, peer standing & job security for themselves.

    they clearly have too much to lose.

  154. Lea: Also my mom read one of those books about raising a strong willed child, which i kind of have thoughts about…

    Fun fact: I was a case study for the second edition of Dobson’s Strong Willed Child… Dr. Dobson told my mother that in following us case studies, he realized there was a new class of “Super Strong Willed Children”… Guess what category I fell into!

  155. elastigirl,

    Possibly…

    I think it is probable that they couldn’t come to a consensus about the theology, but did come to a consensus about the ad hominem attacks. So they chose to address the issue that they were unified on. It also leaves the door open in the future for censure either from individual members or from the OPC itself without any contradiction.

    When Biblical Submission = In all things without question = functionally: whatever the Man wants it to be. The men within the OPC are varied. Some of them want their wives influence, and some of them even want wives who are independent. Others interpret any deviance from their thoughts as a submission/sin issue on the wife’s part. I was told on more than one occasion, that if your husband is a micro-manager, you have to comply, and if he isn’t, you’re essentially lucky. In one conversation this involved discussing my life-long struggle with insomnia and how I might be expected to some-how submit my sleep patterns to my future husband (not kidding).

    The OPC church that I attended throughout college was a big proponent of Doug Wilson. My understanding is that different Presbyteries throughout the country are varying levels of conservative, and I was in one of the more conservative ones. If the national OPC issued this letter, they had factions to appease. And I am confident that some of those factions hold Doug Wilson’s teachings very dearly. While I haven’t read Aimee Byrd’s book, or really had any exposure to her, it is my impression that she isn’t a proponent of Doug Wilson – because if she was, we wouldn’t be having this particular conversation.

  156. Some very interesting and helpful comments here. I received a smoke and mirrors reply from alliance@alliancenet.org that boiled down to, she wouldn’t answer the questions!

    As a complementarian of sorts myself and being a few chapters in on Aimee Byrd’s book, I’m not reading anything that doesn’t fit in the complementarian bucket. Just some really good points that she makes showing the extreme views for what they are. Unbiblical and damaging dross that should be repented of. That said, I can definitely see why the “sammich” guys wouldn’t like it. They might have to treat the ladies as co-heirs.

    Gram3, thank you for the great comments and insight with the back story on Dr. Knight. I did not know he was THE ESS guy. Makes sense of why no one in the OPC wants to touch it.

  157. Nathan Priddis: If women where emancipated upon death from effects of the original curse, it seems like it would be important enough to mention. I can’t recall ever hearing of any future freedom.

    “Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13 AMP)

  158. Its an inevitably that status of women, maritable unions and children will come up in the afterlife. Marriage was raised already by the Sadducees. Jesus side stepped the question. Any statement by him would have altered future cases brought before the Court.

    A simple situation could look like this:
    1. Bob has a part in the Resurrection.
    2. At some portion of his existance in the lower World, he was married to Alice.
    3. At death, Alice was transfered to the custody of Hades, and archived.

    Bob will obviously claim her status should be reversed. This would be a retro active harpazo, and resurrection. In addition, he will lay claim to any children produced.

    This will bypass doctrines. It is also an inevitability that Bob’s petitioning before the Court will be challenged and escalate divisions.

  159. ES: The OPC church that I attended throughout college was a big proponent of Doug Wilson.

    You have my condolences.

  160. Max: “Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13 AMP)

    This would make women free from the effects of Eden. A woman would then be able to function as preist and king, interchangeably with males. Gender would be interchangeable to a persons role and identity.

    A woman would have power to become of the Sons of God. I cant imagine too many things more threatening to Complimentarian doctrines. They would be set aside.

  161. Robert: To be fair, I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

    Well, to be fair, I can’t see any other motivation that would make sense.

    The Pied Piper is already famous for teaching that wives should “endure being abused for a season”, and his revolting permanence of marriage doctrine insists that a woman be shackled to a husband until he dies, no matter how abusive or worthless he is. If that isn’t misogyny, I don’t know what is.

  162. Nathan Priddis: Max: “Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13 AMP)

    This would make women free from the effects of Eden.

    Exactly. Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary freed ALL of us from whatever curse was placed upon us, any penalty levied against any of us. By accepting His sacrifice willingly, we (master or slave, jew or greek, male or female) are free from the effects of any curse.

    Nathan Priddis: A woman would then be able to function as priest and king, interchangeably with males. Gender would be interchangeable to a persons role and identity.

    In Christ, there is neither male or female … we are one. The priesthood of believers is for ALL believers. Of course, this won’t preach in New Calvinism; thus the new reformers have to distort Scripture to defend their belief and practice in regard to gender roles. Our identity is in Christ, not in theology!

  163. ES: Fun fact: I was a case study for the second edition of Dobson’s Strong Willed Child… Dr. Dobson told my mother that in following us case studies, he realized there was a new class of “Super Strong Willed Children”… Guess what category I fell into!

    That’s so crazy, and yes that’s the exact book. I wonder if i read it if i would recognize anything or if my mom just tossed it…

  164. ishy: I think demanding or manipulating to get own way is much easier than working with others and compromising.

    It’s also easier to lie and sneak around than have a straightforward conversation about a disagreement, particularly with parents.

  165. Serving Kids in Japan: The Pied Piper is already famous for teaching that wives should “endure being abused for a season”, and his revolting permanence of marriage doctrine insists that a woman be shackled to a husband until he dies, no matter how abusive or worthless he is. If that isn’t misogyny, I don’t know what is.

    The amusing thought occurs that this evokes an echo of the apostles’ dismayed response to Jesus’ rejection of the interpretation of Moses that permitted husbands to divorce for any reason: “if this be the case, it is better to not marry.”

    I find it difficult to take seriously strong claims about post-mortem relationships. We don’t understand much about the intermediate state, and not a whole lot more about the final, post resurrection, state. It strikes me as pointless and unhelpful speculation, attempting to build dogmas on slender textual supports. There is enough trouble today, under the sun, in the churches. It seems pointless to invest mental energy into worrying what the distant future will be like.

  166. Samuel Conner: The amusing thought occurs that this evokes an echo of the apostles’ dismayed response to Jesus’ rejection of the interpretation of Moses that permitted husbands to divorce for any reason: “if this be the case, it is better to not marry.”

    Although Mohler and others teach that it’s sinful not to be married over the age of 25, something that’s wholly unbiblical. But I’m pretty sure they know they’re breeding a bunch of unworthy and worthless men who view women as slaves. They wouldn’t want people like themselves as spouses!

  167. ishy: Although Mohler and others teach that it’s sinful not to be married over the age of 25, something that’s wholly unbiblical.

    Where? This isn’t sarcastic or confrontational – I totally believe you. I just really need to know where they say this lunacy.

  168. Beakerj: Weird that they don’t seem to see MRA as as much as a threat to Biblical Manhood as feminism is to Biblical Womanhood.

    I’m not familiar with MRA groups. But in general, it seems to me that power begets a reaction of power. Which begets another power reaction in response. And so on and on and on. Worldly relationships predictably are based on power and must be and are constrained by laws.

    This is what our Creator told our Parents would happen as a result of their disobedience in the Garden. Every human being desires our own way. But that was not how our Creator created the relationship between Man and Woman to be. There was no hierarchy, and I have repeatedly challenged Complementarians here to point me to the Hierarchy Text where God established it before the Fall. Crickets. Ray Ortlund spent a whole chapter of creative writing in RBMW making the Bible say it, though, through gauzy allusions and imaginings. And now it is the received wisdom of the “conservative” church. Amazing. This conservative is stunned at these so-called conservative “scholars” and their disregard for the actual text.

  169. ES: ishy: Although Mohler and others teach that it’s sinful not to be married over the age of 25, something that’s wholly unbiblical.

    Where? This isn’t sarcastic or confrontational – I totally believe you. I just really need to know where they say this lunacy.

    “While both men and women are guilty of the “sin of waiting,” Mohler singled out men as the prime offenders … Delaying marriage until the late 20s or beyond often allows a person to develop unhealthy lifestyle patterns that become difficult to break once he or she is married, Mohler said.”

    https://news.sbts.edu/2004/06/29/mohler-message-on-familylife-today-dont-put-off-marriage/

  170. ES: The OPC’s response to the Aimee Byrd situation is still fuzzy on the issue of submission. Notice, in spite of their defense of Aimee, they expressly say that they are not endorsing her teachings.

    Well, they have a bit of a sticky wicket. The OPC is a tiny denomination numerically, yet it’s influential theologically in the Reformed world. They can’t endorse her teaching without un-endorsing Dr. Knight and Grudem, and a lot of influential Gospel Glitterati, including allies like Ligon Duncan and who know who else. The Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals probably has many entanglements including publishing contracts with non-disparagement clauses. Gram3 is such a Debbie Downer reality-bringer, but that may be what we are looking at. I don’t know. I do know that Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be out front defending Aimee and Rachel from these slandering men; they should be disciplining the men; they should be repenting for the false teaching of ESS instead of just scrubbing ESS from the website and pretending it never existed instead of being a core doctrine on which they based female subordination. That would be what Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ would do, I think. At a minimum. Perhaps I am wrong about their duties, but that is how I would see my duty. I want to include all of Baptist ESS cowards in my comments, as well. They are too numerous to mention, but include Grudem, Ware, Piper, Mohler, Schreiner, Kostenberger, etc.

  171. Gram3,

    This is what I have been awakening to over the last decade. They taught me not to add or subtract from scripture… but then they do exactly that… and then they wonder why I don’t agree with them.

  172. Max: the “sin of waiting,”

    I grew up expecting to marry straight out of college at age 22. There were too many young widows in my family for anyone to recommend I skip the college part.

    At age 22, though, I was still a kid, recovering from fundamentalist abuse, and really not ready for marriage. I probably wasn’t even a great friend. Thank heaven nobody guilted me into marrying the wonderful Christian man I loved at that age. I found a different one later, when I was competent to be a spouse.

  173. elastigirl:
    Nathan Priddis,

    “…kites. Any particular kind?”
    +++++++++++++

    who are your favorite cartoon characters?

    Uhmm. Well im not really a cartoon person, but how about Patrick, from Spongebob fame. I just made that up, but he looks a little like a kite anyway.

    Wait. Does Triumph the insult dog count…

  174. Friend: At age 22, though, I was still a kid

    My wife and I married at age 20 and 21, respectively. I wish I could take back all the stupid mistakes I made in the early years of our marriage.

  175. Max: I wish I could take back all the stupid mistakes I made in the early years of our marriage.

    I suspect you have been forgiven, dear Max.

    In my case, though, it was better for me to wade through emotional damage for a good long while, instead of inflicting it on another.

    I fear that many young couples from fundagelical families and schools are damaged, and they are trained and commanded not to seek a deeper understanding of their emotions.

  176. ES: The main problem I ended up having with the OPC, PCA and eventually the ARP (Associate Reformed Presbyterian) was their fuzzy “submission” definition. In practice it seemed to mean that a woman had as much “freedom” as her husband allowed her to have. As long as her husband appeared to be the head, others would stay out of it.

    You have discovered the definition of submission, and also the heart of every legalistic culture. The definition of submission is “The husband/pastor/father is King.” Grudem is famous for his set of rules for women, but it boils down to whatever the husband says is good is good. Similarly, in the community, whatever appears good is good. Both are false in that neither has anything to do with the goodness of the heart which is what God is concerned with. God is concerned with the husband’s disposition toward his wife and the wife’s disposition toward her husband. Circumstances between them and around them will vary from moment to moment, day to day, year to year. Their heart disposition is what God cares about. Just as he cares about our heart disposition toward Him.

    The Complementarians define “head” as only ever meaning “authority” rather than “supplier” or “source.” That certainly changes things. That’s why they desperately need ESS. Because they need for God to be the Head of Christ in an Eternal Authority sense, not in the sense that Christ came from the Father in a temporal way. It’s why they cannot see Philippians 2 as one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible. They miss so much beauty and goodness and grace because they are blinded by the tradition of authority and power.

    I don’t know when your mom went to seminary. but Susan Foh’s paper on the “woman’s desire” was published around 1977 or so, IIRC. We could not believe how fast it took hold as though it were always the “truth” about Genesis 3. It is truly one of the Great Lies foisted upon the Church. Given that Westminster Philly published it, I can believe that she believed it as the gospel truth. Most conservatives think it is black letter, if not red letter, truth today. Men believe their wives are “bucking” their authority, and women are crippled by the fear that they are displeasing God by being unsubmissive. On the other hand. men are crippled by the fear that they are not “leading their wives well,” whatever in the world that means. It is an insane and evil system designed by the enemy, not by the Spirit of the living Christ who desires for us to live in love and unity and not in fear.

  177. ES: Where? This isn’t sarcastic or confrontational – I totally believe you. I just really need to know where they say this lunacy.

    He’s said it in multiple contexts now, but Max posted the same link I would have. He also talked about it at Joshua Harris’ New Attitude Conference. Now that Harris has divorced and disclaimed Christianity, they pretend he doesn’t exist.

    There’s a bigger reason for this that becomes clear after being around New Calvinists for awhile. Most of their social and cult structure is based around marriage. They get followers by promising them slave wives. They don’t really care about female followers, so gaining followers is primarily to bait young men. Men “control” their wives in the cult leadership structure of the church, and the leaders control the men.

    What many men in New Calvinist churches don’t realize is that their leaders view them as dumb sheep who need as much control as they promise them over their wives. Covenants stipulate that elders make major decisions for members and members can’t leave of their own free will. They built an entire structure promising men kingships over their little kingdoms, but those men don’t know that they are just peons and slaves themselves.

  178. Gram3: The Complementarians define “head” as only ever meaning “authority” rather than “supplier” or “source.” That certainly changes things. That’s why they desperately need ESS. Because they need for God to be the Head of Christ in an Eternal Authority sense, not in the sense that Christ came from the Father in a temporal way.

    I have for long found it odd that these people do not perceive the hierarchy of self-giving that seems present in Paul’s thinking. The Father gives the Son to the world. The Son gives his life for the world, or the elect, or Israel (pick your preferred theology). He commands the apostles to love one another as he loves them. Paul commands husbands to give themselves for their wives’ well-being, imitating Christ’s self-giving.

    If there is hierarchy, it’s a hierarchy of self-giving love. But one never hears it taught that way.

  179. Gram3: They can’t endorse her teaching without un-endorsing Dr. Knight and Grudem, and a lot of influential Gospel Glitterati, including allies like Ligon Duncan and who know who else. The Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals probably has many entanglements including publishing contracts with non-disparagement clauses.

    I do not doubt that such legal entanglements exist. However, I am going to make an argument that this goes much deeper than a legal clause preventing action. I do not believe that most of them want to take action in the first place. What slowly destroyed Complementarian theology for me, was the soft Comp position. Not the hard comp. I chose my college church because hard Comp was consistent with the Bible translations and information I had access to. Then I saw the destruction that it wreaked and got out before I had made any dumb life decisions. The problem I ran into with the Soft comp, is that they really can’t point to anything in the Bible that supports the more relaxed position, without adding to scripture. If we go by the original English translations, it is pretty set in stone that the woman must be subordinate, period, no exceptions – and I Peter makes it pretty clear that the subordination is not contingent on the husband keeping his end of the bargain. If we argue those translations, we no longer have a Bible that supports female subordination. It is pretty much impossible for a Soft comp to find a Biblical line in the sand that indicates what is too much subordination. So they resort to vagaries like “Well, when what a husband wants you to do is clearly sin.” But a woman has to have a chapter and verse in the Bible that identifies a specific sin, or needs to find a church leader who agrees with her. Ultimately, she is not at liberty to follow her own conscience. And that is where we get the fuzziness. Your average pew sitter Joe soft comp, who has no legal ties to the bigwigs, doesn’t want to give up his “right” to determine what his wife is allowed to do (and he may “only” want final veto power), therefore, he chooses to “respect” the next guys “right” to tell his wife what to do.

  180. Gram3: The definition of submission is “The husband/pastor/father is King.”

    This is why i think ‘comp’ wives with reasonable/kind husbands are less likely to see the problem. Meanwhile if your husband is a tyrant, you can’t help but see it.

    And if you have no husband at all it seems especially stupid, as you are used to running your own life.

  181. Lea: And if you have no husband at all it seems especially stupid, as you are used to running your own life.

    It’s true, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t believe they have the right to push you around. Even among my friends, some comp husbands think they get the right to dictate where everybody goes and what everybody does because that’s their right as men. It ends up going past wives and husbands, because comp churches often teach men that they are always right and don’t have to listen to other opinions. And that translates to leaders who think that everyone has to do what they say because they want to be in charge.

    Psychologically, it perpetuates a social system of men who don’t know how to communicate or work with others. And as Lea mentioned earlier, these parents are teaching their sons that grown up men make all decisions, and their daughters that it’s easier to manipulate and lie than give up their humanity to let men always win.

  182. Max,

    I see… thankyou…

    The first sentence of that article is self-contradicting. If God is truly so providential that He has chosen a specific spouse for us from the beginning of time, then one cannot assume that the specific spouse will be in your life on a time-frame never guaranteed or even mentioned in the Bible. If God has not providentially selected one individual as our spouse, then we need to stop using the language of providence to describe marriage and the person we marry. Instead we need to use the same language we use in describing graduating high school, or getting vaccinated, or doing ones taxes. He is saying that there is an age at which all of us should be married – and the individual we marry is not the important part – it is that we have fulfilled the requirement, by the deadline.

    Frankly, that goes against everything they teach women about waiting on God to provide the right spouse. That is exactly what they taught us with the whole Courtship thing. Why, O why, are they surprised that everyone is waiting!!!!!!!! They are the ones who told us to!!!!!

  183. ES: Frankly, that goes against everything they teach women about waiting on God to provide the right spouse. That is exactly what they taught us with the whole Courtship thing. Why, O why, are they surprised that everyone is waiting!!!!!!!! They are the ones who told us to!!!!!

    They have a big problem of too many single men and not enough women. My friend who went to a New Cal megachurch said that single men outnumbered single women 4 to 1, which is totally opposite every other evangelical church I had ever been to.

    More than they, they are big on recruitment. NAMB will put church plants across the street from each other. Back when they claimed that IMB was having a “budget shortfall” , miraculously the same amount of money appeared in NAMB’s coffers the next year after they laid off 5,000 IMB missionaries. And NAMB has been on a heavy push to plant churches. Normally, the firing of 5,000 missionaries would have been brought to SBC conference to be voted on, but the leaders did it all amongst themselves and did not allow any input from SBC churches. It’s often how they work now even though the money comes from autonomous churches.

  184. ishy: these parents are teaching… their daughters that it’s easier to manipulate and lie than give up their humanity to let men always win.

    THIS!!!!! This was the very first thing I had to unlearn when I got married. My husband specifically called me out on it saying that I was acting like my mom in trying to make him think my idea was his idea, and would I please just tell him what I wanted. And then, I had to deal with the dirty looks and comments from church members as I complied with my husband’s request to just tell him what I wanted because I didn’t look submissive, and somehow he didn’t look like he was in charge… but I was literally doing exactly what he asked me to do.

  185. Samuel Conner: If there is hierarchy, it’s a hierarchy of self-giving love. But one never hears it taught that way.

    Yes, and also giving away authority instead of taking it.

  186. ES: What slowly destroyed Complementarian theology for me, was the soft Comp position. Not the hard comp.

    Hard comp is more easy to argue, but harder to live with practically. If you told most women that they would run away (unless previously indoctrinated as children or some other thing). The fuzzy vagueness is made to keep women in line, and then when stuff goes wrong they get blamed.

    Simpler just to tell them all to stuff it 😉

  187. Lea,

    soft comp…. “The fuzzy vagueness is made to keep women in line”
    +++++++++++++

    reminds me of stories where someone is drugged over time to make them acquiescent. (always seems to be a woman)

    or the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

    or the good cop thing to help lower resistance for the bad cop thing.

    doctrine can be a powerful drug.

  188. Gram3: but Susan Foh’s paper on the “woman’s desire” was published around 1977 or so, IIRC. We could not believe how fast it took hold as though it were always the “truth” about Genesis 3. It is truly one of the Great Lies foisted upon the Church. Given that Westminster Philly published it, I can believe that she believed it as the gospel truth. Most conservatives think it is black letter, if not red letter, truth today.

    Katharine Bushnell debunked all that horse poo-poo well over a century ago.

  189. Nathan Priddis: The difference between the two is ESS is a direct challenge to the authority and divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Gramp3 and I made that precise point with the young pastors who keyed us out because we had the temerity to sin by questioning ESS and hierarchical Complementarianism (because IMO clearly men and women are complementary.) Is He equal or is He not equal? In parallel, is the wife equal or is she not equal? We patiently went through the list of proffered examples of subordinate-but-equal they presented. Our conclusion is that the young pups have either not thought through these questions or they have thought through them and do not care because They Know Better And Who Are We. Shockingly, the text was not an issue, but they love their favorite authors! Logic and clear thinking is not their strong suit, but they have been thoroughly indoctrinated at seminary.

    Funny thing is, in the interim ETS has agreed with us. I don’t have the Gift of Profitsee like DaveAA, but I predict that Complementarianism will implode somehow soon, and it will be disappeared just like ESS has been. There is no textual there there for the conservative church, once the conservatives (those who are bound by the text and not traditions) look at the actual texts with a conservative and consistent hermeneutic and using simple logic without preconditions.

  190. ishy: They have a big problem of too many single men and not enough women.

    That is because these young men do not in any way hide their intent to be Lords in their own houses. After all, they firmly believe that is what God intends. I had one young man tell me point blank that he thought his life would be easier when he had a wife and kids to come home to. Not better. Easier. He could not for the life of him, understand why I thought that was alarming. I remember thinking: Well, that means, if I marry you, you expect me to make your life easier… cause certainly it won’t be the kids. And I wanted kids. I just was under no illusions that children make life easier. A man who thought the life of a bachelor was harder than the life of a sole income married man with kids wasn’t mature enough to marry anyone. I didn’t want to have to be the one to disabuse him of that particular fantasy. All the secular guys I knew as school very much knew that children are a huge responsibility and do not make life easier. I don’t even know how you can be an eldest child with several younger siblings and think your dad has it “easy” compared to a bachelor unless… well it eventually became clear to me that his dad was very much a petty dictator.

  191. ES,

    “My husband specifically called me out on it saying that I was acting like my mom in trying to make him think my idea was his idea, …”
    ++++++++++++++++

    my husband does this all on his own…

    (it’s sort of comedy, now)

    what you describe just sucks. your husband sounds like a great person, though.

  192. Gram3: It is an insane and evil system designed by the enemy, not by the Spirit of the living Christ who desires for us to live in love and unity and not in fear.

    Much of fundagelical ixtianity is fear-based religion.
    Fear that if you don’t hoe the rows like they tell ya’ you gotta hoe em’, there can only be one place for you when you die.

  193. elastigirl,

    Mrs. Muff and me just celebrated 40 years together without a split-up.
    We learned long ago that marriage is a series of engineering trade-offs so to speak, and that striving for perfection is a fool’s errand.

  194. Most Christians are loathe to criticize a “brother” or “sister” in Christ. What they have to realize is guys (and they are mostly guys) like these clowns do not consider you co-religionists. You aren’t Christian – to them that is. And this is a good thing!

    Reading the tweets above, this bunch have more in common with the Incel set than they do with Jesus. Misogyny – check, racism – check, disturbing intimations that we must shed our mortal coil over this – disturbingly checkity check check!

    In fact, I’m reading more kinks than a barb wire fence. The obsession over gender is pathological – they don’t like educated, strong (physically and mentally) women and yet they can’t stop talking about it!

    Glad this is a small denomination, if it just becomes a boyz club then maybe it’ll die out!

    Most Christians I know where ever they sit on the fence, like the idea of the constitution. They aren’t threatened by who’s marrying who and who’s working where.

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but the people here have more in common with a christian-ish heathen like me.

  195. Samuel Conner: Paul commands husbands to give themselves for their wives’ well-being, imitating Christ’s self-giving.

    Yes, Christ totally inverts the world’s ways. And a wife lays down her life for her child and her husband when she bears his child. Not so very long ago, and even today, childbearing is a threat to a woman’s life. He lays down his life by providing and protecting and she by bearing and nurturing. This should not be taken to diminish single women or those who do not bear children, or or men who do not father them, but it has been, regrettably by those who have a narrow view of God’s design. Why do Complementarians want to revert to a worldly power-based system when we are New Creatures in Christ?

  196. elastigirl: your husband sounds like a great person,

    I think he is great. But the reality is we were both raised in the same paradigm. Me hard comp, him soft comp. He was initially appealing because the soft comp seemed like a way to stay true to my beliefs but have a husband who was not a jerk. A couple years in, I asked him why we were calling anything “submission” when in practice everything was mutual. He told me it was still submission, because it was what he wanted. I pointed out that I had been married long enough that younger women were asking me how I practiced submission (meaning subordination) to my husband… and the answer was: “I don’t, there is absolutely nothing about my interactions with my husband that are subordinate, and he doesn’t expect it.” I could not in good conscience act like my very obviously happy marriage practiced this theological position. Especially considering, I knew very well that there were hard comps in our church that the leadership had failed to recognize any of the glaring problems with (and there were some major problems that showed up over the years).

    What I wanted to be able to tell women was that when a man and woman loved each other, the other’s priorities, thoughts, opinions, the whole nine yards become incredibly important to each partner. Finding compromises with my husband was something that I wanted to do, because I loved him that much and I knew that he was working just as hard to meet me in the middle. Often I feel like our compromises are the fusion of the good parts of our ideas. It absolutely takes work, but it can be a magnificent labor of love. Marriage has not been the epic power struggle that everyone warned me it would be. It has been so much better than anything I ever imagined, and complementarian theology was the first thing we tossed in order to get there.

    Again, I could not, in good conscience, act like Complementarian Theology had anything to do with my happy marriage. My husband was pretty stunned, but agreed with me that I was not the type of wife that we had been taught I should be, and ultimately, he didn’t want me to be that way.

  197. Muff Potter,

    Congratulations! That’s totally awesome. 23 for us. yes — perfection?…
    pffft

    every day is like a potters wheel.

    (to be clear, God’s not on our potter’s wheels, we are — in my view, this is reality, and God enjoys the process)

    we make neat things and messes all day long in our relationship. can’t achieve beautiful things without prototype messes.

    (no gospel rocket science, here)

  198. Gram3: I don’t know when your mom went to seminary. but Susan Foh’s paper on the “woman’s desire” was published around 1977 or so, IIRC. We could not believe how fast it took hold as though it were always the “truth” about Genesis 3. It is truly one of the Great Lies foisted upon the Church.

    Both of the Founding Mothers of CBMW [Susan Foh & Dorothy (Mrs. Paige) Patterson] are now estranged from the group!

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150929021559/http://cbmw.org/about/history/

    “Our History
    CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, DOROTHY PATTERSON, James Borland, SUSAN FOH, and Ken Sarles.”

    [Jerome: I noticed today that Dorothy Patterson’s name has been scrubbed off the above narrative on the current CBMW website]

    Susan Foh in 1989 was expressing a “modified view”:

    Women in Ministry: Four Views
    InterVarsity Press, 1989
    edited by Bonnidell & Robert Clouse
    with contributions from Robert Culver, Susan Foh, Walt Liefeld, Alvera Mickelsen

    from abstract:
    “Susan Foh suggests a modified view which would allow for women to teach but not to hold positions of authority.”

    [Foh said that a woman could teach a mixed gender Sunday School class or hold church offices other than elder]

    …and she hasn’t been heard from since! (although as seen above her name is still being used three decades later by CBMW as the token woman among the outfit’s founders).

  199. ES: That is because these young men do not in any way hide their intent to be Lords in their own houses. After all, they firmly believe that is what God intends. I had one young man tell me point blank that he thought his life would be easier when he had a wife and kids to come home to. Not better. Easier. He could not for the life of him, understand why I thought that was alarming.

    Oh, I know. Went to a seminary full of them. I was pretty amazed that most of them thought that any single woman would swoon at the thought of serving them for the rest of their lives like it was some huge honor. And they were so confused when women didn’t, but never seemed to figure out why because they were constantly told women were designed by God to serve them and they were designed by God to be served. I don’t think they even could comprehend that women had the same desires and thoughts they did.

    I dated a few guys who started out okay but as they grew enamored with the idea of getting married, they also fell for the idea that they could work and play video games for the rest of their lives while their wife did all the “adulting” in their relationship and raised their kids. All while dictating that their wife still had to work so they had plenty of money for lavish trips and video consoles and that their moms would have free rein over the household. Yuck. I dumped them. Some of them are still single and still don’t get why, and the rest divorced after being married for only a few years, desperately looking for someone else to marry.

  200. ES: Frankly, that goes against everything they teach women about waiting on God to provide the right spouse. That is exactly what they taught us with the whole Courtship thing. Why, O why, are they surprised that everyone is waiting!!!!!!!! They are the ones who told us to!!!!!

    I guess true love waits only until the age of 25! After that, one must surrender to singleness?

  201. ishy: They don’t really care about female followers, so gaining followers is primarily to bait young men.

    In his interview with John Piper, Matt Chandler said “I preach to men.” He called female members of his church “our girls.”

  202. ES: Well at least the young man I am talking about expected to have a job and financially support his wife.

    Expecting the wife to work was definitely not condoned by the SBC churches we attended, but commercialism won out over their desire for a very complementarian marriage. But they would still pull the “I make all the decisions” card when they wanted.

    I think the New Calvinists like to use commercialism when it’s convienent, particularly in attracting new members to churches, but it backfires when one income isn’t enough to support a family comfortably and still get all the toys that attracted those members in the first place.

  203. ishy,

    Not to forget that most of their idols are making enormous salaries, sometimes over a million dollars. And, in my experience, the local leaders often made six figure salaries while only working about 20 hours a week and taking long sabbaticals to tour and go to conferences.

  204. ES: Well at least the young man I am talking about expected to have a job and financially support his wife.

    So much room for expectations there, everything from the honorable to “Mad Men.”

    The young adults in my circle, both men and women, expect to learn to support themselves. Even the shockingly lazy ones who sleep till two in the summertime do actually know they will need to get jobs someday, when there are jobs to get.

  205. Don’t all the Southern Baptist seminaries (except the one in California?) now have undergrad colleges from which seminarians can get’em teen wives?

  206. Jerome:
    Don’t all the Southern Baptist seminaries (except the one in California?) now have undergrad colleges from which seminarians can get’em teen wives?

    SEBTS had one while I was there, but there were very few women that attended. It was pretty small at the time, though. There were some single women in the seminary who went with the intention to find husbands, but they clearly didn’t realize that most men who go to a Baptist seminary won’t go until they are married (because, of course, Baptists can’t become pastors without being married). My first roommate dropped out after a semester because she couldn’t meet any single guys.

    I only knew a few single guys there who I thought were decent human beings. The rest were kinda terrifying. And halfway through, many of them started going to FBC Durham and turned into even worse people, including one of the guys who I thought was alright at first. I had already gone through that at my home church and chose SEBTS because it hadn’t been “reformed” when I applied.

  207. Friend: So much room for expectations there, everything from the honorable to “Mad Men.”

    It is funny you say that… My dad actually commented that this particular guy “NEEDED to have a woman on his arm.” My dad was military, and from his perspective, a spouse needed to be able to hold the fort down and survive long periods of involuntary separation from spouses because sometimes that was just part of life. One of the few times he has ever opened up about why he chose my mom involved him telling me that he knew she could hack the life he had chosen, and he had met many women who could not. At one point my mother had an extended illness that required my father to take leave from the military in order to nurse her for a period. My dad felt that fortitude requirement applied equally to men and women. My father has many faults, but I think he witnessed a great deal of unfaithful male spouses in the military. Infidelity is a very sore spot with my father. His dad was abandoned by his cheating father… who openly lived with his mistress across town and failed to support his wife and children… except when he moved back in periodically.

  208. ishy,

    This explains a lot. And why they sound like incels. They are, or become incapable of normal relationships. I knew a few guys like this in the air force. Mostly the ones that joined when they were 17. Closed community that lives by different rules separate from general society. Social psychology tells us likes attract so when these guys find each other they feed into each other’s worldview. High divorce rates amongst those that married. It was not fun for the few female mechanics we had. Doesn’t just happen in religion.

  209. Jerome: Foh said that a woman could teach a mixed gender Sunday School class or hold church offices other than elder]

    …and she hasn’t been heard from since! (although as seen above her name is still being used three decades later by CBMW as the token woman among the outfit’s founders)

    I think she has been through a divorce and so has dropped from CBMW visibility. That’s awkward when she authored the paper that underpins the theology of female original sin. Actually, it’s female anthropology that Explains Everything for the ESV Only folks who probably have no idea that the teaching originated in the 70’s from an easily-deceived woman. Do the Geneva Commons Guys know they are teaching girl theology?

  210. elastigirl: every day is like a potters wheel.

    The potter’s wheel thing has always left me a bit uneasy.
    While on the one hand and in a certain sense, being malleable clay does bear a grain of truth.
    But on the other, it smacks too much of strict determinism.

    Mrs. Muff and me have been responsible for our own failures and successes, and we own them, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

  211. ES: she could hack the life he had chosen

    Kudos to your father for thinking clearly. He also probably knew there was some chance he would die in the service.

    Two of the young widowed mothers in my family returned to teaching to support themselves and their children. One of them moved back in with her parents while also teaching. The other managed to keep a separate household.

    Another young widowed mother in our family, in an earlier era, moved back in with her parents as well, raising her several children in a three-generation household on one income. It’s hard to imagine a family managing that today.

  212. Muff Potter,

    agreed.

    i’m the potter of my own life, my husband of his. and i imagine we’re together pottering our relationship, too.

    it’s interesting (& encouraging) how one little adjustment i do intentionally (like the tiniest touch of a sculpting tool on the spinning clay) makes a noticeable impact.

    sometimes i invite God to join me on the wheel, and ask for God’s expertise to join me in what i’m doing.

  213. elastigirl: sometimes i invite God to join me on the wheel, and ask for God’s expertise to join me in what i’m doing.

    I also think that sometimes it’s just the opposite too.
    God scratches his head and says:
    “I reckon I just don’t know right now…. What do you think we should do?”

  214. Muff Potter,

    totally.

    it’s not the God is incapable of knowing, but the process matters. and the key player in the process of negotiating my life is me. I think God respects this. we reason and decide together. then go for it, God joining at my invitation.

  215. Muff Potter,

    thinking about this further, i don’t think God feels my feelings and thinks my thoughts. i imagine God is aware of them, like observing fruit in a fruit bowl. but God is not experiencing them in their unique complexity.

    I am.

    i don’t think God knows everything about how we feel about something, and the peculiar slant and angle and complex minutiae in our perspective of our awareness.

    as you say, i think at times God needs/wants our ‘counsel’, as we reason together.

  216. elastigirl: as you say, i think at times God needs/wants our ‘counsel’, as we reason together.

    In an earlier time this was considered blasphemy and punishable by law.

  217. Muff Potter,

    i dunno…. what do you think?

    i’ve never thought this before. but something to explore, for sure.
    ————–

    scripture like psalm 139,

    “You have searched me, Lord,
    and you know me.
    2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
    you perceive my thoughts from afar.
    3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
    you are familiar with all my ways.
    4 Before a word is on my tongue
    you, Lord, know it completely.
    5 You hem me in behind and before,
    and you lay your hand upon me.
    6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
    too lofty for me to attain.”

    ….a really beautiful *& inspired* way to express an insight. i think it’s not without hyperbole, speculation, wonderment…

    i can’t imagine degrading & sucking the life out of the mysterious beauty of these figurative words with a straightjacket of literally true.

  218. Muff Potter,

    i sort of messed up on that previous comment.

    in case i was as confusing as i think i was, what i meant to say was that beautiful psalm, in its figurative language, i don’t think negates the idea that at times God needs/wants our ‘counsel’, as we reason together.

    that just as the thoughts and experiences of the poet & songwriter are so intriguing as for the reader & listener to just want to talk to them in person about it all to understand more deeply, so i think God desires to hear from us in our own words, to more deeply understand our take on it all.

    news things for me to ponder.

  219. ES,

    “… A couple years in, I asked him why we were calling anything “submission” when in practice everything was mutual.”
    ————–

    ha. it’s kind of like, when he does the dishes it’s leadership. when she does the dishes it’s submission. same dishes, same sink, same dishsoap.
    ridiculous.

  220. ES,

    “… A couple years in, I asked him why we were calling anything “submission” when in practice everything was mutual.”
    ————–

    ha. it’s kind of like, when he does the dishes it’s leadership. when she does the dishes it’s submission. same dishes, same sink, same dishsoap.
    ridiculous.

  221. ES,

    “Finding compromises with my husband was something that I wanted to do, because I loved him that much and I knew that he was working just as hard to meet me in the middle. Often I feel like our compromises are the fusion of the good parts of our ideas.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    that’s beautiful.

    complementarianism takes something natural & beautiful (that couples do of all faiths and no faith) and messes it all up by converting it into a theological equation, turning it into a power struggle.

    meeting in the middle: when he does it, it’s leadership (and he pats himself on the back). when she does it, it’s submission (and she pats herself on the back).

    ridiculous yet again!

    (although complementarianism thinks it’s superior to all other couples. you better believe that makes me laugh!)

  222. ES,

    “What I wanted to be able to tell women was that when a man and woman loved each other, the other’s priorities, thoughts, opinions, the whole nine yards become incredibly important to each partner.

    …Marriage has not been the epic power struggle that everyone warned me it would be. It has been so much better than anything I ever imagined, and complementarian theology was the first thing we tossed in order to get there.

    Again, I could not, in good conscience, act like Complementarian Theology had anything to do with my happy marriage.”
    +++++++++++++++

    that’s so beautiful, ES. I’m so very happy for you.

    that’s another bumper sticker.

    heck, i’ll just use my daughter’s chalk marker and write it on my back window.

    (she’s got BLM on hers. that’s great, too)

  223. Nathan Priddis: The same goes for ESS. It has no practicle effect in this life. ESS is only created for the life to come.

    Ahhh, ESS and the eternal subordination of women! Oh me, Nathan…… Paul encouraged young widows to remarry. I did. I’ve been married twice —- first hubby died in an automobile accident. So, which man will I be subordinate to??? Both??? Maybe I’d just walk away and let the boys fight it out. The very thought makes Heaven sound more like Hell!

  224. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): ESS and the eternal subordination of women

    If the New Calvinists can get you to accept the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine, it’s an easier task to get you to accept the eternal subordination of female believers. If God would do that to His Son, He would use Eve’s sin in Eden to put women in bondage to men for all eternity. Both are heresy of course … Jesus (who is God) sets you free from the law and curse (both men and women). Narcissistic and misogynist men who have bought these NeoCal lies just need to get over it!

  225. Max: If the New Calvinists can get you to accept the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine, it’s an easier task to get you to accept the eternal subordination of female believers.

    I actually wonder if the opposite was true, too. We, and others, have criticized their theology of Christ. Those that buy into the subordination of women but who aren’t Calvinist, might be more likely to accept a diluted theology of Christ and heavy emphasis on an OT God if they buy into the subservience of women. And there are quite a few in the traditionalist side of the SBC and other denominations.

    ESS is one of the boldest components of their quest to remove Christ from their core theology and ignore Jesus’ style of ministry, which is wholly opposed to their belief in heavy control and force over other people.

  226. ishy: subservience of women … quite a few in the traditionalist side of the SBC and other denominations.

    Oh yeah, as a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist for 70+ years, I can confirm that “sit down, shut up, have babies” was a common attitude among SBC traditionalist good ‘ole boys. They just didn’t build a whole theology around the subordinate treatment of women and Jesus, like the New Calvinists. Actually, the average traditionalist Southern Baptist man doesn’t give a big whoop about “theology”, except the doctrine of potluck.

  227. Ken F (aka Tweed): I’m pretty sure Todd McCauley is just a drive-by who is not interested indefending his position.

    I’ve noticed that drive-by(s) never engage with any substance.
    And if they do engage, sloganeering, and parroting is the best they can muster.

  228. Muff Potter: I’ve noticed that drive-by(s) never engage with any substance.

    Because if they had any substance they would not do drive-bys. I suspect they don’t read any of our replies because they are afraid of where it could lead. These folks need to get outside of their bubbles.

  229. Max: If the New Calvinists can get you to accept the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine, it’s an easier task to get you to accept the eternal subordination of female believers.

    Hi Max,

    I think it’s that, but it’s more than that. ESS is absolutely necESSary to shore up 1 Timothy 2:8ff, though most conservatives do not realize it because they have not examined Paul’s argument closely or treated 1 Timothy the way any other epistle is treated hermeneutically. Because tradition. Complementarian “scholars” want people to just read vs. 12 on its face and presume Paul is referencing an Order of Creation which includes a Hierarchy of Authority in his argument. However, when you look back in Genesis 1-2, said hierarchy cannot be found. So, either Paul, the Biblical scholar, is misinformed, or that is not what he is writing about. We believe he is inspired, so he must be writing about something other than hierarchy and a ban on female teaching based on it, so maybe we should take a closer look and maybe check our presuppositions.

    Another clue that the Female Subordinationists/Complementarians are on the wrong track is that they switch their interpretive method mid-argument when they get to verse 15. Verse 12 means exactly what it says on its face, but who knows what verse 15 says? The woman shall be saved through childbearing? Oh, no!!!! Paul was not a moron and knew how to think logically and frame a coherent argument, unlike some I’ve read in theological journals who shall remain nameless to protect the shameless. It is quite entertaining to read the various interpretations that Complementarian “scholars” give to verse 15 when they are absolutely certain what it plainly does not mean and likewise absolutely certain what verse 12 plainly means.

    So, that is very problematic for a traditional all-male clergy and female subordination generally. Paul is making an argument and pointing to something that doesn’t exist in the actual text. Who would fill the gap? I think a couple of people stepped up back at about the same time. At Westminster Philly, Wayne Grudem with an assist by Susan Foh came up with the eisegesis of Genesis 3:16, and George W. Knight III invented ESS which became sort of an all-purpose and bullet-proof rationale that scholars could appeal to that covers “head” and “submission” and other issues of authority and also the pesky creation order thing from 1 Timothy. I would not be surprised if these were coordinated between Grudem and Knight, considering that Grudem has made ESS a signature doctrine.

    Max, I read you are a Done. So sorry about that, but I get it. The leadership of the SBC and the conservative church (which is our neighborhood) is so weak. They look only for their own interests and their institutions. I would love to see repentance from some of our Baptist leaders and some NAPARC leaders for teaching these false doctrines. That would take courage that does not seem to exist anymore.

  230. Gram3: Max, I read you are a Done. So sorry about that, but I get it.

    To be clear: I’m done with SBC, but not with Jesus!! After wrestling with unspiritual Southern Baptists over this and that for 70+ years (more recently, New Calvinism), my wife and are now ‘the’ Church, rather than going to church. I would consider returning to SBC ranks should I witness a solemn assembly within her ranks leading to widespread repentance, prayer, and seeking God’s face. But I don’t see any movement in that direction yet … I suppose Southern Baptists aren’t desperate enough for God’s presence, still favoring to do church without Him.

  231. Gram3: traditional all-male clergy and female subordination

    When I was a kid, very few women were ordained, and yet we had many healthy churches and denominations.

    In my opinion, the strongest argument in favor of all-male clergy is still tradition: “this is precious to us, and in keeping with Jesus’ own practice.” Once you get beyond that, you have to find or invent reasons why women are not worthy of ordination.

    I belong to a church that does ordain both women and men. If we moved somewhere else and wanted to find a church, I would certainly be open to joining a healthy church that ordained only men… as long as women were (otherwise) accepted as equal in God’s eyes.

  232. Gram3: I would love to see repentance from some of our Baptist leaders … That would take courage that does not seem to exist anymore.

    That would be such a foreign thought within the early New Testament church. Pulpit and pew alike lived in a state of prayer and repentance. I suppose we are smarter than that now and have decided it’s not necessary. Prayer altars are either no longer used in SBC life or have been covered with entertainment platforms for the clergy to strut their stuff. If these desperate times won’t return Southern Baptists to prayer and repentance, I’m not sure what will. Sad, I remember a much healthier SBC … but I have to go back to the 1950s-60s when the Great Commission was the mission.

  233. Max: I would consider returning to SBC ranks should I witness a solemn assembly within her ranks leading to widespread repentance, prayer, and seeking God’s face.

    We’ll be right there with you! I would love to end my life in the SBC just like I started it. Such a tragedy to see what has happened over the years. But, I’d rather be outside with Jesus than be led by such men.

  234. Gram3, please don’t go anywhere anytime soon.
    Many of us here look forward to reading your well-reasoned comments from a conservative angle. Like Max, I’m a Done too, but not Done with Jesus of Nazareth. He’s the only hope I have for something beyond this all too short life here on this present Earth.

  235. Friend: I would certainly be open to joining a healthy church that ordained only men

    My personal preference is a male pastor because I had a good father and I have a good husband, and I can see a Good God in them. It is frankly difficult for me to see a woman in a pastor role *personally.* It just doesn’t feel quite right to me. But that is merely a preference. That’s totally separate from what is acceptable or right or good to God. I can’t imagine what a rape victim might feel or someone who did not have a good father or husband. Or someone who was abused by a male pastor and so has been alienated from God.

    My complaint is with conservative churches who claim a conservative textual basis for their practice. We aren’t supposed to do that, unlike other parts of the church that form their practices based on tradition or whatever. If a church wants to ordain *only* men or *only* women, why not? It seems to me the only problem would be if they want to claim that it is the Only Biblical Way which is what the Complementarian conservatives are doing when, in fact, it isn’t in the actual text.

    The NAPARC churches could do it quite easily by just adopting their respective confessions as their primary authorities. The SBC could just make the BFM2K the primary authority instead of scripture. I just think they need to be honest about what their real authority is. And their real authority is man-made, either tradition or confessions.

  236. Gram3: The SBC could just make the BFM2K the primary authority instead of scripture. I just think they need to be honest about what their real authority is. And their real authority is man-made, either tradition or confessions.

    The authority of Christ is waning in the American church. He has almost no authority in many groups which call themselves Christian. His influence is becoming less and less. The teachings and traditions of mere men are on the throne in most places, not the Living Word.

  237. ishy: ESS is one of the boldest components of their quest to remove Christ from their core theology and ignore Jesus’ style of ministry, which is wholly opposed to their belief in heavy control and force over other people.

    And to ignore St Paul’s teachings which are likewise thus opposed.

    BTW fascinating how close in similarity pulpit and bedroom are regarded!

  238. Gram3: I’d rather be outside with Jesus than be led by such men.

    An interesting thing about that statement. I truly believe when my wife and I left the SBC mess, Jesus came looking for us. In our final years with the SBC, it was becoming more and more difficult to find the Church within the church (the best you can do in the organized church in America) … discovering kindred spirits was like looking for a rare and endangered species. It’s tough to fellowship with folks who just don’t get it. I know that sounds like an holier than thou attitude, but if you removed the Holy Spirit from the average church, most of the stuff would still get done. Take that statement and overlay it onto churches in your area … it fits doesn’t it?

    William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, prophesied about the day we live in:

    “The chief danger that confronts the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, heaven without hell.”

  239. Max: To be clear: I’m done with SBC, but not with Jesus!!

    Isn’t that the definition of a “Done”?
    As in “Done with the Organized Churches”?

  240. Max: Prayer altars are either no longer used in SBC life or have been covered with entertainment platforms for the clergy to strut their stuff.

    “Prayer Altars”?
    I’m not familiar with that part of Baptist tradition.

  241. Headless Unicorn Guy: I’m not familiar with that part of Baptist tradition.

    It was formerly Southern Baptist tradition (I go back to 1950s in SBC life), that all SBC churches had a bench or pew at the front of the sanctuary or steps leading up to the pulpit where folks kneeled to pray at the end of a service (to repent, pray for the sick, intercede for the nation, etc.). Those places were called prayer altars.

  242. Robert: You might disagree, but it doesn’t entail that Jesus isn’t God in MacArthur’s theology.

    Here is the issue: is God Christlike? In other words, does God the father do anything that Jesus would not do? Or does Jesus do anything that the Father would not do?

  243. Headless Unicorn Guy: “Prayer Altars”?
    I’m not familiar with that part of Baptist tradition.

    Lord have mercy! Where you been?
    I don’t know about SBC, but in the more Fundamentalist tribes, the altar was vital.

  244. Max: discovering kindred spirits was like looking for a rare and endangered species. It’s tough to fellowship with folks who just don’t get it.

    Well, as long as we were going along with the program, everything was grand. Honestly there were some really fine people there. But we are both rather inner-directed, so not influenced much by others’ opinions of us. Good thing because when we started asking questions and that got around, things got chilly. We didn’t say anything to anyone else, but somebody sure did. Until boom. The end. All those people and not a word except for 5 out of hundreds. The sad truth is that most everyone just wants a social group and affirmation that they are OK in addition to everything else. But they truly value that affirmation. Boat rockers who might jeopardize that are not appreciated. And sometimes boats just need to be rocked.

  245. Gram3: were some really fine people there … most everyone just wants a social group and affirmation that they are OK

    Yes, there are a lot of “good” people who go to church. However, human goodness can be one the worst forms of human badness if it keeps you from Christ. The organized church is populated by a lot of religious folks who just don’t know the Lord. Fellowshipping with them beyond a social level is darn near impossible. Doing church got desperately off track somewhere through the centuries.

  246. Ken F (aka Tweed): Yes, and also giving away authority instead of taking it.

    Or at least relinquishing one’s ‘rights’ for the sake of others’ well-being. I think the authoritarians and hierarchists are in a bind, biblically. If they want to ‘have in them the mind of Christ’, they can’t grasp the power they think they are entitled to — Phil 2 was addressed to church officers as well as members at Philippi. And if they don’t have in them the mind of Christ, what claim do they have to the attention of anyone who professes faith?

  247. Samuel Conner: If they want to ‘have in them the mind of Christ’, they can’t grasp the power they think they are entitled to

    “The first will be last and the last will be first…” – Matt. 20:16

    That verse puts an interesting spin on ESS. Wouldn’t those guys be mad if they were subject to their wives for the rest of eternity?

  248. ishy: Wouldn’t those guys be mad if they were subject to their wives for the rest of eternity?

    To adapt a conversational snippet from Aziraphel and Crowley,

    “Do you suppose this was the Almighty’s plan from the beginning?”

    “I wouldn’t put it past Her.”

  249. Gram3: My personal preference is a male pastor because I had a good father and I have a good husband, and I can see a Good God in them. It is frankly difficult for me to see a woman in a pastor role *personally.* It just doesn’t feel quite right to me. But that is merely a preference. That’s totally separate from what is acceptable or right or good to God. I can’t imagine what a rape victim might feel or someone who did not have a good father or husband. Or someone who was abused by a male pastor and so has been alienated from God.

    My complaint is with conservative churches who claim a conservative textual basis for their practice.We aren’t supposed to do that, unlike other parts of the church that form their practices based on tradition or whatever. If a church wants to ordain *only* men or *only* women, why not? It seems to me the only problem would be if they want to claim that it is the Only Biblical Way which is what the Complementarian conservatives are doing when, in fact, it isn’t in the actual text.

    The NAPARC churches could do it quite easily by just adopting their respective confessions as their primary authorities. The SBC could just make the BFM2K the primary authority instead of scripture. I just think they need to be honest about what their real authority is. And their real authority is man-made, either tradition or confessions.

    Why wouldn’t one derive practice from scripture? I’ve appreciated reading your comments so thank you in advance if you have time to reply.

    Seems that whatever one makes of the through childbearing comment, everything preceding and elsewhere would prescribe pastoral and elder offices as male only unless one goes down the descriptive vs. prescriptive road.

    I have found the explanation that Paul was addressing the Artemis worship / influences via the statement about not adorning hair, child birth, etc helpful and a reasonable alternative to the typical extreme patriarchal explanations.

    Totally understand if you don’t have time to reply. Would even appreciate some book recommendations. I’d appreciate reading from a different perspective.

  250. Samuel Conner: “Do you suppose this was the Almighty’s plan from the beginning?”

    “I wouldn’t put it past Her.”

    Can you imagine them in the afterlife trying to church discipline God for “wrong” theology?

  251. S. Blisken: Why wouldn’t one derive practice from scripture?

    I absolutely think that practice should be derived from scripture. I’m a conservative, inerrantist. I’m merely saying that those who ignore the text or who resort to eisegesis in Genesis 1-2 or employ a creative hermeneutic in 1 Timothy 2 would be more honest to just say they aren’t relying on the actual text. That said, interpretations differ, but robust arguments need to be made, and if the arguments were robust, they would not have needed ESS. George Knight and the others are very intelligent, and I also think they were dealing with very real threats to the actual orthodox faith in the early 70’s. I’m very sympathetic to the early PCA.

    What I think Paul is actually addressing in 1 Timothy is a difficult situation in Ephesus with a female or a group of females who had wrongfully taken charge of the assembly from the teacher or teachers. As you said, we know that Ephesus was the center of the cult of the goddess Artemis of the Ephesians, and the worshipers and merchants made an impression on Paul, as recorded in Acts. She is associated with various aspects of sexuality, childbearing, etc. that I believe account for several curious references Paul makes later in his letter. In short, I think that the historical and cultural setting of Ephesians should be taken into account just as it would be for any other epistle.

    The Ephesian Christians are struggling with the remnants of their pagan religion just as the Jewish Christians did with theirs non-pagan one, and we see those issues addressed in Paul’s letters. While cultural issues are considered elsewhere, they are never considered in the pastorals by conservatives, however, because it diminishes the force of the traditional interpretation. It seems to me like a clear contradiction in methodology. Outcome-based interpretation.

    Big picture is that Ephesus was a female-supremacist culture and the church there had not fully thrown off that culture and submitted to the rule of Christ. So Paul was instituting a rule for that church and teaching them in the language of their false religion why he was doing so. It is wrong to universalize the rule but it is right to universalize the lesson.

    Philip Barton Payne’s book is good. There are lots of good threads here with great book recommendations. I recommend that you do an inductive study of 1 Timothy for yourself using the best Bible study tools. Best to be convinced in your own mind by the Holy Spirit. That’s what I did. Use good logic, and ask tough questions. Paul was apparently trained in logic and rhetoric. When he refers to Eve, I looked up every other time he referred to Eve. When he referred to deception, I looked up every other time he referred to deception. Etc., etc. Scripture must interpret scripture.

  252. Gram3: Best to be convinced in your own mind by the Holy Spirit.

    Thanks. This is exactly how so many conundrums are solved at the local level, with the tools you mentioned, and being open to the Holy Spirit, directly. It’s unfortunate when “the rest of us” don’t think we can do this – like we don’t have access – so it’s good to be reminded. Very well stated.

  253. S. Blisken: Why wouldn’t one derive practice from scripture?

    If I can weigh in, an important question to ask is did scripture define the church or did the church define scripture?

    There was no NT at all for at least the first couple decades of the church, and it was not until a few centuries after that that there was universal acceptance of the NT. It would have helped if we had been given a divinely inspired table of contents for the NT to avoid all the difficulties the early church went through in sorting out which books to include and which to exclude.

    The church developed quite a lot of practices before there was such a thing as a NT. I believe this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. If the Holy Spirit guided the early church, why would that same Holy Spirit not guide the present church?

    Also, there is that pesky comment in 1 Tim 3:15 that says the church, not scripture, is the pillar and support of the truth. If we take that verse seriously, why are we so quick to reject church tradition and practice?

  254. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    You are right, those are important questions. I’d want to say that comment about practice being exclusively derived from scripture was probably my many years of Reformed & Presbyterian background. Mostly OPC. Eventually I came to more Lutheran convictions but often default back to my old ways of thinking.

    I’d want to also add, definitely, tradition informs practice too. As long as it doesn’t contradict the scriptures.

    I’ve got every confidence that God can, did, and does continually guide his church to identify and receive his word.

  255. S. Blisken: I’d want to also add, definitely, tradition informs practice too. As long as it doesn’t contradict the scriptures.

    Thanks for the dialogue. Over the last few years, after a bad experience with New Calvinism, I did a lot of research into theology and church history – arguably way too much research. Along the way I discovered Eastern Orthodoxy (I almost converted). I had been taught that they were all about tradition and did not take the Bible seriously. I was shocked by how seriously they take the Bible. Based on what I learned from them, I think the Bible and church tradition are like a chicken and egg question – there would not be one without the other.

    We Protestants are typically taught, at least implicitly, that the Bible somehow miracuously appeared very early in church history, before the great apostasy that resulted in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. But somehow it turned out that we have exactly the same NT as they do. How did that happen if the NT we use was canonized by those apostates? I have much more respect for them now than when I started a few years ago.

    I could write so much more, but the bottom line is I agree with you that God continues to guide his church.

  256. Ken F (aka Tweed): Also, there is that pesky comment in 1 Tim 3:15 that says the church, not scripture, is the pillar and support of the truth. If we take that verse seriously, why are we so quick to reject church tradition and practice?

    Hi Ken,

    You make good points. I left out the church’s role in organizing and approving the canon. That’s a significant omission on my part, so, yes, tradition in that sense is vital. The universal church has passed that canon down. I’m more skeptical, however, the greater the accretions to tradition become. Scripture must be the rule, it seems to me. As you say, the invisible church, Christ’s Body, is the pillar and support of the truth. But I don’t think that means that any particular instance of the invisible church necessarily has it right. So we need to constantly be searching and examining. Surely church history teaches us that the church has gone astray many times even while believing she was correct.

  257. Ken F (aka Tweed): The church developed quite a lot of practices before there was such a thing as a NT. I believe this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. If the Holy Spirit guided the early church, why would that same Holy Spirit not guide the present church?

    The OT, the legacy of Israel, those who knew Jesus, the HS, the church, the 18 gifts of the HS (Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4), and eventually the NT. A lot of verification.

    However, nothing seems to verify the megachurch model, celebrity pastor, & entertainment stage.

  258. Ava Aaronson: However, nothing seems to verify the megachurch model, celebrity pastor, & entertainment stage.

    I agree. There’s even larger influences going on from this here. For example, when I asked my (conservative) Greek professor about the problems I found with the NT passages on women in English translations, he didn’t tell me I didn’t understand Greek. He told me that translators aren’t the ones making those decisions, translation committes are.

    And you know who’s on translation committees? Rich, celebrity pastors who aren’t language scholars along with Christian book publishers. I noticed some in particular are the types to call themselves “Dr” on their books, but who have honorary degrees.

    Even many of the Bibles we have in English are the product of celebrity Christian culture.

  259. Gram3: Surely church history teaches us that the church has gone astray many times even while believing she was correct.

    More true than many know. I dived into theology and church history hoping to find an expression of Christianity that gets it (or got it) right. What I found instead was the church has always been a mess in one way or another, and each generation has had to face different kinds of pressures that were trying to tear it down. Nearly every tradition can be traced back to a solution for a specific problem that in many cases no longer exists today.

    Rather than lamenting how it looks like Christianity has gotten so far off track in so many ways, I am now trying to look for the strengths and advantages produced by all that turmoil. I am not there yet, but doing better than I was a few years ago.

    I think we Prostestants would do ourselves a huge favor to look for the good in high church traditions, if for no other reason than for learning different approaches to solving real and current problems. We can be too quick to dismiss those traditions as works rather then looking for the faith and reasons behind them.

  260. linda:

    To sum it up:some see God as an angry parent, disgusted with His creation.He might decide to fix up some of them and keep them around, but mainly He just wants to put them in the burn barrel.Others see God as a loving parent, willing to do anything He can to show His love to His kids, to save them from their own sins and that of others.

    Perhaps after this pandemic ends what will ultimately have died is the body of lies that paints our Lord as a cosmic tantrum throwing bully.Perhaps the religious abuse will stop.

    And perhaps, just perhaps, we will see Jesus again.

    Your entire post blessed me greatly!

    May God speed the day.

  261. Gram3,

    This makes the most sense.
    I came to pretty much the same conclusions years ago after reading Katharine Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women.

  262. linda: I come back to there being two choices that I can find (maybe you find more): either the Calvinists, Lutherans, and classical or Reformed Arminians (its thing. google it.) are right and it is all to show God’s glory, or the nonreformed Arminians (Wesleyans, etc) are right and it is all to show His love.

    There is at least one other Christian option. Most Protestant denomimations believe that our main problem is our guilt before a holy God. It’s a legal/courtroom model, where our guilt has to be paid for. A much older model is the medical/hospital model where our main problem is death and bondage to sin. In that model we need to be saved from death, evil, and sin. The legal model tends to be prominent in Western Christianity whereas the medical medical model is more prominent in Eastern Christianity. In Eastern liturgies Go is called “the lover of mankind.” The Wesleyans are closer to this view than the Calvinists.

  263. elastigirl,

    Jesus is God.
    God inspired the Biblical authors.
    Therefore, Paul’s words are Jesus’ words. So are the words of Moses, Peter, David, Isaiah, John, etc.

    MOD: Adjusted the name.

  264. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    The authority of the text. Paul says that just as the church submits (form of hypotasso) to Christ, so are wives to do so to their husbands. Ephesians 5:24 makes the other interpretations impossible.

    All that’s left is the meaning of hypotasso. Traditionally, egalitarians recognize this, which is why they stress that hypotasso means a kind of mutual submission even in marriage. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, but the attempt to not read the missing verb as hypotasso strikes me as special pleading. If v. 24 didn’t say what it said, the other suggested interpretations would be plausible. But v. 24 is there.

  265. Nancy2(aka Kevlar,

    Every word of Scripture is the word of Jesus because Jesus is God and God inspired the biblical writers. So every word of Ruth, Song of Solomon, Judges, Genesis, Matthew, etc. are the words of Jesus. Every word of all 66 books of the Bible. Or, more specifically, the words of the eternal Son of God.

  266. elastigirl,

    Paul said it, inspired by Jesus to say it in that specific way. So yes, Jesus’ words. It’s not even the harshest thing God says in the Bible. Just read the imprecatory Psalms. Especially 137:9.

  267. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    In the Western model, it’s as if it wasn’t enough that the human genome got messed-up bad at the Fall. With all its attendant misery and suffering, why did a further penalty have to be levied?

    It would appear that the Eastern model is the more humane of the two.

  268. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Do you mean this Genesis 11.4?

    4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

  269. Muff Potter:

    It would appear that the Eastern model is the more humane of the two.

    Yes. However, the daily practices are overly burdensome. And even though they call the Eucharist “the medicine of immortality” one must be in a pretty healthy spiritual state to be abls to receive it. I don’t think it was meant to be this hard.

  270. Ken F (aka Tweed): I think we Prostestants would do ourselves a huge favor to look for the good in high church traditions

    May step on some toes…High church is one example of accretion of traditions that I’m skeptical of. I don’t see that model in the NT, though arguably that may be a continuity-discontinuity point of contention, and the Temple practices might be considered a template for some high church traditions or for applying the Regulative Principle. I’m not a fan of a clergy-laity divide, since I don’t see that in the NT, but that also reflects my view that the New Covenant in Christ is really a radically new thing and not a continuation of the Old Covenant or simply a renewal of it.

    That said, the older traditions ground the church and can keep the church from spinning off into craziness that baptistic evangelicalism has wandered off into, like multi-site and circus church. Don’t get me started on that.

    So much of what we do and don’t do is cultural, anyway, and I think we have freedom as long as we do not violate God’s commands or or others’ freedom in Christ. That’s why I advocate for women’s freedom in Christ which he purchased. However, it does seem to me that an individual congregation might decide to have a male pastor or a female pastor or whatever configuration to effectively minister to the needs of their particular body. High church or low church, too. We have freedom, at least in our country!

  271. Muff Potter: It would appear that the Eastern model is the more humane of the two.

    Without making a defense of PSA in particular, maybe the Western and Eastern views are capturing different aspects of the Atonement. Both/And. Maybe the Atonement is something that is so beyond our understanding that it is difficult to analogize neatly in our human categories. I’m actually not sure what is going on behind the scenes in the spiritual realms. I am only trusting that God has taken care of it and that It Is Finished. It is too bad that PSA is so dominant, because we have lost sight of the way that the Fall has affected all aspects of our humanness, and I think our pastoral theology would be a whole lot better if our Atonement theology were not so imbalanced.

  272. Ken F (aka Tweed): In that model we need to be saved from death, evil, and sin.

    Do you have any good sources about the problem of evil? I’ve been contemplating my own view for a little while, but I feel like it’s a topic that churches often avoid completely.

  273. ishy: Do you have any good sources about the problem of evil?

    I don’t know how to best answer that question. Since I am very aware of the common Protestant arguments I often search for a topic by adding the words orthodox or eastern orthodox. Searching on “eastern orthodox problem of evil” yields quite a lot of sites. Eastern Orthodoxy is a pretty big tent when it comes to theological opinion outside of issues addressed by ecumenical councils, so it is common to find a range of opinions. It appears on this topic that the consensus answer is free will. Here is an example:
    https://www.orthodoxroad.com/why-does-evil-exist/

    I probably come across as too much of a proponant of Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m not trying to push it, but I find that they often have perspectives that are very different from both Protestants and Roman Catholics. It’s been a good way for me to color outside of the lines without fear of going too far. But it’s not for everyone.

  274. Gram3: High church is one example of accretion of traditions that I’m skeptical of.

    I might have miscommunicated. I am not suggesting we need to blindly follow ancient traditions. Rather, I think there is value in trying to understand how and why those traditions got started. Even for traditions I think are pretty stupid, I have often found historical reasons for those traditions that make sense. Understanding how ancient traditions started could inform us today so that we don’t have to make the same ancient mistakes. Blindly rejecting tradition could be just as bad as blindly following it.

  275. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Your comments remind me of the book “Hammer of God”, by Bo Giertz. Have you read it?

    I personally found it really helpful and it resonated with my own experiences. At many times I found myself cringe as he describes legalism. I also found myself in tears of joy as the gospel was masterfully conveyed. I think Christians from all traditions would really enjoy it.

    For anyone who hasn’t read it, a recent review that conveys the sense of the book reads as follows:

    “Hammer of God is a collection of three novellas each set about a century apart in the same region of Sweden. The novellas deal with issues of faith posed by certain aspects of Lutheran theology but which also have relevance to other traditions. The issues faced by characters in each story are largely the same though nuances vary. Stated broadly, the main problem involves finding a balance between the Lutheran emphasis on salvation as a pure gift from God and the desire of some characters to augment this doctrinal concept with some kind of personal moral or spiritual experience. Characters for whom faith is merely assent to dogma (many of them pastors) endure a life and ministry that is empty and ineffective while those who put the emphasis on moral behavior and ecstatic experience slip into a pattern of self-righteousness and a self-imposed demand for perfectionism that offers little comfort. In historic terms the stories recount the tension between a state run church and reform movements rooted in Pietism. Through these novellas Giertz tries to integrate the two by allowing his characters on both sides to discover an existential meaning in traditional teachings that releases their potential to serve as a basis for a satisfying spiritual life. These stories are well-written as one would expect from a classic in Christian literature. The issue involving personal religion versus dogmatic affirmation is timeless and universal. The stories are similar in theme and do not clearly reflect differences between the periods they supposedly take place. The plots of each tale are, however, compelling which makes Hammer of God an absorbing experience for any reader of any religious background.”

  276. Ken F (aka Tweed): Blindly rejecting tradition could be just as bad as blindly following it.

    Absolutely. Does it help to know that one branch of my family comes from the highest of the
    Western high Churches?

  277. S. Blisken: Your comments remind me of the book “Hammer of God”, by Bo Giertz. Have you read it?

    Never heard of it but it looks very good. My unmanageable reading list keeps growing!

  278. Gram3: Does it help to know that one branch of my family comes from the highest of the
    Western high Churches?

    I think if we are honest we are all recovering from one form of Christianity or another. 🙂

  279. Gram3,

    As a father and a grandfather I spoke from a human view.
    If some silver-tongued interloper happens along who hates my kids for their beauty and their autonomy (Psalm 8), and talks them into something that will strip them of their birthright (immortality) over time, who should I be pissed at, my kids or the crook?
    Hence the question of “Why should my kids be levied a further penalty?”

    Gram3: I am only trusting that God has taken care of it and that It Is Finished.

    Same here Gram3, I’m not privy to the details either, they are way above my pay grade.
    For me, old papa Bach put this dilemma to music here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzrdiaX9eBs

  280. Ken F (aka Tweed): It’s been a good way for me to color outside of the lines without fear of going too far. But it’s not for everyone.

    I’m mostly unsatisfied with how the western church views evil and free will and predestination because they often don’t apply any of it in a practical sense. Anything outside their own church becomes “evil”. I also think that a lot of churches teach people that they can’t help being evil, even if that’s not their “official” theology. Inside the church is a lot of manipulative fear and guilt.

    In other words, I’m not even sure Protestants believe their own theology.

  281. ishy,

    Highly recommend Clay Jones from Biola for accessibility. He’s a great communicator. Videos are on Youtube. Maybe that’s not an issue for you, but it was for me on this topic.

  282. ishy,

    “I also think that a lot of churches teach people that they can’t help being evil, even if that’s not their “official” theology. Inside the church is a lot of manipulative fear and guilt.

    In other words, I’m not even sure Protestants believe their own theology.”
    +++++++++++++++

    i observe christian leaders making a religion out of what their peers & gurus are saying and writing.

    they don’t actually think it through to the logical conclusions & consequences– how it lines up with they say they believe, the practical application, the real-life impact on human lives…

    it all seems to be a caricature of the idea of christianity.

  283. elastigirl: they don’t actually think it through to the logical conclusions & consequences– how it lines up with they say they believe, the practical application, the real-life impact on human lives…

    And I really don’t think we talked much about it at all in theology in seminary, where it should be talked about. Now, the New Cals probably do. But I think they use theology for selfish reasons and not because they really believe a lot of the stuff they teach. They also check a lot of the “Is this a cult?” boxes and almost completely ignore Jesus, which for me, puts them outside orthodoxy.

  284. ishy: Oh, I know. Went to a seminary full of them. I was pretty amazed that most of them thought that any single woman would swoon at the thought of serving them for the rest of their lives like it was some huge honor. And they were so confused when women didn’t, but never seemed to figure out why because they were constantly told women were designed by God to serve them and they were designed by God to be served.

    So, they were all taking their cues from Gaston, and his “oh-so-romantic” proposal to Belle?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnWPtev8LXY

  285. ishy: In other words, I’m not even sure Protestants believe their own theology.

    And I think we can safely add that Protestants often don’t even know their own theology. Nor the implications of their theology.

  286. Gram3,

    This is very true, though I don’t think we have to say that we aren’t sure what is going beyond the scenes. We know some things, though not everything. All we need to do is embrace all that the Bible says about the atonement—ransom, Christus Victor, PSA, satisfaction, even to some degree the moral exemplar view. I’m sure I’ve left something out. No one theory captures it all. We need all of them. Some traditions tend to emphasize one over the others, largely because of the historical context in which the tradition is born.

  287. ishy: never seemed to figure out why because they were constantly told women were designed by God to serve them and they were designed by God to be served.

    There’s a book about the “Lies the Church Tells Women”.
    Another book needed: “Lies the Church Tells Men”.
    Best seller opportunity.

  288. Robert: The authority of the text.

    I don’t doubt the authority if the text. What I doubt is the authority of human interpretations of the text. Continuing to appeal to the authority of the text will not resolve differences in what people believe is the meaning of the text. By what authority should I agree with your interpretation instead of somene else’s?

  289. Muff Potter,

    About the silver tongued guy.
    Your discription is exactly the postion of Catholic and Protestant evolution since the Roman Empire, circa Augustine.

    The Devil becomes a minor player. We boo and hiss his name at the proper times in the script, but the blame is totally and completley on mankind, corrupted by the wayward woman.

    It’s like the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

  290. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    If you need an authority to accept an interpretation of a text outside the text itself, then you should go be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. You are asking a question that you yourself can’t answer. By what authority should I accept YOUR interpretation of the text?

    Either we can discern the meaning of a text or we can’t. Your question implies that we can’t discern the meaning of a text. Take that to its logical conclusion and apply it to your words. By what authority should I accept that you aren’t a Calvinist? Your words say you aren’t, but apparently words are insufficient. See how silly that gets?

  291. ishy,

    ..”I’m mostly unsatisfied with how the western church views evil and free will and predestination.”..

    I say you are reacting to the relative importance of Augustine in the West. We in the West are significantly a product of his life. Less so the Church in the Eastern Empire.

    Here is my assertion:
    1. Augustine was deeply troubled and a closeted homosexual.
    2. He is a follower of Greek Philosophy, oratory and has a polemical personality.
    3. He converts to Christianity during a personal crisis(the garden) and gains importance in the Church.
    4. He is at a loss to reconcile church morality teachings with his own life and reality in general.
    5. As a solution allowing him to explain his world, he constructs:

    The responsibility of Eve.
    The Fall.
    Original Sin.
    Substitutionary Atonement.
    Predestination.
    Predestination.

  292. Nathan Priddis: I say you are reacting to the relative importance of Augustine in the West. We in the West are significantly a product of his life. Less so the Church in the Eastern Empire.

    I think you’re right. It’s probably not just Augustine, though, but Protestants have a bad habit of basing most of their theology on the views of just a few people (like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and even modern celebrity pastors). Every human has bias and is reacting to their unique situation, so that comes out in their personal beliefs. It’s not a good practice for developing theology.

    I agree with Ken F, too, that the dependence of the modern Protestant church on personal interpretation while calling it “biblical authority” is really problematic. The Bible says a lot of things that get wholly ignored by everyone I’ve met who claims they only proclaim the Bible. Like pride, greed, mercy, justice, helping the poor…

  293. Top Ten Signs You are a Calvinist

    10. The guys at reformerware.com give you a bulk pricing discount.
    9. Your home group leader locks you in a closet during the Bible study.
    8. You spend the entire fall semester on a verse by verse exposition of Romans 9 in your Sunday School class… Your kindergarten Sunday school class.
    7. You spend lots of time on ebay searching for a signed 1st Edition of Calvin’s Institutes.
    6. Your spouse wakes you at night from a bad dream, and says you were mumbling, over and over, “Infra or supra?! … Infra or supra?!”
    5. You react angrily when someone mispronounces “Lorraine Boettner.”
    4. Your eyesight failing, you go to the doctor and he diagnoses “presbyopia.” You assume this is Latin for “reading too much Reformed theology.”
    3. On the weekend of your wedding anniversary, you book a romantic trip for two to Akron, Ohio for a Ligonier Ministries Conference.
    2. Your time on the throne is now spent reading The Heidelberg Catechism.
    1. When a family member buys you an iPad for your birthday, you storm out of the room in a rage when you learn that it is NOT pre-loaded with the Geneva Bible Translation App.

  294. Nathan Priddis: I say you are reacting to the relative importance of Augustine in the West. We in the West are significantly a product of his life. Less so the Church in the Eastern Empire.

    Yes, that’s a very good point. I really have trouble with a lot of Protestant reliance on single individuals for the church’s thought. No matter how intellectual someone is, they have a biased and narrow perspective. It’s as if we rely as much on ancient celebrity culture as modern…

  295. ishy,

    Sorry for the doublish post. I didn’t think that last one went through since my internet went out on me. I actually tried to submit that one first…

  296. ishy,

    I don’t think it’s a uniquely Protestant phenomenon. Aquinas towers in Roman Catholicism. Others such as Molina as well. In the East you have guys like Gregory Palamas.

    If you actually get into the lived, churchly theologies of most magisterial Protestant churches, you actually get away from the focus on individuals to some degree. Martin Luther was hugely influential for Lutherans, for instance, but Lutherans don’t confess Luther. They confess the book of Concord and the Lutheran tradition diverges in some important ways from Luther. In Reformed churches, you confess Westminster or the three forms of Unity, not Calvin, though Calvin is very important. The same seems to be true for RCC or EO.

  297. ishy: Except most of them looked like LeFou…

    Isn’t it ironic?
    That for the most part, the Lefous will only consider the Belles (looks wise).

  298. Nathan Priddis: but the blame is totally and completley on mankind, corrupted by the wayward woman.

    The wayward woman?
    Fortunately, fewer and fewer people of faith believe this crock-o’-horse poo-poo.

  299. Gram3: maybe the Western and Eastern views are capturing different aspects of the Atonement. Both/And. Maybe the Atonement is something that is so beyond our understanding that it is difficult to analogize neatly in our human categories.

    I think you nailed it here. One can’t get away from the legal / forensic / judgement / justification categories that are plainly in the text of Scripture. So too are the ideas of theosis / union. I am way out of my depth with the Eastern tradition so I don’t know to what extent they teach both vs. solely emphasizing theosis. I do know most Western traditions I’m familiar with are very weak on theosis. The Lutherans I listen to try to emphasize both, especially in the teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

  300. ishy: Augustine, Luther, Calvin

    Therein lies the problem with the modern church … too many preachers relying on the theology of old dead guys and living celebrities without experiencing their own revelation. We need more “Thus saith the Lord” and less “Calvin said”, “Piper said”, etc.

  301. ishy: I really have trouble with a lot of Protestant reliance on single individuals for the church’s thought … It’s as if we rely as much on ancient celebrity culture as modern …

    … when we need to be digging our own spiritual wells!

  302. Max: more “Thus saith the Lord”

    Only if it lines up with the Bible, broadly. (No cherry-picking.)
    God doesn’t contradict Himself.
    It’s also good if the speaker is open to discourse.

    Excellent sources:

    Marg Mowczko @MargMowczko margmowczko.com: scholarly posts.
    Tim Fall @tim_fall timfall.com: profound common sense.
    Wade Burleson @Wade_Burleson wadeburleson.org: scholarly historian.

  303. S. Blisken,

    I think it is safe to say that what the best Eastern theologians are trying to say about theosis is what Protestants, at least the Reformed, typically mean by glorification. John Calvin even talks (briefly) about deification in his commentary on 2 Peter.

    Theosis, rightly defined, is somewhat neglected in modern Protestant thought, at least on the popular level. Generally, though, it seems that you are more likely to hear Protestants talking about theosis/deification/union than you are to hear EO talk about justification in forensic/judicial categories. From my experience of reading EO theology, the notion of a judicial aspect to salvation is very minimal even when it is present.

    Atonement has to be read through the lens of all the orthodox theories—Christus Victor, PSA, ransom, satisfaction, etc. To exalt any one of them over the others denies biblical truth somewhere else.

  304. Robert: Jesus is God.
    God inspired the Biblical authors.
    Therefore, Paul’s words are Jesus’ words. So are the words of Moses, Peter, David, Isaiah, John, etc.

    I’m a Christian myself, Robert, and I’ve never been able to take this line. I find it far too simplistic, and that it too easily drifts into a wooden and unthinking literalism when reading the Bible.

    Granted, I haven’t figured out yet exactly what “divinely inspired” means, or how it worked. But I can’t accept the proposition that God/Jesus simply dictated the whole Bible word for word, or that Paul’s words = Jesus’ words.

  305. Serving Kids In Japan,

    “Granted, I haven’t figured out yet exactly what “divinely inspired” means, or how it worked”
    ++++++++++++

    no one does. not even Robert. the most anyone can say is that it is “God-breathed”. and i think we just kicked it up a mysterious figurative notch, there.

    the way i see it, as far as what is prescriptive, the surest thing i can stand on is “love my neighbor as myself”. treating people the way i want to be treated. i don’t fret over the rest, and sleep well.

    and truly, how could anyone go wrong with that approach? is God really going to say,

    “Thou hath not dotted 3 i’s and crossed 8 Ts, thus shall it be curtains for thee. so be it, be it not otherwise. Thus saith the Lord God.”

  306. Robert,

    “Jesus is God.
    God inspired the Biblical authors.
    Therefore, Paul’s words are Jesus’ words. So are the words of Moses, Peter, David, Isaiah, John, etc.”
    +++++++++++++++

    define “inspired”.

    and do your best to convince me your definition and understanding of the word is the only right one.

    i mean, please.

  307. elastigirl,

    2 Tim. 3:16–17, “inspired” translates theopneustos, which literally means “God breathed.” Scripture is the very Word of God breathed out, just as your words are yours when you breathe out.

  308. Serving Kids In Japan,

    Why is this too simplistic? It’s the view Jesus himself had of the Bible, and the view of the New Testament. In several places, for example, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalms written by David and says, “the Holy Spirit says.”

    Sure, anyone can interpret the Bible in a woodenly literal way, but that isn’t a consequence of believing that the words of Moses are the words of Jesus. It’s a consequence of not paying attention to genre.

    Jesus himself regularly quotes Scripture, and claims that it is the Word of God that cannot be broken. Don’t we have to have the same view of Scripture that Jesus did?

  309. elastigirl,

    That’s not as simple as it sounds. “Treat others as you want to be treated.” wasn’t delivered in a vacuum. I mean, there are people who get a lot of pleasure out of receiving physical pain from others. They like to receive pain. If you apply “treat others as you want to be treated” without any qualification or content, then they should inflict pain on others. It is what they would want.

    “Love your neighbor as yourself” wasn’t first spoken by Jesus. He was just quoting the Old Testament law. The law and the rest of Scripture define what love actually looks like.

  310. Robert: Atonement has to be read through the lens of all the orthodox theories—Christus Victor, PSA, ransom, satisfaction, etc. To exalt any one of them over the others denies biblical truth somewhere else.

    Biblical ‘truth’ is one thing, and traditional-modern jurisprudence is something quite other.
    When it is shown that aggrieved parties (say Adam and Eve) have been greatly swindled by a criminal in the first place, what do the aggrieved parties have to ‘atone’ for?

  311. Robert: 2 Tim. 3:16–17, “inspired” translates theopneustos, which literally means “God breathed.” Scripture is the very Word of God breathed out, just as your words are yours when you breathe out.

    Paul is referring to the Septuagint (Hebrew Bible) here.
    Not his own letter to his protege in Ephesus.

  312. Robert,

    “If you apply “treat others as you want to be treated” without any qualification or content, then they should inflict pain on others. It is what they would want.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    well, the unspoken qualification is common sense. the kind of common sense that informs us when ‘tough love’ or intervention is the order of the day.

    if a family member, friend, or even stranger at wal-mart wants to do something that would harm themself or someone else, we intervene to prevent.

    general observation walking through life makes it clear that healthy people intuitively know these things. which in my view is part of being made in the image of God.

    human beings aren’t potatoes sitting in a bowl with no knowledge or understanding waiting to be informed by christians or the chance reading of the bible as to what is good, right, & wise.

    and to clarify what i just said, there: i believe information in the bible can greatly enhance our understanding and our character.

    the information in the bible can also turn someone into an even bigger goblin than they accuse the evil worldly world of being.
    ——————-

    “Love your neighbor as yourself” wasn’t first spoken by Jesus. He was just quoting the Old Testament law. The law and the rest of Scripture define what love actually looks like.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    well, a few obvious scriptures describe ‘love’ and what is loving

    (but even those can be totally distorted into dysfunction and destructiveness — i’ve been loved and cared for by christians so intentionally that i ended up with ptsd)

    seems to me looking to the entire bible for a composite picture of ‘love’ is highly dangerous, depending on the individual. (genocide and other crimes against individuals & humanity = the ends of love can justify the means)

  313. Muff Potter,

    They were told specifically by God not to eat from the tree, so although they were deceived by the serpent as to what would happen when they ate, they still knew it was wrong to do what they did. They weren’t ignorant people. They tried to blame each other and the serpent for their being deceived, but remember, God didn’t accept their excuses.

  314. Muff Potter,

    Yes, and Peter later explicitly refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3. So, if Paul’s letters are Scripture, which is the common universal confession of the church from all traditions and history, then his words are God’s words.

  315. elastigirl,

    The fact that the Bible tells us what love is doesn’t mean people can’t twist it. But of course that’s not the Bible’s fault.

    Common sense is, sadly, all too uncommon. And of course, just knowing the right thing to do makes no guarantee one will do it.

    Human beings have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. It’s horribly twisted by sin in all of us, though not destroyed. Sometimes nonbelievers follow the moral law better than believers do.

    But without the Bible there is no possibility of clarity on what is right and wrong, and every Scripture must be taken into account, especially the ones that make us uncomfortable. Otherwise, our definition of love is more likely to reflect the preferences of 21st century postmodern Westerners (I’m assuming you live in America) than anything else. And most people in history and around the world are going to reject a large degree of what 21st century postmodernist Westerners think is loving. Our views shouldn’t be privileged.

    We need a transcendent standard inspired by God himself to have any hope. The Bible.

  316. Robert
    You said: “But without the Bible there is no possibility of clarity on what is right and wrong, and every Scripture must be taken into account, especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.” It’s so clear that we have serious theological disagreements bewteen all of those who beleive they understand the Bible.

    As for the love thing, we have all sorts of examples of angry responses to those who question.Take the Puritans…they killed “witches” and got rid of Roger Williams. I would be most careful in arguing that you know the transcendent standards. You are not an expert on the matter.

  317. Robert,

    I stand on my comment.
    While I believe that Paul’s writings are lofty and packed with wisdom as Peter rightly observes, I do not believe that they have the same linear gravitas as the Almighty thundering out of Horeb to the children of Israel.

  318. Robert: and Peter later explicitly refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3.

    Are you aware that 2 Peter almost did not make it into the NT? There is good evidence that it was not actually written by Peter. This is not to say that it should not be included in the NT, but it certainly does not say that Paul’s (or anyone else’s) words are equivalent to the words of Jesus. Your assertion has no solid proof-text.

  319. Robert: See how silly that gets?

    So we agree, I think. If everyone’s interpretation of a text is equally valid, then no interpretation is valid.

  320. dee: As for the love thing, we have all sorts of examples of angry responses to those who question.Take the Puritans…they killed “witches” and got rid of Roger Williams. I would be most careful in arguing that you know the transcendent standards. You are not an expert on the matter.

    I agree, the Bible is no guarantee that people will exercise their divine nature rather than their fallen one.
    There are folks who have the Bible coming out of their ears and out the wazoo, and who are still as mean as snakes.
    And there are those who do the right thing anyway with no Bible (Romans 2), like an elderly couple (atheists) who have taken in a Guatamalan woman and her two little ones and keep them safe from the ICE patrols.

  321. Robert: Atonement has to be read through the lens of all the orthodox theories—Christus Victor, PSA, ransom, satisfaction, etc. To exalt any one of them over the others denies biblical truth somewhere else.

    Why does there even have to be a theory for the atonement? Why does it matter how it occured as long as it did occur? Eastern Christians never developed an atonement theory. In the West, the Ransom theory prevailed until Anselm developed the Moral Satisfaction theory in the 11th century. Penal Substitution was first articulated by Calvin less than 500 years ago. I suppose it’s ok to believe it if one needs to, but how did Christianity survive for 1500 years without it? How did it become a litmus test for Protestant orthodoxy? Why did it become a hill to die on?

  322. dee,

    Dee,

    All I am saying is that I know that the Bible is the transcendent standard. My interpretation of any given passage may be incorrect. But if we don’t agree on what the standard is, we have no hope of coming to any agreement on anything.

    Besides, the perspicuity of Scripture on the essentials of salvation and how to live in a way that is pleasing to him was taught by Martin Luther and is affirmed by the Missouri Synod as far as I am aware. That point is basic Reformation teaching.

  323. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    If every interpretation is equally valid, and there is more than one interpretation, then yes, no interpretation is valid. But that’s not the issue here. You asked me by what authority you should accept my interpretation, as if there is a necessary authority external to the text. Truth itself is its own authority. You are welcome to make an argument as to why hypotasso isn’t the missing word, but I’ve already responded to Young’s video and explained why I believe it is invalid.

  324. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    I think you need to check up on your church history here. The East generally embraces the Christus Victor theory. Paul had a theory of the atonement. It was a propitiation or hilasterion. Jesus said it was a ransom. etc.

    You need to have some theory of the atonement because the Bible describes in several different ways what the cross did. Without such descriptions, the death of Jesus isn’t any different than the death of any other crucified person in the first century. I’m not even advocating for A theory of the atonement. You can do justice to the biblical teaching only by accepting all the orthodox theories. People who say that PSA is the only valid reading of the atonement are wrong, but I’ve never known anyone who said that. Christus Victor, ransom, PSA, even the exemplary view in many ways, are all necessary.

  325. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    I’m aware of the poor arguments against Petrine authorship, driven largely by anti-supernaturalistic bias. But be that as it may, 2 Peter 3 calls Paul’s letters Scripture. And unless one is prepared to deny the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and/or the undivided external actions of the Trinity (affirmed by East and West btw), then every word inspired by God is equivalent in authority to the words of Christ.

    Might we disagree on the meaning of those words? Sure. But I’m not saying anything not affirmed throughout Christian history by all orthodox theological traditions RC, EO, or Protestant. There’s a reason why we have 66 books in the Bible and not only the red letters excised from the gospels.

  326. Robert:
    elastigirl,

    The fact that the Bible tells us what love is doesn’t mean people can’t twist it. But of course that’s not the Bible’s fault.

    Common sense is, sadly, all too uncommon. And of course, just knowing the right thing to do makes no guarantee one will do it.

    Human beings have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. It’s horribly twisted by sin in all of us, though not destroyed. Sometimes nonbelievers follow the moral law better than believers do.

    But without the Bible there is no possibility of clarity on what is right and wrong, and every Scripture must be taken into account, especially the ones that make us uncomfortable. Otherwise, our definition of love is more likely to reflect the preferences of 21st century postmodern Westerners (I’m assuming you live in America) than anything else. And most people in history and around the world are going to reject a large degree of what 21st century postmodernist Westerners think is loving. Our views shouldn’t be privileged.

    We need a transcendent standard inspired by God himself to have any hope. The Bible.

    Your position is undermined by the Doctrine of Innerency, as set forth in the Chicago Statement of 1978.

    The Statement, and Innerency, does not align with the Westminster Confession. The Doctrine is a fraudulent trojan horse developed out of 1800’s Princeton Theology. It was spread through various means including the Niagara Bible Conferences.

    The Doctrine is founded upon a mythical Bible, refered to as original autographs. There are no, zero, original autographs. This transfers all, total, authority from the text, to those conducting exegesis and hermeneutics.

    The following is an illogical statement:

    ARTICLE X

    “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
    We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”

  327. Muff Potter,

    You only have access to those words from Horeb through Scripture. The written word is all you have.

    I’m assuming that you affirm the deity of Jesus and the Trinity. If you do, then every inspired Word of God is equivalent in authority to the words spoken on Horeb. It’s logically necessary. If you don’t affirm the deity of Jesus or the Trinity, then you would have reason to disagree. But I’m assuming that most commenters here at least agree on those basic, ecumenical Christian beliefs.

  328. Robert: They tried to blame each other and the serpent for their being deceived,

    For someone who insists so strongly on the authority of the Bible, you appear pretty sloppy with it. Eve told the truth to God when she said she was deceived, and she never blamed Adam. She took responsibility for what she did. Adam was not deceived, he willfully disobeyed and he did not take responsibility for it. Did you notice that Adam was kicked out of the garden, but not Eve? She apparently left by her own choice.

  329. Nathan Priddis,

    Fir clarity. In the words of the Chicago Statement signers, the Bible IS NOT INSPIRED. Nor can it be so. It was only inspired in it original autographs.

  330. Nathan Priddis,

    The idea that the Chicago Statement disagrees with the Westminster Confession is quite foreign to the churches that actually adhere to the Westminster Confession, such as the OPC, PCA, ARP. The Chicago statement is merely a more detailed expansion of what the WCF is trying to say, addressing current issues. Warfield and the Princetonians didn’t invent inerrancy by the way. It is found outside the Bible at least as far back as Augustine:

    If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion. (Reply to Faustus)

    Be that as it may, even if you reject an inerrant Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ compel one to recognize that whichever words of Moses, Paul, etc. are inspired by God, those words are also the words of Christ.

  331. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Talk about reading my comments in a woodenly literal manner. 🙂

    Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. And God placed a curse on Eve regarding childbearing, which means he didn’t accept her excuse. If she was innocent, then the curse was unjust, and God isn’t unjust. And since the man and the woman are one flesh, God doesn’t have to say, “you get out of here, too, Eve.” Both were cursed.

    To say that Eve was cursed in childbearing but that it would be great for her to keep eating the tree of life since God never said, “Eve, leave” is about the most woodenly literalist reading of Genesis 3 that I’ve ever seen.

  332. Nathan Priddis,

    If you have the words, even if you have copies of the words, you have words of divine authority. It’s not as if the pen and ink that Paul and the others used were magic. The whole point of inerrancy is to preserve divine authority and the character of God.

    Honestly, I don’t get your sudden flourishing of hate for inerrancy when at best its a tangential topic on this present discussion. It’s a commonly held belief of all orthodox Protestants. I believed in inerrancy when I was Arminian. Dee’s Missouri Synod Lutheran Church affirms that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. My PCA church affirms WCF and inerrancy. The SBC affirms inerrancy. John Wesley affirmed inerrancy. The Assemblies of God affirm inerrancy.

    It’s a mainstream conservative and confessional evangelical belief.

  333. Robert: But without the Bible there is no possibility of clarity on what is right and wrong, and every Scripture must be taken into account, especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.

    Open question…
    What all the edicts where a person should be executed?

    You know, children that disrespect parents, those of us who work on the Sabbath, the whole of so called moral crimes, worshipping other gods (whole towns are to be executed for that!)

    Don’t feel much and a wee bit uncomfortable….

  334. dee: careful in arguing that you know the transcendent standards

    True.

    The dynamics of data and interpretation, POV from a Nobel Prize lecture:

    December 1974, world-renowned economist Friedrich A. Hayek criticizes the economic theories that had, for generations, dominated global commerce (the Keynesian school). In an excoriation of what he called the “pretense of exact knowledge,” Hayek warned against the “scientistic” approach to economic policy, that is, the habit of applying the immovable axioms of the hard sciences to the spontaneous fluctuations of the market, which he argued “will hardly ever be fully known or measurable.”

    Similarly, with the Bible: the text, the Holy Spirit, and the discourse of millennia, in the contexts of all people, in all places, over all time. That’s dynamic.

  335. Jack: Open question…
    What all the edicts where a person should be executed?

    You know, children that disrespect parents, those of us who work on the Sabbath, the whole of so called moral crimes, worshipping other gods (whole towns are to be executed for that!)

    Don’t feel much and a wee bit uncomfortable….

    The Law, is the law of sin and death. It’s not a guide to moral behavior. Think of a noose or snare, you stick your head in it strangulates the victim. It’s supposed to. If it didn’t, then its not a noose or snare. The harder the victim struggles, the tighter it bites in to flesh.
    It was created for the purpose of bringing about death.

    A simple explanation is modern religion is reading back into the book a religious structure that isn’t there. So, only specific sections are usable in sermons.

    This is how you get sermons titled, “Why do bad things happen to good people”, based on Job. The title had no connection to book, and so only a few verses of the book can be used. The rest is just a 30-40 minute philosophical talk.

    Given enough centuries of evolution, you get modern Evangelicalism. Just don’t conflate the religion with the underlying religious text.

  336. Jack,

    The simple answer is that in every case except for what we would call first-degree murder, judges could substitute a lesser penalty depending on the circumstances. The ancient Israelites didn’t go around executing everyone who did any kind of work on the Sabbath, for example. The circumstances of the sin were taken into account.

    Just consult any good Jewish or Christian commentary on the penalties of the law.

    It’s sorta of how we do things in our own court system. Someone is put on trial, the facts are gathered, and the judge has discretion as to the application of the penalty.

  337. Robert,

    i woke up to 10 pending comments by you this morning.Given my 11 years of blogging, this causes me to beleive that you are *on a roll.* Let’s dial it back. I will approve everything I have by you then I want it to stop. You can start you own blog since you appear to have lots to say. I bet you would attract an audience.

  338. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Jersak makes a lot of sense.
    Just because something in a book or in an oral account may not be true, it does not nullify the truth claim about another part.
    Jersak also writes the best push-back on The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (my opinion).

  339. dee,

    Thank you, Dee. I’m having a conversation with several people here, at your discretion of course. I realize I’m only a guest.

    I did a control F. for my name and some others. Not all of these are comments written by the individual named, as they include responses:

    Robert—75 references
    Ishy—75 references
    Ken F—70 rerences
    Muff Potter—63 references
    Max—65 references

    Just trying to understand the problem.

  340. Robert: I’m assuming that you affirm the deity of Jesus and the Trinity.

    You assume rightly.
    I hold to the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed as non-negotiable parameters up-front and on the table. And I love especially its (the creed) supernatural components.
    Judge for yourself:
    — Good Friday —
    Jesus of Nazareth was and is the nexus of all things visible and not visible.
    Of all dimensions and of all worlds.
    Of all spaces and the folded spaces between the spaces.
    There was no solar eclipse.
    Not possible on Passover.
    The fabric of reality itself began to unravel as he died.
    Light was the first to go…

  341. @ Robert

    What are you arguing for?

    That wives have to submit to their husbands and husbands don’t have to submit to their wives?

    That comp isn’t bad?

  342. @ Robert

    Do you believe Kenneth Copeland should give all his money to the poor?

    Do you believe Franklin Graham should pray in his closet?

    Do you believe slaves should be nice to and submit to their masters?

  343. Robert: the Bible is the transcendent standard. My interpretation of any given passage may be incorrect. …

    Besides, the perspicuity of Scripture on the essentials of salvation and how to live in a way that is pleasing to him was taught by Martin Luther and is affirmed by the Missouri Synod as far as I am aware. That point is basic Reformation teaching.

    Agree with you. There are a ton of different perspectives represented in the comments. Many appear to be finding every reason to assert – did God really say? – in their own ways. Some are likely because of abuse suffered while in ostensibly “Christian” churches. This is a blog about such things after all. Lord have mercy on the ones who have suffered and bring healing to them. His sheep hear his voice and ironically enough it will be his word that is often spurned that will bring them back.

  344. S. Blisken: His sheep hear his voice and ironically enough it will be his word that is often spurned that will bring them back.

    Yes!

    We’ve heard so many testimonies that affirm this… the cornerstone that the religious leaders of Jesus’ time rejected, came to save, thank God.

  345. Robert:
    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Talk about reading my comments in a woodenly literal manner.

    Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. And God placed a curse on Eve regarding childbearing, which means he didn’t accept her excuse. If she was innocent, then the curse was unjust, and God isn’t unjust. And since the man and the woman are one flesh, God doesn’t have to say, “you get out of here, too, Eve.” Both were cursed.

    To say that Eve was cursed in childbearing but that it would be great for her to keep eating the tree of life since God never said, “Eve, leave” is about the most woodenly literalist reading of Genesis3 that I’ve ever seen.

    I think it was pointed out above (without reviewing the comments) that your handling of Scripture is sloppy.

    You have erred here in your understanding of the txt.
    1.You failed to notice the woman wad not cursed.
    2.You failed to grasp the woman had the clearness or mind, or perhaps just dumb luck to raise an objection, and specificly named “nasha.” She claimed deceit.

    She is now deceased, thus clearing the way for others to bring a claim on her behalf. It will be successful. It will result in an over turning of the current order. In the future there will be neither male nor female, just as there will be neither Jew nor Greek, slave
    or free.

  346. Robert,

    Todd, GBTC and I get to moderate. You get to *submit* to our authoritarian whims or be invited to start your own blog.

    This comment violates out moderation rules. You will now be slowed down.

  347. S. Blisken,

    “There are a ton of different perspectives represented in the comments. Many appear to be finding every reason to assert – did God really say? – in their own ways.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    “finding every reason to assert – did God really say?”: hmmmm, that doesn’t seem entirely fair.

    it sounds like you’re saying the approaches ‘many’ are taking here are unfounded, baseless.

    on the contrary, i’d say we are reacting to those who appear to be finding every reason to assert that “yes, in fact, God really did say” a lot of things that amount to human conjecture and which are agenda-driven.

    far from finding every reason to assert unfounded and baseless claims, we simply have a different perspective.

    speaking for myself (and i’m sure i’m not alone), i simply see the bible as being more descriptive than prescriptive.
    ———————–

    “His sheep hear his voice and ironically enough it will be his word that is often spurned that will bring them back.”
    ++++++++++

    bring us back…. did we go somewhere?

  348. S. Blisken: Many appear to be finding every reason to assert – did God really say? – in their own ways.

    Pray to God that more people will ask this question. One of the big problems with Christianity in the West is too much willingness not to question what God is really saying. Did Gid really say pastors should be highly paid showman? Did God really say exposing abuse is slander and gossip? If someone tells me God told them that I am supposed to do something, you can be sure that I will ask that question.

    That line is almost always used to shut down needed dissent. It stops dialogue during times when more dialogue is needed. You might not have intended to use it this way, but many of us here have been on the business end of that question.

  349. Robert: To say that Eve was cursed in childbearing but that it would be great for her to keep eating the tree of life since God never said, “Eve, leave” is about the most woodenly literalist reading of Genesis 3 that I’ve ever seen.

    It’s difficult to have a discusssion about what the bible means because you keep adding to what it actually says. Eve took responsibility for what she did but Adam, who was with her and could have intervened, did not. The bible does not say how, when, or why Eve left Eden. All we know is she did leave to be with Adam. Everything else is just speculation.

    Also, contrary to what you wrote, God did not curse Adam and Eve. He cursed the serpent and the ground. This is not to say that Adam and Eve suffered no consequences, but to say that God cursed them is an interpretation that goes beyond what the text actually says.

  350. Robert: I think you need to check up on your church history here. The East generally embraces the Christus Victor theory.

    Can you provide evidence for that from an EO perspective. It appears to me that EO generally embrace no atonement theories, and they especially reject penal substitution. Instead of embracing theories on how it worked, they appear to focus on what it did for us. I have yet been able to find a consenses EO view that dogmatically asserts any particular atonement theory. If I am wrong please show me evidence.

  351. S. Blisken: There are a ton of different perspectives represented in the comments. Many appear to be finding every reason to assert – did God really say? – in their own ways. Some are likely because of abuse suffered while in ostensibly “Christian” churches.

    My perspective is as conservative as it gets at TWW, I think. Not sure how it would differ materially from the WCF. Inerrancy. Infallibility. Absplute authority. Yes,I was abused for confronting pastors for teaching the the heterodox ESS doctrine before ETS declared it so. A mere granny in the pew against Doctors of the Church. I think they are also wrong about female subordination and females being excluded from teaching in the assembled church because the church has been blinded by tradition.

    And I offer as an example of that the traditional interpretation of the slave passages which my own denomination, the SBC, was founded upon. Those are waved away as “not the same thing at all” but they really are the same thing when examined. Abolitionists were the “liberals” who denied God’s created Order and his Word. The curse of Ham/Canaan functioned just like the Curse of the Woman/Order of Creation argument functions today. It’s the same kind of argument. There is no real textual basis for it but rather a daisy chain of verses that are taken out of context and composed into an “argument.” At the same time, contradictory evidence which does not support their daisy chain is excluded and explained away. I didn’t see that myself until I saw it as part of the horror of ESS. I believe that is what most honest scholars actually realize but cannot say in our conservative seminaries.

    I think that Susan Foh’s device is useful, also, because any objection raised by a woman is automatically evidence of her own rebellion. Neat. Very neat. That’s why I say that I think that Grudem and Foh coordinated their efforts at WTS. ESS and Foh’s novel interpretation of Genesis 3:16 have powerful synergy.

  352. Just to be clear, when I say “Doctors of the Church,” I mean the pose they took. Very, Very Serious.

  353. Gram3,

    “I believe that is what most honest scholars actually realize but cannot say in our conservative seminaries.”
    +++++++++++++++

    well, that just says it all.

  354. S. Blisken: There are a ton of different perspectives represented in the comments. Many appear to be finding every reason to assert – did God really say? – in their own ways.

    Speaking purely for myself: What I’m asking is, “Did God really say that I shouldn’t treat my neighbour the way I’d like to be treated, even though Jesus Himself said that this is the sum of everything taught in the Law and the Prophets?” Because that’s the message I get from the revolting attitude towards Aimee, and from a lot of the Evangelical Big Dogs.

    I even see shades of it from Robert here: “That’s not as simple as it sounds. ‘Treat others as you want to be treated’ wasn’t delivered in a vacuum.”

    Unbelievable. Subordination of women is treated as though it’s clearly prescribed in the Bible, and can’t possibly be questioned by appealing to context or translation issues, but the Golden Rule must be carefully and minutely parsed.

    I’ve seen it before, and yet it never fails to boggle my mind.

  355. Serving Kids In Japan: I’ve seen it before, and yet it never fails to boggle my mind.

    You’re not alone.
    Even though my statement of faith (12:06 comment) is what I fervently believe, I’ve been assured by some that I cannot really call myself a Christian because I’m not in lockstep with everything else they believe.

  356. S. Blisken,

    I hope you are not among those who believe that people broken by the church necessarily adopt their theology because they have been broken by the church. I haven’t been broken by the church, by the way, though they gave it a really good try.

  357. Serving Kids In Japan,

    “Subordination of women is treated as though it’s clearly prescribed in the Bible, and can’t possibly be questioned by appealing to context or translation issues, but the Golden Rule must be carefully and minutely parsed.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    well, when one turns off common sense, this is what you get.

    you’ve said it well.
    ————-

    one of the mantras put out by christian powerbrokers is ‘you can’t trust your feelings; trust God, instead’.

    enter problem #1: there’s no way to manage and control people who are trusting in God.

    enter solution #1: replace God with “the bible”.

    keep the theory that people are trusting in God. but in practice, get them dependent on the book.

    and since the bible is the only barometer, the only source of truthful information at our disposal, then it has to be able to answer all our questions, have directions and procedures for everything in our lives, and have answers to all our problems.
    .
    .
    enter problem #2: there’s no way to manage and control what conclusions people are going to form once they’re dependent on the book.

    enter answer #2: get them dependent on the leader.

    scare people into distrusting everything and everyone — even their own voice, their intuition, their gut feelings, their common sense, their ability to come to their own conclusions — distrust it all, except for their pastor. their leaders.

    their guru wearing the pastor hat will therefore claim to speak for God and tell them what is true.

    the guru will tell them what are the correct conclusions to come to about the bible. what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it.

    like the hidden knowledge of ‘treating people the way we want to be treated’.
    ———–

    enter moneymaking & consolidation of power opportunity #1:

    if the people can be dependent on their guru, then surely they can be dependent on conglomerates of gurus telling them what to think, what to do.

    Buying their books. Buying tons of books, & dvds & companion glossy workbooks in bulk. Signing their Statements. Alternating between pacifying themselves and rallying themselves against ideas and people groups on command. Going to expensive conferences.

    Not asking for refunds because the gurus tell them not to when the conference falls through…

    Not questioning their leaders but keeping that pesky gut feeling tamped down and quiet.

    Not talking about their doubts about their leaders, or the manipulative or hypocritical or dishonest or corrupt or illegal or abusive things they observe them doing.
    ——

    ….doing and thinking what their gurus tell them to do and think. on penalty of kindling God’s hot displeasure and the fires of hell.

  358. elastigirl,

    Doesn’t it? Pete Enns says he has a lot of conversations with those teaching in conservative seminaries who tell him they agree with him privately, but can’t publicly as they need their jobs. He’s a great example of someone who went where the text took him, even though that was out of the door of Westminster Seminary, ultimately. He’s also a great example of someone who didn’t immediately lapse into the kind of flagrant sin that is always hinted as being why people move away from ‘inerrancy’. Still married to the same wife.
    I enjoy his work about letting the Bible be what it is, rather than what we say it has to be, particularly just over the last few hundred years. I also found Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible absolutely liberating in its discussion of the ‘pervasive interpretive pluralism’ found in the protestant use of the Bible as he described exactly the problems I had always had in being able to get a clear picture of quite a few major doctrines from passages said to teach them. Well worth a read. Whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, we all appeal to tradition & a body of established interpretation to guide us in understanding the Scriptures, we just differ in what that tradition might be.

  359. Beakerj,

    “Pete Enns…”
    ++++++++++++++

    he is is so encouraging to me.
    ———

    “He’s also a great example of someone who didn’t immediately lapse into the kind of flagrant sin that is always hinted as being why people move away from ‘inerrancy’.”
    +++++++++++++

    such a diabolically manipulative scare tactic. designed by leaders with much to lose to control people. now the people just parrot them and use it to control the conversation.
    ————

    “I enjoy his work about letting the Bible be what it is, rather than what we say it has to be,”
    ++++++++++++

    i find that so honest. and so very encouraging. just the honesty itself at this level is so encouraging — not the norm amongst christians and christian people of influence.
    —————-

    “I also found Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible absolutely liberating in its discussion of the ‘pervasive interpretive pluralism’ found in the protestant use of the Bible”
    +++++++++++

    indeed. (just the 1 word)
    ———-

    “…as he described exactly the problems I had always had in being able to get a clear picture of quite a few major doctrines from passages said to teach them.”
    +++++++++++++

    many things in the bible are not entirely clear, or even perplexing. what’s wrong with “i don’t know, exactly”?

    that kind of pure honesty is not permitted when one puts their faith in the bible (over and above God).

    the only option is to go with what the ‘expert’ of choice has to say and adopt that view.

    sometimes that ‘expert’ is chosen because of their power to kick you out of the club, out of your community, out of your place of employment on which your mortgage & material lifestyle are dependent.
    ———

    “Whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, we all appeal to tradition & a body of established interpretation to guide us in understanding the Scriptures, we just differ in what that tradition might be.”
    +++++++++

    indeed. christians look so very silly with all their members-only clubs, each one claiming to be the only right, true, and legitimate one.

    “I’m biblical, you’re unbiblical.”

    “no, I’m biblical, and you’re unbiblical.”

    “that’s where you have it wrong, you see, because it’s me who is
    biblical, and it’s you who are unbiblical.”

    “well,…you’re liberal, then!….and you smell, too!”

  360. S. Blisken,

    ..”did God really say? “…

    Just for clarity:
    Your comment states through other means, that some here are speaking words of the Serpent. That some are the mouth piece of the Satan.

    I don’t believe that position reflects any commenters here, as you discribed. It does appear that some take their reading of Scripture seriously and are knowledgeable about it’s content.

  361. Beakerj: Whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, we all appeal to tradition & a body of established interpretation to guide us in understanding the Scriptures, we just differ in what that tradition might be.

    Insightful observation.

    And then when we study up on other traditions & interpretations, with rereading the Bible for ourselves, listening to the Holy Spirit – God opens up new understandings.

  362. S. Blisken: I find this presentation, “The Gospel For Those Broken By The Church”, very helpful:

    I had a very different reaction. What I heard from him is there are two types of people who leave Christianity: the sad and the mad. He said nothing about people who flee institutional religion but still cling to Jesus, as if there is no such category of people.

    The other thing I heard from him is his assertion that the only true churches are those that are conservative and fundamentalist. He said there is no good theology in Roman Catholicism or any of the mainline protestant denominations that are not conservative Lutheran or Reformed.

    I know by personal experience that what he said in his presentation is not true.

  363. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    How about the Gospel for those who have noted that church, as they know it, in their locale, is broken? Critical thinking is good and not necessarily sad or mad or maladjusted or pagan or rebellious or liberal any other type of shade.

  364. Ken F (aka Tweed): He said nothing about people who flee institutional religion but still cling to Jesus, as if there is no such category of people.

    I noticed that too.
    No intersection or commonality between the sad and the mad.

  365. Muff Potter: I noticed that too.
    No intersection or commonality between the sad and the mad.

    It’s not an option really. Any presbyterian polity or other Reform group that adheres to the Confession is advocating a totalitarian ecclesiastical structure whether they know it or not. The only question is did they read their own documents. There is no position of peripheral adherence. Conscience and liberty are superceded by the Powers ordained by God.

    There is nowhere to legitimately run, or appeal.

  366. Ken F (aka Tweed): He said nothing about people who flee institutional religion but still cling to Jesus

    Maybe he was just describing what conservative Lutheran ministers encounter. I don’t know. He seemed to think that fundies and pietistic types create the problems. He really reminds me and Gramp3 of a friend, so that was fun. This Baptist really appreciates his honesty about Lutheran history. How refreshing!

  367. Nathan Priddis: There is nowhere to legitimately run, or appeal.

    Sure there is.
    This from Emma Lazarus (1849-1887):

    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  368. dee,

    Obviously I submit to your moderator rules. I’m just wondering why my multiple comments violate the rules but others don’t. Especially when I’m down here defending the authority of ALL of Scripture, which is confessed by your own church, and others are openly questioning it. I’m not defending or arguing, here at least, for any uniquely Calvinistic doctrine. I’m not being mean or nasty. I mean, I have strong convictions, but then again, so does everyone else talking here. Just trying to figure out the problem when others are saying as much as I am.

  369. Ken F (aka Tweed): Instead of embracing theories on how it worked, they appear to focus on what it did for us.

    Here’s a link to an interview with Timothy Ware, that basically endorses the Christus Victor View: https://unsettledchristianity.com/bishop-kallistos-ware-on-christus-victor-in-eastern-orthodoxy/

    I highlighted your quote because it proves my point about the EO. What do the EO say the atonement does for us? Well, among other things, they say that by it Jesus conquered death. It’s a Christus Victor view even if they might rarely label it “Christus Victor.” And in any case, once you describe what the atonement did for us, you have an atonement theory.

    As far as Gen. 3, I’m not adding to or taking away from the text. The comments in vv. 12–13 are parallel. Adam blames the woman for giving him the fruit and then says, “I ate.” Eve blames the serpent for deception, and then says, “I ate.” Both of them point to someone else before confessing. If Adam does not admit the sin, then neither does Eve. The fact that God doesn’t accept their excuses is shown in that the labors of both are cursed. It’s true enough that Eve and Adam are not cursed directly like the serpent and the ground are. That’s important inasmuch as it shows that God still has some favorable disposition to them, confirmed in that they don’t immediately die physically. But at the end of the day, they still die. Death was the curse/punishment God proposed for breaking his rule, and they suffer it. So it’s not wrong to speak of them as suffering the curse as well.

    Again, it’s woodenly literal to say that “the Bible never tells us when Eve left the garden or how.” That might be true, but its significance its trivial. the Bible also doesn’t say that God invited Eve to stay when he cast Adam out. Does that mean she was allowed to? The weight of the evidence, given the unity of Adam and Eve, is that the command for him to leave also included her.

    Finally, your assertion that Adam was there and should have intervened but didn’t is actually almost verbatim one of the most important planks of the complementarian reading of the text. Which I find interesting, since I’m pretty sure you aren’t a complementarian. Also, it seems to me that absolving Eve of the blame destroys her agency.

    I don’t want to overstay my welcome, so that will be my last word.

  370. Robert,

    Has anyone ever told you that you are4 annoying? Even the dig about my church is an example. I beleive in the auhtory of Scripture but I also know that church denominations interpret things differently. For example, the Lutheran view on communion is different which means they interpret Scripture differently than Reformed Baptists.

    So learn not to be the center of attention. Before I started this blog, I had to learn that lesson on blogs I followed. I even spent time (about 5 years) on the ExChristians.net bllog learning how to communicate with people far different than me.I learned some hard lessons but it made me more sensitive. Sometimes, a short and sweet answer trumps lengthy *proofs.*

    I’m not throwing you off the blog. I am telling you that, in my opinion, you need to learn to communicate in a more attractive manner. My goal is to be kind and not overbearing.

  371. Ken F (aka Tweed): I had a very different reaction. What I heard from him is there are two types of people who leave Christianity: the sad and the mad. He said nothing about people who flee institutional religion but still cling to Jesus, as if there is no such category of people.

    Not everyone who leaves faith does so because they’ve been abused, or they’re mad or sad. Not everyone needs to cling to Jesus either.
    There’s probably a lot of people who are cultural Christians. They were raised Christian. Identify more with the Christian worldview but don’t believe in the Bible as written.
    The dissolution of ones faith is a lonely process. It’s not easy to break the programming. Your family and friends don’t understand. And you do miss some aspects of being part of a faith community. But you come to a place where you honestly just can’t accept it anymore. But there’s a certain freedom to it. Hard to explain. Maybe I was never one of “his”. I have no doubt that’s how the reformed see it.

  372. Jack,

    “The dissolution of ones faith…. But there’s a certain freedom to it. Hard to explain. Maybe I was never one of “his”. I have no doubt that’s how the reformed see it.”
    +++++++++++++

    seems to me it’s pure honesty. seems to me you are a very honest human being.
    ———–

    finding silver linings, i think every act of kindness, generosity, honesty (with or without the christian branding & packaging) makes divine strings sing for joy in the room, in the atmosphere, in outter space.

    and i think it feeds one’s soul.

    like, your soul.

    i don’t think you’re as alone as it might seem.

    i think the companionable divine fits us — if we want to be left alone, it’s a quiet hum in the distance.

    a hum, that goes unnoticed. if it were to stop, then we’d hear the absence.

    but my view is that as sure as the sun rises every morning, so the hum hums.

  373. elastigirl,

    but, continuing to process here…

    i can see that these could be troubling ideas.

    my agnostic uncle would say, “HELL NO. the notion of such a hum is off the charts invasive and intrusive. And lucky for me, i don’t believe it for a minute.”

    i totally understand.

  374. Robert: I don’t want to overstay my welcome, so that will be my last word.

    It seems that we are unlikely to find agreement here. Many years ago I would have agreed with probably most everything you’ve written here. But over the years I have become less convinced that doctrinal precision matters. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by belief in a list of correct doctrines. It’s not that correct belief is irrelevant, but I suspect there is much more room for differences of opinion than I used to believe. And I suspect that Jesus is much more inclusive than any of us can imagine. It now seems to me that the Nicene Creed does a pretty good job in defining the basics, but I could be wrong.

  375. Jack: The dissolution of ones faith is a lonely process. It’s not easy to break the programming. Your family and friends don’t understand. And you do miss some aspects of being part of a faith community.

    I fully get this. I landed in a different place than you in that I still believe the very basics of Christianity. But like you, I’ve been through the lonely process and deprogramming. I learned that most of my friendships were dependent on a certain way of believing. It’s not so much fun to be called a heretic for believing what was believed in ancient Christianity.

  376. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    “It’s not that correct belief is irrelevant, but I suspect there is much more room for differences of opinion than I used to believe. ”
    +++++++++++

    maybe it’s like a hamburger.

    my view: the best and right way is with blue cheese or goat cheese, caramelized onions, chard, red pepper, and sriracha ranch.

    my husband: no way. that’s just wrong. cheddar cheese, ketchup, mustard, pickles, and raw onions.

    my view: you have those onions and we will have no fellowship.

    my niece at age 4: one hamburger, no meat please.

    they’re all a hamburger.

  377. I didn’t read all the posts, but haven’t seen anyone address the possibility that these GC men who are so misogynist likely have some psychological pathology. Anyone with a basic education in personality disorders (DSM 5) recognizes traits of narcissistic personality disorder in their comments. A simple googling of “traits of npd” is very revealing. Control is a powerful “need” in this pathology, more so than submission to God’s Word. The need for Control is so powerful that it can trump everything else, including theological honesty and love. Fear of the loss of control drives many men with this underlying pathology into these movements that justify their need. It is not really theologically driven…that is just the “cover story” that seems to make their brokenness acceptable. I know we are all broken in our own way, but usually we don’t so publicly display it as they have….without shame or remorse. But that is another of the traits of npd…always believing you are right and everyone else is wrong, unless they are part of your Inner Ring. These personality types should really be more thoroughly vetted BEFORE ordination. They do not meet the criteria for eldership, biblically. Perhaps ordination boards and Sessions need some basic training in psychology and personality types.

  378. Jack: But you come to a place where you honestly just can’t accept it anymore. But there’s a certain freedom to it. Hard to explain. Maybe I was never one of “his”. I have no doubt that’s how the reformed see it.

    This one’s for you Jack.
    Please don’t take it the wrong way.
    I’m just using artistic freedom as a rejoinder.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cII0sq4LEpg

  379. elastigirl: my agnostic uncle would say, “HELL NO. the notion of such a hum is off the charts invasive and intrusive. And lucky for me, i don’t believe it for a minute.”

    I’m a person of faith who says HELL NO and HELL YES quite often, along with an assortment of F-Bombs too…

  380. Muff Potter,

    i married into a foreign family of faith as expressed in their country, with vocabulary and way of life that is free of the trappings of American puritanism. my God-loving in-laws’ culturally-appropriate & colorful language is not at all incompatible with their faith.

    it’s changed how i view things.

    i tend to think words are neutral, whether course or refined – it’s the malevolence quotient behind them that stirs spiritual things up.

  381. Jean G,

    “Anyone with a basic education in personality disorders (DSM 5) recognizes traits of narcissistic personality disorder in their comments…..
    +++++++++++++++

    at this point, i think it’s assumed a good many professional christians are npd. certifiably.

    they are persuasive. and many others simply emulate it, thinking it’s gospel manhood.
    ——–

    “Perhaps ordination boards and Sessions need some basic training in psychology and personality types.”
    +++++++

    indeed.

  382. elastigirl: with blue cheese or goat cheese,

    My wife is a foodie from Europe. She has greatly expanded my palate. I have grown fond of a large number of foods, including exotic moldy cheeses, that used to disgust me.

  383. elastigirl,

    It’s all good. I’ve read all new atheist books. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. They are just as all or nothing as religious fundamentalists. In fact Dawkins has stated that agnosticism is a cop out. You must accept that there is no spiritual side to existence.
    I have witnessed events in my life that I cannot explain. Doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation but I don’t know what it is.
    I’m a universalist who tries to keep an open mind.
    But what seems lacking in authoritarian faith is a distinct lack of context and discernment. Thanks for your insights. I enjoy reading them.

  384. Muff Potter: This one’s for you Jack.
    Please don’t take it the wrong way.
    I’m just using artistic freedom as a rejoinder.

    An underrated mini series from one of my favorite King books. A great example of Christian culture influencing art. How could I take it the wrong way? Maybe if more people looked beyond their narrow worldview they would see goodness and wisdom in all sorts of places!

  385. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    I think that’s why I enjoy reading your comments. I did find the links you added interesting as well. If scripture chronicles human interaction with the divine then it’s going to be an imperfect document reflecting the time it was written. As I’ve said before context is everything and I don’t believe the Bible should be read as how to manual. We have been appalled when our armed forces have acted inappropriately, we don’t advocate divine right to rule or slavery. These concepts in the Bible reflect the society of those times. Death was a constant companion, hardly any kids made it to adulthood, plague, war and famine abounded. Life was short and brutal. The old testament reflects this but is in no way intended as a model society.
    In fact, God didn’t seem too pleased with it on the whole.
    There’s whole books written so I won’t go on but Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Christianity is supposed to transcend this world.
    If Jesus was really God he could and still can knock down wicked empires but he didn’t. Instead he advocated humility, simplicity, and love. I haven’t figured out the meaning of it all and for now just being the best father, husband and citizen is enough.

  386. Jack: for now just being the best father, husband and citizen is enough

    Yeesh Jack, how full of yourself are you. I meant to say try to be best father, husband & citizen I can be.

  387. Robert: Finally, your assertion that Adam was there and should have intervened but didn’t is actually almost verbatim one of the most important planks of the complementarian reading of the text. Which I find interesting, since I’m pretty sure you aren’t a complementarian. Also, it seems to me that absolving Eve of the blame destroys her agency.

    This is the crux of the problem. What I get from the story is Adam and Eve we’re equally disobedient. Key word equal. In every single way. You know sort of how the constitution sees us…equal.

  388. Jack: What I get from the story is Adam and Eve we’re equally disobedient.

    It looks to me like they were not equally guilty because it looks like Adam failed worse then Eve. But I don’t believe it had anything to do with gender then and it has no implications on gender today. Rather, it was two individuals with different responses to a shared experience. I got this idea from Katharine Bushnell.

  389. Jack: I think that’s why I enjoy reading your comments.

    Likewise, I enjoy reading yours. You give us lots of good things to think about. You are also a very good counterexample to what Christians often think of a stereotypical non-Christian. You have much more depth than that model.

  390. Jack: How could I take it the wrong way?

    I thought that maybe you’d think that I was trying to ‘convert’ you to my brand of faith. No, not at all, I was only pointing out what I believe to be a false dichotomy between ‘faith’ and ‘no faith’. When Mother Abigail learns that Nick doesn’t ‘believe’ in God, she turns the whole ‘faith’ vs. ‘no faith’ thing on its head by telling him that he (God) believes in him (Nick).

  391. Robert: Just trying to figure out the problem when others are saying as much as I am.

    I think part of the issue here is that all the others you measured out have been long-term commenters here, with all the give & take that entails, & so have worked their way up to the level of interaction in this thread. They may also be less absolute about how they express their views.

  392. elastigirl: but talk about ripe….

    While all of my European in-laws are cheese lovers, one if my brothers-in-law puts most cheese lovers to shame. I don’t know if he was messing with me or trying to honor me with some of his cheeses. I don’t remember the names, but one was a small ball of cheese covered with mold on the outside and the consistency of brie on the inside. It came out of the oven reeking of mold, but it did not taste bad. On another occassion he had me try a cheese that was like mozzarella gone bad. It smelled like sewage. I tried it anyway, knowing that cheeses typically don’t taste like they smell. On the first chew this cheese was tolerable, but by the second chew it tasted like it smelled. I don’t remember if I broke into a sweat at that point, but I did manage to swallow it after a few more chews. I think I can now safely say that I will probably never have a cheese as bad as that one. The cheese bin in his refrigerator illustrates the phrase “who cut the cheese?”

  393. Jean G: I didn’t read all the posts, but haven’t seen anyone address the possibility that these GC men who are so misogynist likely have some psychological pathology. Anyone with a basic education in personality disorders (DSM 5) recognizes traits of narcissistic personality disorder in their comments.

    Out of curiosity, would those traits include seeing one’s own words as the words of God?

    I’ve been pondering this for a few days now. Robert’s assertion, that any words inspired by the Holy Spirit in Scripture must be taken as the words of Jesus Himself, kept rubbing me the wrong way. And one reason that occurred to me was that someone could use this concept to justify portraying his own words as Jesus’ words.

    After all, if all believers are filled with the Spirit, then couldn’t at least some of our words be inspired by Him? And if so, then wouldn’t they be just as authoritative as any of Jesus’ teachings in the Bible?

    I find myself wondering whether a notion like this is partly behind the phenomenon that Max keeps mentioning in New Calvinist churches — Jesus getting put on the back burner, while the teachings of Piper and Mohler take center stage. Is it possible that they consider their favourite writers and speakers to be so Spirit-filled that their teachings carry the same authority as those of Jesus? And therefore, it’s acceptable to supplant His words with theirs?

    Of course, I’ve never seen this spelled out by any of the Calvinistas, or any of them claim explicitly that their words are “divinely inspired”. However, the attitudes of the dweebs that are slamming Aimee make me wonder whether they really believe they’re accountable to anyone. Even God.

  394. Ken F (aka Tweed): It looks to me like they were not equally guilty because it looks like Adam failed worse then Eve. But I don’t believe it had anything to do with gender then and it has no implications on gender today. Rather, it was two individuals with different responses to a shared experience. I got this idea from Katharine Bushnel

    The Genesis origin story pre-dates the Bible as we know it. Based on what I’ve read there are two stories intertwined.
    If the patriarch Abraham really existed (or someone like him did), it’s stated he came from the city of Ur.
    Ur is one of the earliest cities in existence. I think it’s possible the story of the garden is vestigial memory of a time before the trappings of civilization. Farming has always been a hard existence, easily seen as wrestling nature into submission.
    Ur was also marred by flood that the city never really recovered from, which is why Abraham may have started travelling with all his entourage. Forced from a “garden” in more ways than one and also why the flood story is prominent as well.
    Maybe so, maybe no but it shows that literal readings of the bible don’t do justice to the richness that underlies it origins.

  395. Serving Kids in Japan: Out of curiosity, would those traits include seeing one’s own words as the words of God?

    I’ve been pondering this for a few days now.Robert’s assertion, that any words inspired by the Holy Spirit in Scripture must be taken as the words of Jesus Himself, kept rubbing me the wrong way.And one reason that occurred to me was that someone could use this concept to justify portraying his own words as Jesus’ words.

    After all, if all believers are filled with the Spirit, then couldn’t at least some of our words be inspired by Him?And if so, then wouldn’t they be just as authoritative as any of Jesus’ teachings in the Bible?

    I find myself wondering whether a notion like this is partly behind the phenomenon that Max keeps mentioning in New Calvinist churches — Jesus getting put on the back burner, while the teachings of Piper and Mohler take center stage.Is it possible that they consider their favourite writers and speakers to be so Spirit-filled that their teachings carry the same authority as those of Jesus?And therefore, it’s acceptable to supplant His words with theirs?

    Of course, I’ve never seen this spelled out by any of the Calvinistas, or any of them claim explicitly that their words are “divinely inspired”.However, the attitudes of the dweebs that are slamming Aimee make me wonder whether they really believe they’re accountable to anyone.Even God.

    Yes you are correct.
    And yes, it has been spelled out. The following is a quote.

    Scripture alone authorizes, but the scripture that authorizes, is not alone.

    Also it has been said:

    Sola Scriptura is part of a larger pattern of authority.

  396. Jack: but it shows that literal readings of the bible don’t do justice to the richness that underlies it origins.

    I agree. Interestingly, there is an old earth creationist site that proposes the flood was local to Mesopotamia, but pretty much universal for humans since they did not migrate out of Mesopotamia until after the tower of Babel. It’s an interesting idea. See
    https://reasons.org/explore/publications/nrtb-e-zine/read/nrtb-e-zine/2009/01/01/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-part-one

  397. Jack,

    “The Genesis origin story pre-dates the Bible as we know it.”
    ++++++++++

    i also find it thought-provoking that the sacrificial system predated Israel (can’t remember the particulars at the moment).

  398. Nathan Priddis: Yes you are correct.
    And yes, it has been spelled out. The following is a quote.
    Scripture alone authorizes, but the scripture that authorizes, is not alone.

    So, my suspicions were correct.
    I’m not sure whether to feel happy about that…