History of Complementarianism – Part 2

"I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years."

Wayne Grudem

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=74363&picture=silhouette-woman-and-manSilhouette Woman and Man Profile

In Part 1 of the History of Complementarianism, we explained how a group of like-minded individuals drafted the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood under a cloak of secrecy.  This statement, which was finalized in December 1987, serves as the foundational document for complementarianism (an invented term).  It was during the secret meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts that the signatories voted to incorporate the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).  Thanks to Wayne Grudem's Personal Reflections, we have an accurate history of this movement.

NIV's Gender Neutral Bible

One of the early challenges CBMW faced was how to address the NIV's Gender Neutral Bible.  At the November 1996 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Wayne Grudem read a paper called “What’s Wrong With Gender Neutral Bible Translations?” In it he analyzed many verses in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible but didn't discuss the NIV because there were no indications of a plan to change the gender language.  In his personal reflections, Grudem revealed that he gave multiple copies of his paper to the Secretary of the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation, who planned to share them with committee members.

A few months later the issue of gender-neutral Bible translation exploded. According to Wayne Grudem's Personal Reflections:

The March 1997 issue of World magazine had an NIV Bible on the cover that was morphing into a stealth bomber, and the magazine’s cover announced that the NIV was quietly going gender-neutral. The entire gender-neutral Bible controversy resulted, and the following issue of World had an article by me analyzing several verses where I thought the British Inclusive-Language NIV (NIVI) was distorting Scripture.

Eventually Dr. James Dobson called a meeting of twelve people at Focus on the Family in late May, 1997. It included representatives from CBMW, World magazine, the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation, Zondervan (the distributor of the NIV), and the International Bible Society (the copyright holder for the NIV), and some others. But just before the meeting began, the IBS issued a statement saying they had “abandoned all plans” for changes in gender-related language in future editions of the NIV. So we thought the controversy was done and the NIV would remain faithful in its translation of gender-related language in the Bible.

Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV. They had publicly “abandoned all plans,” but privately they were going full-steam ahead. Then suddenly in 2001, they announced unilaterally they were abandoning the agreement not to publish genderrelated changes in the NIV, and they published the TNIV New Testament in 2001 and the whole Bible in 2005.

Grudem explained that the TNIV was not very successful, which he saw as 'God's protection on the accuracy of his Word in English'.  Had it not been for CBMW, there would not have been an organized way to oppose the TNIV, according to Grudem.  He went on to state:

The long-term result of that controversy, which no one expected or foresaw at the time, was a new awareness of differences in Bible translation theory in the evangelical world. The dominance of dynamic equivalence theory has clearly been broken, and the trend now is decidedly toward essentially literal translation. CBMW played a large role in that, and I am thankful to the Lord that we were able to do that.

SBC's "Baptist Faith and Message" Addendum

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood had been in existence for just a decade when it began to make significant inroads into the largest Protestant denomination in the United States — the Southern Baptist Convention.  When SBC messengers convened in 1998, they approved the addition of complementarian language to the denomination's doctrinal statement, called the "Baptist Faith and Message".  The following language was added to the 1963 BF&M:

http://www.baptiststart.com/print/1963_baptist_faith_message.html

Wayne Grudem and his complementarian colleagues 'rejoiced' when this occurred.  In his personal refiections, Grudem stated:

 This is wonderfully helpful because it sets the denomination on the right course on this issue for a generation or more to come.

Two years later the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000) was adopted at the SBC annual meeting.

That same year (2000), CBMW co-sponsored a marriage and family conference in Dallas with Dennis Rainey's Family-Life.  It would be interesting to know whether this conference was held prior to June 14, 2000 (when the BFM2000 was adopted) as well as who was in attendance.  With regard to this event, Grudem stated:

That conference had a wonderful impact with ongoing influence in terms of books published and much networking and encouragement for others.

To this day, it's all about networking… 

Grudem and Rainey went on to write a book entitled Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood, which was published by Crossway Books in 2002.  There are some familiar names in the Table of Contents.

In 2004 Grudem's 865-page book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth was published by Multnomah Books.  According to Grudem:

"It includes everything I’ve learned on biblical manhood and womanhood for the last twenty-five years."

Two years later Wayne Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism was published.  It was in this book that Grudem shared his conviction that…

Many evangelical feminists are not going to change their minds or be convinced because, it seems to me, they have repeatedly adopted principles or chosen exegetical decisions that undermine or deny the authority of Scripture. Once that abandoning of scriptural authority comes about, then a movement will not be persuaded by Scripture, and in that case, when the culture is going the other way, they will not ever be persuaded on this issue.

At the conclusion of this post, we are including a panel discussion held at one of the Together for the Gospel events entitled Complementarianism:  Essential or Expendable?  One of the panelists is Wayne Grudem's buddy John Piper, so you can imagine how the conversation goes…

In his Personal Reflections, Grudem summarizes all the accomplishments of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  (see screen shot below)

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

Even though Wayne Grudem believes CBMW has made tremendous progress promoting biblical manhood and womanhood (aka complementarianism), he points out some challenges (see screen shot below):

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

So what would be the price to pay for going down the slippery slope toward egalitarianism?

What surprised me most in Wayne Grudem's Personal Reflections was the first paragraph of his conclusion (see below):

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

What I can't believe is that Grudem and gang expected everyone to bow down and worship their sacred gender roles without any questioning.  Not only that, he infers that those who do not embrace 'blblical manhood and womanhood' as described in the Danvers Statement are impure.  

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website includes the following in their History:

CBMW has played a formative role in helping numerous denominations and organizations promote gospel-driven gender roles, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church of America. Under the leadership of leaders like Randy Stinson, Bruce Ware, and J. Ligon Duncan, CBMW increased its influence in the first decade of the 21st century, holding several major conferences on gender roles, launching CBMW.org, and publishing the Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. JBMWhas been published in journal form since 1994 and has fostered critical academic discussion of crucial exegetical, theological, and pastoral issues.

In 2015, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism, with many prominent churches, seminaries, authors, and para-church organizations joyfully celebrating God’s good design for manhood and womanhood, home and church.

CBMW is in its fourth decade of operation… God has used a once-fledgling outfit to lead many Christians and many churches to health, and we trust this work will only continue and grow by his grace.

Earlier this month it was announced that Owen Strachan, son-in-law of ESS proponent Bruce Ware (who is a close colleague of Wayne Grudem), has resigned as CBMW president.  Denny Burk is the newly appointed CBMW president.  Is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood really being blessed by God?  We think not…

Comments

History of Complementarianism – Part 2 — 1,027 Comments

  1. After I learned that the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem and the other Comp/Patriarchists were so upset by the Today’s New International Version of the Bible I knew I had to get myself a copy which just arrived. Thank you Amazon.

  2. I truly mean no disrespect to anyone but I say this because I care about people who are under Mr. Piper’s “teaching”. I think he has some serious mental health issues that he is struggling with, that is just my opinion and I am not an expert it is just what I see in his public persona. I hope he gets some help if he needs it. Thank you for the well written / researched article.

  3. And there you have it. The one thing that unites Chistians of all flavors: the subjugation of women. How very Christ-like is that?

  4. “God has used a once-fledgling outfit to lead many Christians and many churches to health, and we trust this work will only continue and grow by his grace.” – Bruce Ware

    A defender of Bruce Ware was recently posting on Tim Fall’s blog, calmly defending Bruce Ware, Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, and Comp. I was so angry at the defender’s posts, that I couldn’t read over there and post any more. I got to live through and see the real damage of CBMW at my ex-church.

    I saw:

    *Women told point blank by the pastors/elders that they were NOT permitted to protect their children from child abuse and that they must ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ to their husbands in all things, including placing their children in the hands of dangerous felons who prey upon children. (That’s a crime in my state for the mom and also for the pastors/elders.)

    *Women (including middle-aged, professional women) were literally screamed at by the pastors/elders and told to ‘obey’ and ‘submit’.

    *When a middle-aged, professional woman left my church because she thought they were nuts, the senior pastor went to her home and screamed at her in person.

    *The senior pastor/elders ordered that several hundred church members “pursue” this woman, because they had ‘worked with her’ and she ‘hadn’t obeyed’ them or her husband (who was still a member). Basically the senior pastor/elders orchestrated criminal harassment/stalking of a grown woman. She responded by moving out of the family home, disconnecting her cell phone, disconnecting her email, and making sure that even her husband didn’t know the safe location she was living at.

    *The senior pastor harmed the reputation before hundreds of church members of this beautiful Christian woman, a kind and generous person who has a special ministry with the mentally ill in group homes and with the elderly in convalescent homes.

    *Women were under oppression at my ex-church and men were arrogant and abusive.
    If they thought they could scream at women who were church members, what went on behind closed doors in the pastors/leaders’ own homes?

    *Many leaders’ wives were under a yoke of oppression and even men friends from Europe who watched my church’s activities online commented on this (and they’re long time Christians 40+) years.

    *Daughters, including college graduates, were told to obey and submit.

    *Women, and many men, went to inferior colleges like John MacArthur’s The Master’s College which doesn’t really offer a competitive education and critical thinking skills. It’s just more of honing Stepfordish/cultish behavior.

    *Young marriages, including of Stanford University graduate and undergraduate students, didn’t seem like they’d survive Comp. They were already burdened down.

    *Comp has now lead to the highest divorce rates in the nation (Barna study) when the nation’s divorce rate has been declining.

    *Comp has led to sky-rocketing domestic violence rates.

    *Comp has led to sky-rocketing incest rates.

    *Comp had led to sky-rocketing sexual abuse rates (non-relatives).

    *And Comp has caused countless people – including children – to leave the faith.

    *The Comp promoting SBC has lost a whopping 200,000 living members a year, fed up with NeoCalvinism, Authoritarianism, and Comp.

    *Comp has cost us our Gospel witness to unbelievers whom don’t want the shackles and burdens of this.

    *Conservative Christian women have sent Tweets and Facebook messages saying that Comp has no place in their lives. One woman tweeted from her tractor, where she farms thousands of acres. Comp is meaningless in her life. Another woman tweeted from her cattle ranch and said same.

    *Men – we’ve seen plenty of them here and the husbands of women who post here – have also expressed dismay and outrage about Comp teachings.

    How a couple chooses to conduct their marriage, based on the personalities, skills, gifts, that’s their business. But it’s NO ONE else’s business to tell them a formula for success and that it has to be “this way”.

  5. Yes Velour very good points. They have this high-minded apologetic but the application of it in real life just does not pan out too well.

  6. He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

    Do we need to remind him this is America?

    I almost thought to remind him we have all sorts like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, etc, but then I remembered….. they all agree with him!

  7. CBMW: the new Magesterium of the Protestant Church(es).

    I will be looking forward to a part 3 detailing the modern resurrection and rise of ESS, as well as its early detractors. Among the various questionable things to come from CBMW over the years, this one has the potential to be its downfall.

  8. Nancy 2, your comment regarding how “the subjugation of women” unites all flavors of Christians reminded me that my extensive reading here and at other blogs and websites has been so very beneficial to me in many ways!

    Not only has it benefited me personally, in helping me realize that God did indeed make me fully equal to my husband, it’s helped our relationship become one of greater respect and equality.

    It has been of incredible benefit to me as I observe and interact with other Christians in my day to day life. The “subjugation” term reminded me of how much I have learned. I never hear hear that term used. I didn’t think anyone really used it any more, mostly because they couch the same idea in a softer frame of words, like “complementarity”. But I heard it used in a discussion class last week.

    The topic was ”what does it mean to be made in the image of God?” The passage was the one in Genesis 1 (or 2?) that states God made man in his own image, male and female. Now that was a nice discussion, at least until someone mentioned God given roles of men and women, followed quickly by a retired pastor referring to how God ordained the “subjugation of women”. I heard one of the older women give a little gasp-laugh, as if to say, “you are joking about that! Right?!”

    The conversation went on, except I did something the former, younger, meeker Tree would never have done in a mixed group of well over a dozen. A group that included the older retired pastor and his wife, three middle aged or older men who are long-time elders (male, of course), and a new, young elder. The new Tree calmly but deliberately stirred the pot.

    Before it was all said and done, and thank God we had to adjourn due to preset time constraints, I had contradicted every one of the above mentioned men and the “proofs” they cited. Not for “subjugation”, only the old guy voiced that, but for the idea that God established principles of male headship, male-only leadership, wives always submitting to husbands, Biblical women’s roles and Biblical men’s roles, etc. I am sure I was being “winsome”. I am also sure those men thought I was being a rabble-rouser, which is what the young elder jokingly called me. Except I think he was not-so-jokingly reflecting the opinion of all those men!

    I even had to address a comment about how sometimes women HAVE to do a man’s job, because God can’t find a man to it, like he did with Deborah as a judge of Isreal. God simply couldn’t find any available men, you see. I wish I were kidding. Nods and murmurs of agreement from the key men. The rabble-rousing pot stirring woman said, now the scriptures don’t tell us that. They never say “why” Deborah was judge of Israel, but that she WAS. It never says that no man was available to do the job. Were there no men? At all? God used some unlikely men to be judges. Samson was no paragon of virtue and morals.

    One of the men (not an elder or any kind of church leader) affirmed a point I made. When I later thanked him for speaking up, he said he appreciated thoughtful discussion as an excellent way to learn and encouraged me to keep being a contributor. Pretty sure he was the only man with that opinion! But a number of the women later told me that they quite enjoyed the discussion, appreciated my points, and hoped I joined them again.

    Regardless of what anyone thought of me, I felt satisfied with my participation in a large-ish group, especially when I knew I would be a lone voice. I have TWW and the many contributing commenters to thank for helping me develop not only the knowledge but the confidence to speak up. That was even…dare I say it?…fun!

  9. I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man. I clearly see now the role that power seekers, controllers, and political Machiavellians with ulterior motives have in its translation. Thanks a lot, Wayne Grudem.

  10. brian wrote:

    They have this high-minded apologetic but the application of it in real life just does not pan out too well.

    “You will know them by their fruit.”

  11. Tree wrote:

    I even had to address a comment about how sometimes women HAVE to do a man’s job, because God can’t find a man to it, like he did with Deborah as a judge of Isreal. God simply couldn’t find any available men, you see. I wish I were kidding. Nods and murmurs of agreement from the key men. The rabble-rousing pot stirring woman said, now the scriptures don’t tell us that. They never say “why” Deborah was judge of Israel, but that she WAS. It never says that no man was available to do the job. Were there no men? At all? God used some unlikely men to be judges. Samson was no paragon of virtue and morals.

    Those “key men” might call you a Jezebel. I would call you wise and courageous. Keep up the good fight and help the smart ones see through the nonsense!
    Sampson? Let’s not forget that murderous Moses either! If a murderer can lead God’s people, why can’t a virtuous woman?

  12. This “scholarship” is what you get when Jesus Christ is removed from the center of biblical interpretation and the center of the Christian life. Gruden says in the OP that the issue of manhood and womanhood is a focal point of the larger issue of whether the Bible will reign supreme over the cultural pressures in the church, home and academy. Funny, I thought the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ reigns supreme over all. Yet, in their biblical interpretation and teaching, they seem to have relegated Christ to the sidelines. I may have missed it, but I don’t think I have read anything that uses the Gospels and/or the person of Jesus Christ to support their arguments. If their cause is so ironclad, shouldn’t they at least be able to get an Amen from Jesus?

  13. Challenge #3 sounds as if he's thinking a properly educated comp public will exert pressure to see that gender roles demand men only in every single role of leadership, it doesn't occur to him that for some of them passing up women violates fair work standards, the one that keeps them from being discriminated against as Christians. It's a safe bet that most will vote in a man as a presidential candidate just because he is a man, only the ones who keep comp limited to home and church would consider voting the other way if her policies more closely matched his as gender is not as important. I'm guessing the price to be paid is in Isaiah 3:12, just having a woman in leadership is a judgement that our accursed nation has gone astray, her leadership is a plague, her policies are natural disasters … it would be like trying to speed up the apocalypse by helping God to punish the world.

  14. Tedious and lengthy comment 1 of 2

    I believe I’ve used this analogy before, but:

    For a stage illusionist to pull off a magic trick, he must do something right in front of the audience without their realising it. For instance, to pull an object from a hat, he must do two things in the following order:
    1) Put the object into the hat;
    2) Pull the object out of the hat.

    To make this look like magic, he must appear to eliminate step 1. There’s more than one way he can do this. But in each case, there will be one part of the trick that is the crux – the part that takes the practice and preparation.

    Method A: Preparation
    1) Put the object into the hat before coming on stage
    2) Show the non-empty hat to the audience in such a way that it appears empty [CRUX]
    3) Pull the object out of the hat

    Method B: Misdirection
    1) Show the empty hat to the audience
    2) Put the object into the hat in such a way that the audience doesn’t realise it’s happening [CRUX]
    1) Pull the object out of the hat

    An actual magician reading this would undoubtedly be able to refine my descriptions and probably add some other methods. By the same token, a real magician wouldn’t tell, of course… anyway, the point is that in nearly every stage or close-up illusion, at some point the audience is carefully watching for a switch of some kind that has already happened while their attention was elsewhere. Either they weren’t watching the trick at all, because all the hard work went into the clever design and preparation of the props, or their attention was cleverly directed away from the working of the trick.

  15. Tedious and lengthy comment 2 of 2

    Of course, nowadays, audiences do not believe in magic; we know perfectly well that we are being fooled. But that’s the source of all the fun: we know the illusionist has fooled us, but we’ve no idea how, and that’s what’s so impressive. We’re not deceived: we know Derren Brown isn’t psychic. But we are fooled: we don’t know how he makes it look as though he were. (Brown is a good example; a little like Harry Houdini, he spends as much time exposing fakery as he does performing illusions, and he does so in a way that makes it interesting.)

    However, magic and illusion can be – for want of a better word – dangerous when performed for an audience that believes in magic. This occurred in ancient times, of course. But it also occurred during Victorian times when “psychics” and “mediums” * pretended to offer grieving and gullible people a chance to communicate with their deceased loved ones. (It was these people that Houdini was so set against.)

    This is what makes rhetorical trickery and illusionism so powerful: people want to believe that they have access to God, and to His favour. Men who seek power and status will go to great lengths to control this access: thus it is now, and thus it has always been. And incidentally, that’s why men of religion so hate the Holy Spirit: that particular Wind blows wherever He wants to, and they don’t know where He’s going or where He came from. And He doesn’t bow to them.

    * Yes, you could argue that this should be “media”, but the plural is generally “mediums” in this context.

  16. Tedious and lengthy comment 3 of 2

    So, where am I going with all this? My point is that there’s an important reveal in the claims that

    The issue of manhood and womanhood has become one of the focal points of a much larger controversy over whether the Bible will reign supreme… [and] the larger realignment in the entire evangelical world between those for whom the Bible is still the ultimate authority and those for whom it is not.

    Before the C”B”MW ever convened and held up the mis-directing sock-puppet of gender roles, they had already pulled the crucial switch behind the illusion. It’s about cutting off the Head from His Body, and persuading people to join themselves to a spiritually lifeless corpse held together by legalism. The “evangelical world” they postulate, in which the Bible is God – bolstered by the utterly false but beguiling and seductive claim that anyone who disagrees with them has rejected the Bible and God – is already a counterfeit, apostate, blasphemous caricature of God’s Kingdom, built in opposition to and rebellion against Jesus.

    Gone is the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead – the living, speaking, active Person of the Trinity making Jesus tangible in His church. Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk. Now, it’s a simple matter to use politics and showmanship to place their own puppet-monarch (gender-roles, literal translations of ancient texts, and the like) on the throne so that they get to call the shots.

  17. Velour wrote:

    Basically the senior pastor/elders orchestrated criminal harassment/stalking of a grown woman. She responded by moving out of the family home, disconnecting her cell phone, disconnecting her email, and making sure that even her husband didn’t know the safe location she was living at.

    What a terrifying world this sounds like. And in our country and in this millenium. It has ‘cult’ written all over it.

  18. I’m beginning to understand how these neo-Cal gurus took over language and re-defined commonly-used terms in new ways to serve their agendas.

    Coming from my background, any use of the word ‘gospel’ in any other context than as ‘the Good News’ is a red light, and I am seeing red lights everywhere when I read “CBMW has played a formative role in helping numerous denominations and organizations promote gospel-driven gender roles”

    ‘gospel-driven gender roles’?????

    They use the word ‘gospel’ in this reference without example, without context, and without clarification; in a way that ASSUMES everyone will see the word ‘gospel’ and accept the nonsense that follows as ‘biblical’ (ANOTHER word that is thrown around for shoring up un-Christ-like teachings)

    I would say that the initial ‘defining of terminology’ was a heads-up that heavy manipulation of the sheep was going forward on a mammoth scale, especially with the co-opting of the buzz-words ‘gospel’ and ‘biblical’. Controlling the dialogue is over half the battle.

    And they were ‘surprised’ by push-back?????

  19. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The “evangelical world” they postulate, in which the Bible is God – bolstered by the utterly false but beguiling and seductive claim that anyone who disagrees with them has rejected the Bible and God – is already a counterfeit, apostate, blasphemous caricature of God’s Kingdom, built in opposition to and rebellion against Jesus.

    Beautifully said.

  20. Christiane wrote:

    I would say that the initial ‘defining of terminology’ was a heads-up that heavy manipulation of the sheep was going forward on a mammoth scale, especially with the co-opting of the buzz-words ‘gospel’ and ‘biblical’. Controlling the dialogue is over half the battle.
    And they were ‘surprised’ by push-back?????

    I have noticed on Twitter and on blogs that people are figuring out they mean “Calvinista” when they say “gospel” or “biblical”. I don’t know that it’s getting out to churches, but it is getting out on social media.

    I don’t know if they are really surprised. Maybe some of them really do believe everyone would be so dumb as to believe everything they said, but I don’t think they’d be pushing the contracts if they really believed it.

  21. Velour – your story about your ex-church is mind boggling. You have a voice for these people, and it has been heard. I left my main stream denomination I was raised in, about 25 years ago. The then pastor of our very small church, didn’t want people to talk inside the church at all. There was to be no talking before church at all. He called it gossiping. He individually called out all of us ladies one by one and told us how wrong it was. I was so in prayer that I missed him calling my name. He didn’t know I had connections with the higher ups in the denomination, and I reported him and told what he had done. Surprisingly, we never heard anything about that pastor again as he left the church pretty quickly.

    My daughter has a lot of friends from college that married their college sweethearts. These couples went into marriage with the right attitude, but then the husbands went to the Baptist Bible college and there in began the problems. The wives became mere shadows of what they were. The vibrant outgoing women my daughter had known. I think that some of these marriages failed. This is what comp teaching does to the young. Ruins lives and marriages.

  22. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Gone is the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead

    Love your analogy! And gone is the Holy Spirit who influences those of us who are followers of Christ. This third member of the Trinity has been substituted with a cheap imitation – this throng of power-mongering leaders. 🙁

  23. Nancy2 wrote:

    And there you have it. The one thing that unites Chistians of all flavors: the subjugation of women. How very Christ-like is that?

    And my mother wonders why I’ve bagged the church…there you have it. On the other hand, my late father understood. (He’s the guy who said religion in the USA was like a river a mile wide and an inch deep.)

  24. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    You are, of course, correct. None the less that is a hard sell. People do not want a God they cannot control; they want a God who speaks only when spoken to, who ‘moves’ only in response to human petition to do so, and who is not much of a potential threat to any of their ideas or plans.

    The bible can be controlled. How so? Well, they preach the bible as the ultimate authority, but that does not answer the question as to whether they mean the KJV which the lone individual studies in private while forming his own opinions, or the bible as understood through the magisterial traditions of some officially organized religious group, or the bible as explained by the ‘anointed’ preacher in the local pulpit, or any other innovative approach they can think up. Therein lies the way to manipulate the concept of the bible as supreme authority, aka ‘the bible says.’ In this way one can say that the bible is the supreme authority while all the while the actual supreme authority lies comfortably in the hands of humans.

    Of course nothing that is said about God (think Bible) is a higher authority than God himself. But do people really want to have to deal with God himself; because when one does that there is no escaping that God is God and we are not God. It is much safer to worship the bible.

    Keep up the good work, Nick. Also known over here as ‘preach it, brother.’

  25. Some thoughts I had while watching the video:
    -Piper places a Bible and notebooks on the table in front of him as if to establish a position of superiority with the panel. At one point, when someone else begins to speak, he opens a notebook as if he isn’t interested in what the person has to say. Don’t know if this is a conscious or unconscious gesture on his part but this man wants people to know HE is the preeminent member of the panel.
    -Did Piper actually say that recognizing Gal. 2:28 lead society to gay marriage? Yep.
    -Not many 8 year old children are curious about how to be a “man” or a “woman”. I worked in an elementary school office for 11 years. Trust me on this.
    -So, as a woman, if I buy into this complimentarianism thing, I am going to flourish. Umm, what does this mean? Looked on the CBMW site and couldn’t find a definition.
    -Complimentarianism is appealing to young women by the Disneyfication (if they can make up words, I can too!) of marriage. Sorry young ladies, the whole prince charming thing isn’t what marriage is about.
    Thanks Dee and Deb for the post.

  26. @ Harley:
    Hi Harley,
    I know you’re in Texas and you mentioned your daughter’s friends husbands going to the Baptist Bible college. By that are you referring to Baylor? I’m just concerned because my husband and I are sending our son there in August. We were warned of a church in Waco that has some pretty weird ideas. What I have learned is that they are extremely Comp and authoritarian. Still looking for a good church that teaches The Word without all this Calvinista/extreme comp garbage.

  27. what I’m not getting is the CHOICE of ‘complementarianism’ …. if you think about it, the word ‘complementary’ means two parts that come together to make a complete whole;

    the way the neo-Cals use it reflects a different understanding in that they see the MALES as already having a ‘completeness’ in their ‘headship roles’ which the the women are then only qualified to submit to …… the two ‘parts’ do not come together to form a complete whole in the neo-Cal cult world, no

    the ‘two parts’ already exist separate enough to where they are so sharply distinguished in their ‘apartness’ that there is no room for melding or blending or sharing or ‘completing’ of anyone. It’s just the opposite.

    Harley wrote:

    These couples went into marriage with the right attitude, but then the husbands went to the Baptist Bible college and there in began the problems. The wives became mere shadows of what they were. The vibrant outgoing women my daughter had known.

    Harley writes about the ‘shells’ that remain of whole, vibrant women after patriarchy has worked its poison.

    IF these ‘husbands’ want to be resurrected as ‘whole’ by sacrificing their vibrant wives to a cult, I fear they are sadly misinformed. They will lose their own souls as well as bring harm down on those beautiful vibrant women they married for love. The tragedy is ‘built-in’ to the system, and the acting out of the tragedy in many different situation bears the same symptoms:
    a male ego inflated, and a women’s spirit profoundly injured

    these men cannot have ‘abundant life’ by draining it out of their wives …. these men ‘have hold of the wrong’ sacrifice (to paraphrase Flannery O’Connor)

  28. Christiane wrote:

    the ‘two parts’ already exist separate enough to where they are so sharply distinguished in their ‘apartness’ that there is no room for melding or blending or sharing or ‘completing’ of anyone. It’s just the opposite.

    That right! What about the single people? Not everyone is or wants to be married. Are singles somehow less Christian than those who are married? I think not!

  29. I know of a small Southern Baptist church that recently called a new pastor. This Non-Calvinist congregation is unware of the Neo-Cal movement (as MANY rural SB churches are).

    The SEBTS grad they called has been at the church for less than ten months, and he is already beginning to sneak this stuff in. His latest move is to offer a bi-monthly Bible study on Sunday evenings that will span two years (meeting in the fall and spring).

    And which study did he choose to do with those willing to participate?

    Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith — a condensed version of his Systematic Theology. It’s the one that Jeff Purswell, head of the SGM Pastors College and C.J. Mahaney’s buddy, edited. I had no idea that Purswell was Grudem’s teaching assistant at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

    I hope this congregation discovers Wayne Grudem is a Calvinist before the Bible study begins.  I wonder whether the pastor will have the courage to tell them.

    Do you think the pastor search committee at this church ever asked the prospective pastor whether he was Reformed? Not a chance! They didn’t know to ask, and the pastoral candidate was tight-lipped about it, despite what Danny Akin (who awarded the pastor his M.Div. degree) advised about laying all the cards out on the table before the hiring takes place.

  30. Jan wrote:

    That right! What about the single people? Not everyone is or wants to be married. Are singles somehow less Christian than those who are married? I think not!

    They say we’re either in training to be married or actively sinning against God by refusing to be married. Some of these people who’ve informed me that I was still “in training” were a good bit younger than me.

  31. brian wrote:

    I think he has some serious mental health issues that he is struggling with

    His behavior certainly mirrors that of my uncle and grandfather who developed dementia, especially the seemingly unstable emotional swings (“disproportionate emotional response”). Although to be fair, I’m not sure if his theology is suffering from his health, or the other way around. How can one believe that tornados are God’s angry judgment on middle-America without turning themselves into a flake? You can’t pretend that God is good while teaching that he is a vindictive murderer and not go crazy.

  32. okrapod wrote:

    Of course nothing that is said about God (think Bible) is a higher authority than God himself. But do people really want to have to deal with God himself; because when one does that there is no escaping that God is God and we are not God. It is much safer to worship the bible.

    The more I think about all this, the more I come to the same conclusion. All this other stuff, including complementarianism, is a distraction to keep people’s focus off Christ.

    “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” -2 Cor. 4:4

  33. Tree wrote:

    I even had to address a comment about how sometimes women HAVE to do a man’s job, because God can’t find a man to it, like he did with Deborah as a judge of Isreal. God simply couldn’t find any available men, you see

    Conveniently overlooking the fact that scripture clearly says it was God who raised up all the judges:

    Jdg 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.

    Jdg 2:18 When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge;

    Hats off to you, Tree, for your courage in challenging their false teachings!

  34. ishy wrote:

    They say we’re either in training to be married or actively sinning against God by refusing to be married.

    So what about Paul? I wonder how they would explain away the fact that he wasn’t married?

  35. has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts? and then labeled the arrows that connect according to HOW they connect (ie. ‘agreement’, exchange of money for credibility, mutual benefit of book sales, partnerships promoting ‘workshops’ that are profitable $$$$, quid pro quo and what’s the ‘quid’ and what’s the ‘quo’????

    Socio-grams can be really interesting to track who is connected to whom and, when the connections are analyzed, socio-grams can yield a mountain of data.

    Example Line from Mahaney to Mohler, labeled ‘contribution $$$$$’, Line from Mohler back to Mahaney, labeled ‘credibility granted to join SBC with my support’

    Just a thought, for any of you sociology majors out there with some time to play with this

    I got the idea from how murky the group was that came together to begin the CBMW …… and also how very, very ‘thin’ Mary Kassian’s creds are to be in a teaching role at a Baptist seminary;
    so OTHER hidden connections are at work in this strange convoluted world of neo-Cal-ism,
    and unraveling the Gorgon knot might prove to be very revealing 🙂

  36. In the late eighties/early nineties it appeared that fundamentalist Christian political power was in the ascendency. This was the heyday of Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition.

    No doubt Grudem and the authors of the Danvers Statement thought their vision of roles for men & women would be embraced not just in fundamental evangelical circles but foisted upon the rest of the nation through the legislative power that it looked like Christians were going to control.

    That never happened, the pesky Constitution kept getting in the way.

    But they were able to influence SBC and continue to do so.

    Unable to exercise their control in the wider society, the focus is now the churches (particularly evangelical & fundamentalist) and those already in them. Ultimately this is a negative cycle. People will leave, less will join.

    I don’t think that this is the “end” of Christianity but they will find their organizations diminished and disconnected.

    This will lead to smaller membership and in turn greater need to control to prevent defectors and the cycle will continue.

    Eventually there will be a reset or backlash but by then many will have left the faith.

    I speak from experience that once you cease going to church and remove religion from your life, it’s hard to go back. It just doesn’t have a place anymore.

  37. Tree wrote:

    Before it was all said and done, and thank God we had to adjourn due to preset time constraints, I had contradicted every one of the above mentioned men and the “proofs” they cited. Not for “subjugation”, only the old guy voiced that, but for the idea that God established principles of male headship, male-only leadership, wives always submitting to husbands, Biblical women’s roles and Biblical men’s roles, etc.

    Brava! Standing ovation.

  38. Velour wrote:

    they were NOT permitted to protect their children from child abuse

    When a victim finally puts together the words to tell a responsible adult what happened to them, the first question in response should NEVER be: Have you forgiven your perpetrator and built a bridge of love and grace and forgiveness with the perpetrator?

    Rather: Are you safe now with a wall of protection around you so you never have to go through this again?

  39. Christiane wrote:

    these men cannot have ‘abundant life’ by draining it out of their wives …. these men ‘have hold of the wrong’ sacrifice (to paraphrase Flannery O’Connor)

    Deb wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    Bait and Switch. 🙁

    Hi DEB,
    Yes! Only this time, it cuts very, very deep and cannot be ignored or glossed over:
    these neo-Cal men refer to ‘gospel-driven gender roles’;
    but we only have one sacrifice in our faith that yields for us abundant life and resurrection: the willing sacrifice of the God-Man Jesus Christ on the Cross, done out of God’s love for the salvation of His broken world

    The neo-Cals ‘have hold of’ the wrong sacrifice. (The paraphrase is from Flannery O’Connor’s famous line: ‘I believe that there are many rough beasts now slouching toward Bethlehem to be born and that I have reported the progress of a few of them, and when I see these stories described as horror stories I am always amused because the reviewer always has hold of the wrong horror.’

    the neo-Cal ‘leadership’ are not willing to accept the life-giving sacrifice of Christ the Kyrios; instead they look to the draining of the spirits of healthy, vibrant women to shore up a view of ‘male headship’ that is a cultic expression of the idolatry of maleness.
    Yeah, the neo-Cals have hold of the wrong sacrifice, and it is a hollow blood-letting of the spirit of women, abusive, and extremely corrosive to the spirits of all involved

    The verse: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” from Galatians is called the Magna Carta of the Human Race, because it gets the perspective right.

    The life-giving sacrifice of Our Lord has no pale imitations in forced submission to ‘authority’ at the cost of the destruction of a woman’s dreams. The men have hold of the wrong sacrifice and need to get off of their headship pedestals and return to their first love, the Lord of Life.

  40. BJ wrote:

    @ Harley:
    Hi Harley,
    I know you’re in Texas and you mentioned your daughter’s friends husbands going to the Baptist Bible college. By that are you referring to Baylor? I’m just concerned because my husband and I are sending our son there in August. We were warned of a church in Waco that has some pretty weird ideas. What I have learned is that they are extremely Comp and authoritarian. Still looking for a good church that teaches The Word without all this Calvinista/extreme comp garbage.

    Dee & her family’s former church, when they lived in Texas, is Bent Tree. Dee thinks highly of Pastor Pete Briscoe (who encouraged her to teach at the church), Pastor Joanne Hummel.

    http://benttree.org/index.php?nav=p-524949&clickpath=

    I am in California, not Texas. It looks like it’s an hour’s drive to one of the Bent Tree churches, and I don’t know if that’s too far.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/04/29/women-are-free-to-serve-without-any-restrictions-at-bent-tree-bible-fellowship/

  41. JYJames wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    they were NOT permitted to protect their children from child abuse
    When a victim finally puts together the words to tell a responsible adult what happened to them, the first question in response should NEVER be: Have you forgiven your perpetrator and built a bridge of love and grace and forgiveness with the perpetrator?
    Rather: Are you safe now with a wall of protection around you so you never have to go through this again?

    Yes.

    And I think picking up the phone and calling 9-1-1, getting an investigation, professional therapy, and even prosecution of the perp belongs at the time of the list.

    How will this child and other children be safe if the perp isn’t stopped?

  42. Christiane wrote:

    has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts? and then labeled the arrows that connect according to HOW they connect (ie. ‘agreement’, exchange of money for credibility, mutual benefit of book sales, partnerships promoting ‘workshops’ that are profitable $$$$, quid pro quo and what’s the ‘quid’ and what’s the ‘quo’????

    This occurred to me the other night.

    It’s all about the money. And the power.

  43. From the article, quoting Mr. Grudem’s Personal Reflections as the source:

    (3) Try somehow to ensure that institutions and organizations have some public accountability on this issue—that their constituencies know what is going on—and that there is a price to be paid for adopting evangelical feminist policies and positions. I’m concerned about future trends where an institution can become more and more egalitarian and there is no public price to pay, no public accountability to its supporters or members.

    I find this intriguingly prophetic, since the accountability clause has boomeranged back on CBMW. The past few months, Mr. Grudem and other theologians in CBMW are being pushed by their academic-level peers toward that same “public accountability and price to pay” that he himself advocated for institutions that embrace “evangelical feminism.” The perspectives, practices, and destructive impacts of CBMW leaders and celebrities have been brought into the light and are being challenged — particularly for those who are proponents of ESS/EFS/ERAS: Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS), Eternal Relationship of Authority and Submission.

    It must be uncomfortable for CBMW Council members and others to have their appearance of orthodoxy legitimately picked apart and, where the analysis is accurate, shown to stand outside the stream of Nicene/Constantinople Trinitarian orthodoxy.

    It must be uncomfortable to be point-blank asked publicly to either stop saying you hold a pro-Nicene view of the Trinity when you do not, or to renounce your view and embrace what the Church has held as orthodox for 1,650 years.

    It must be uncomfortable to have resumes, publications, lawsuit documents, public statements, blog posts, non-degreed studies, and various miscellaneous claims put under the microscope and scrutinized to the enth degree for all to see.

    But I guess that is the irony of Mr. Grudem’s own calls for accountability, when turned inward. It’s a mess of their own making because of the precarious emphasis of some that promotes the Danvers gender-role view, or an underlying view of ESS that misuses the Trinity to justify patriarchy, into what is functionally a first-level requirement to prove one’s supposed orthodoxy/purity/maturity.

  44. Deb wrote:

    I hope this congregation discovers Wayne Grudem is a Calvinist before the Bible study begins.  I wonder whether the pastor will have the courage to tell them.

    I hope that congregation also has an even more candid discussion about Wayne Grudem's trinitarian heresy: The Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son and cuts ties to all of his teachings, and deals with their fan-boy pastor.

  45. On the origin of the word “Complementarian,” in the video included in the post at 3:08, John Piper says:

    I don’t know who thought it up, but it came into being.

    Well now, well now, what of this!?

    Mary Kassian claims she came up with the word “Complementarianism”.

    Could it be John Piper is being dishonest here? Could it be he knows Mary Kassian proffered the word but refused to acknowledge her?

    If Kassian is being honest, and her claim is true, I can imagine why Piper happened to “forget,” can’t you?

    John Piper needs to add to his list of “don’ts” for women. Here’s how I’d imagine he’d say it:

    I, John Piper, Doctor of Theology, declare, that no woman may invent words that are spoken by men and used to define theological concepts.

    We, as men, take fill credit for defining doctrine. The ESS is an example of how accurately we are able to handle the Word of God.

    Upon our oath as men and rulers, we must not acknowledge the contribution of women in the realm of theology, especially as regards concepts men, exclusively, teach and preach. Use of words invented by women negate the premise of a teaching, for who can build on a foundation laid by a female?

    We must not allow the use of words invented by women to flourish, even in the slightest! For what male among us can claim their existence itself is derived from that of a woman? I dare say none of us!

  46. Lydia wrote:

    He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

    He also has placed himself in the role of the Holy Spirit in peoples’ lives and he wonders why it’s gone so terribly wrong.

  47. The Old Covenant (Testament) was full of rules and regulations. It was also full of male kings of Israel and Judah who did evil in the sight of God and led God’s people astray. God has been using my reading of the OT to show me that unconditional submission to male leadership is wrong. As a female who once was under Comp theology for decades, this realization has brought freedom.

    The New Covenant (Testament) is full of grace and truth in the person and deity of Jesus. Gone are the rules & regulations because He completely fulfilled them, knowing that we couldn’t. Hallelujah! Galatians 5 discusses our freedom in Christ. We are “called” to be free. This is a high & holy calling that Jesus purchased for us on the cross. “Stand firm then & do not let yourself be burdened by a yoke of slavery.”

    I believe that women and men have different roles in marriage, but as an earlier person stated, the day-to-day practical working out of this needs to be determined by each couple. The rigid submission rules taught by Comps is a “yoke of slavery.” The Holy Spirit needs to lead & guide each one of us to fulfill Christ’s command to love God & love one another. We need to submit to His leading and not become slaves of men.

    I’m curious–What do the Comps do with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)?

  48. Regarding gender language: if the original language uses a word or phrase that technically says “man” (or similar) but in context refers to both women and men, then in English we need to use language that makes clear the reference to both men and women. That’s what good translators do.

  49. Lowlandseer wrote:

    @ Deb:

    The conference took place in March 2000, shortly after which Crossway published a book, also co-sponsored, with all the usual suspects.

    http://www.downloadpreken.com/artikelen/A053.pdf

    Thanks for this info!

    Since the BFM2000 was adopted at the SBC annual meeting a few month later (June 14, 2000), I assume there was another secret meeting by this crowd around the time of that conference to get the wording just right. :-(

  50. Lydia wrote:

    He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

    Then he does not accept they thing he preaches-the authority of the local church. Each church or denomination decides on this issue. Bent Tree Bible, Pete Briscoe, believes women can be pastors. If he says this means there is no accountability, then he is really saying that only he gets to decide who is correct in their theology.

    Piper and his BFFs have a real problem on their hands.

  51. On the Healing Journey wrote:

    The Old Covenant (Testament) was full of rules and regulations. It was also full of male kings of Israel and Judah who did evil in the sight of God and led God’s people astray.

    Men have misled people? Surely that has never happened where a woman was not to blame, right?

    Adam would never have sinned if Eve had not given him the fruit.

    Cain would not have murdered his brother unless a female wood nymph had not whispered the suggestion in his ear.

    Lamech would not have initiated the practice of polygamy if women had not been so darn cute.

    Moses would not have struck the rock unless he had been provoked by a woman who nagged him to do so.

    Ahab would have stopped coveting Naboth’s vineyard if Jezebel hadn’t egged him on.

    David would never have done it with Bathsheba if she had just skipped her shower that day.

    And the list goes on. Clearly there’s always a woman to blame which is why men only should preach and teach.

    Joseph Smith started a cult only because his wife sent him out every day, ordering him to dig up some gold to feed his family.

    Mohammed robbed and murdered people because his wife was bored and she needed him to come back home with more interesting stories.

    R. Ron Hubbard decided to create Scientology because he figured then, and only then, the ladies might find him attractive.

    If men fail in application, a woman is also to blame!

  52. On the issue of eternal subjugation of women, Mormon women have even more to worry about, as their Latter Day Saints’ Doctrine and Covenants supports “sealing” in marriage for eternity. This includes polygamy if a man has had more than one wife during his lifetime. See “Mormon women fear eternal polygamy, study shows,” by Jana Ries, posted by Religion News Service earlier this week.

    http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

    This fascinating article on the destructive theological and psychological impact of the eternal polygamy view is timely for the ongoing hyper-complementarian debates, which (for some theologians) includes a belief in women being eternally subordinate to men just as, in their view, Jesus the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.

    There are always personal, emotional, social, and spiritual consequences to doctrine … *always*.

  53. What bothers me most about the Grudem quotes is how uncharitable he is to the other side (egalitarians). That whole implicit assumption that they make the Church impure by their views. This isn’t as clear an issue from Scripture, and he–above all people–ought to know that.

    As a young(er) minister, I used to agree totally with Grudem on complementarianism. However, I have gained more life experience and find that position more and more troubling in light of all the unhealthy power dynamics that seem intrinsic to such a position.

    Plus, I certainly do not think God is honored in these matters when one set of Believers points vitriol at the other side as if they aren’t trying to honestly follow the Bible as well.

  54. Christiane wrote:

    ‘gospel-driven gender roles’?????

    Luke 4:18 – “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.”

    Truly “gospel-driven gender roles” = egalitarianism.

  55. @ Jamie Carter:
    Russ Moore is actually doing the opposite and he is a Mohler minion. The article linked to Mohler on the last thread is typical Mohler deflection. A ruse.

  56. On the Healing Journey wrote:

    I’m curious–What do the Comps do with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)?

    Simple. The “reverence for Christ” part of the verse only applies to women, who must follow the example of Christ and be eternally submissive.

    Men, on the other hand, are, I guess, like the Father, who is submitted to.

    So, “submit to one another” in complementarian terms simply means the woman submits, and the man benevolently and respectfully receives her submission, like the Father receives the Son’s submission and obedience.

    Duh. Isn’t that obvious? 😛

  57. Christiane wrote:

    has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts?

    Sounds like you just volunteered! 😉

  58. Nancy2 wrote:

    And there you have it. The one thing that unites Chistians of all flavors: the subjugation of women. How very Christ-like is that?

    This article makes me angry. And so sad. That men, and yes it is men, were so incredibly threatened by the idea of women who weren’t under their God given winsome thumbs they concentrated all of their time money and power on this. This!

    And grudem even writes that he realized some men might go too far, and latch onto this to hurt women, but he clearly didn’t care enough to do a thing about it! Maddening.

  59. wrote:

    On the Healing Journey

    Also, one must remember that love apart from marriage is about equality, but the second that marriage band is slipped on the finger, love becomes a matter of roles and who’s the boss!

  60. @ Jan:
    Piper is a drama queen. It is one of the many things that turned me off about him many moons ago, in addition to his bizarre doctrines. The young guys love his affectations and strive to emulate them.

  61. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    You can’t pretend that God is good while teaching that he is a vindictive murderer and not go crazy.

    This concerns me about the entire movement for the near future.

    I think it works for the young for quite a while who don’t question what they are taught in youth group or Seminary. They are not exactly turning out deep thinkers. Yet, some will eventually think about it. I have already seen a few who were rabid Calvinistas become rabid atheists and leave ministry. The sad irony being atheism is deterministic, too.

  62. ishy wrote:

    All this other stuff, including complementarianism, is a distraction to keep people’s focus off Christ.

    Bingo!

  63. @ Tim:

    Of course. But the problem comes in determining what the original author meant in the context of a particular statement and the context of what the overall teaching was and the context of the culture and language of the time and the context of what the author could reasonably believe that the target audience would think he meant.

    So, the comps can think that the context was one thing and the egals can think that the context was something else, and this way we seem to keep getting back to where we started. I absolutely agree with you about what translators should do when they can, but I am not at all convinced that we know as much as we need to know in order to achieve a reliable level of accuracy in doing that in all instances.

  64. “and in that case, when the culture is going the other way, they will not ever be persuaded on this issue.” Grudem.

    I am curious. Is there anyone here who was once convinced by their own reading of scripture and/or upbringing that egalitarianism is biblical, that changed to an interpretation of hierarchy?

  65. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    There are always personal, emotional, social, and spiritual consequences to doctrine … *always*.

    So true. I literally turned a part of my brain off, which is hard to recover from. It takes a lot of time to recapture a part of you that went AWOL, almost like what happens to a person injured in an accident and has to learn to walk again.

    Complementarianism is very damaging to women. But that’s the point of it: to get women to shut down and turn off.

  66. @ okrapod:
    Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

  67. @ Tree:

    “Before it was all said and done, … I had contradicted every one of the above mentioned men and the “proofs” they cited. …

    I even had to address a comment about how sometimes women HAVE to do a man’s job, because God can’t find a man to it, like he did with Deborah as a judge of Isreal. God simply couldn’t find any available men, you see. I wish I were kidding. Nods and murmurs of agreement from the key men. The rabble-rousing pot stirring woman said, now the scriptures don’t tell us that. They never say “why” Deborah was judge of Israel, but that she WAS. …

    One of the men (not an elder or any kind of church leader) affirmed a point I made. …he said he appreciated thoughtful discussion as an excellent way to learn and encouraged me to keep being a contributor. … a number of the women later told me that they quite enjoyed the discussion, appreciated my points, and hoped I joined them again.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    TREE LEADS THE WAY, SHOWING THE MEN AND WOMEN IN HER CHURCH HOW NOT TO BE A LEMMING

  68. Jamie Carter wrote:

    It’s a safe bet that most will vote in a man as a presidential candidate just because he is a man, only the ones who keep comp limited to home and church would consider voting the other way if her policies more closely matched his as gender is not as important

    I tweeted to SBTS and Bruce Ware last night that I hope that all of the women in their families who espouse Comp don’t vote in ANY elections. I told them that they complain so bitterly about “liberals” and “rights”, when in point of fact it was the hard work of the women in my family who were “liberal” for their times who worked very hard to get the 19th Amendment (womens’ vote) to the U.S. Constitution passed.

    I was raised with elderly women in my family who told us stories about what it was like to be in graduate school in university and NOT have the right to vote.

    Since the Comps are so hostile and unappreciative, then by all means — sit out your ‘right’ to vote that some ‘liberal’ who believed in ‘egalitarianism’ got you.

  69. @ brad/futuristguy:

    Great points. As we have seen over the years, the accountability was to have flowed up their human food chain starting with a “proper” local church, elders then on up to the academic gurus. A systemic control operation. Many denominations have some variation of this sort of hierarchical form of accountability for practices.The SBC was a problem because they did not.

    So, depending on the issue, SBC churches are autonomous or a denomination. We know that some local SBC affiliated associations kicked out SBC churches for having a woman pastor. When it comes child predators or leaders who protect them, SBC churches are autonomous. The inconsistency has caused many a debate over the years. Mohler has worked hard to use autonomy by planting his indoctrinated minions in SBC entities and churches.

  70. @ Velour:
    They are actually doing the opposite. Is no one paying attention to Russ Moore, the official political spokesman for the SBC? He has gone public many times questioning the salvation of those Christians who would dare vote for the male on the ticket. He is in line with the liberals on this issue! The old lines of left right, liberal conservative
    are gone.

  71. okrapod wrote:

    I am not at all convinced that we know as much as we need to know in order to achieve a reliable level of accuracy in doing that in all instances.

    Or to build entire theologies based on one or two unclear passages, especially that seem to be contradicted elsewhere.

    Their biggest flaw is that 90% of their core theology is based on about 5 verses.

  72. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts?

    Sounds like you just volunteered!

    I’m on pain meds from surgery, so I’m out. But it’s a great idea. 🙂 So i offer it for someone who knows a lot more and has their head on straight. Actually, I think it would be a HUGE project, because the ‘tentacles’ reach out everywhere, and not all of them are visible because of all the secrecy (and where there’s secrecy, you’ve generally got a lot of hidden malarkey)

    Nice ploy, Doctor, but nope.

  73. On the Healing Journey wrote:

    I’m curious–What do the Comps do with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)?

    Some complementarians say that there is a form of mutual submission by both spouses to each other even though the male is still boss.

    Others, like CJ Mahaney teach that never ever should the Bible be interpreted to mean any kind of mutual submission in marriage. That’s why Paul changed the topic to marriage at verse 22.

    I believe that thinking is one reason ultra complementarians like CJ go out of their way to express such submission to other leading men and pretend that they really do have a servant rather than boss attitude toward their sheep. They spend way to long in mushy introductions at gatherings to show how they obey verse 21. After all that rule following submission, they feel relief by ruling their domains after a hard day at the church office.

  74. Deb wrote:

    @ siteseer:

    Please don’t allow this man to negatively impact you.

    Totally agree. Let’s keep exposing their faulty reasoning and interpretations and their faulty methodology which is not conservative at all. They claim to be bound by the authority of the Bible, but really they use it as a tool to advance their real agenda–their own authority.

  75. ishy wrote:

    Or to build entire theologies based on one or two unclear passages, especially that seem to be contradicted elsewhere.

    Yes, that too.

  76. Tim wrote:

    Regarding gender language: if the original language uses a word or phrase that technically says “man” (or similar) but in context refers to both women and men, then in English we need to use language that makes clear the reference to both men and women. That’s what good translators do.

    YES.
    This is true in my tradition, which celebrates the dignity of the human person as made in the image of God and is worthy of respect for that reason alone.

  77. Paula Rice wrote:

    On the origin of the word “Complementarian,” in the video included in the post at 3:08, John Piper says:

    I don’t know who thought it up, but it came into being.

    Well now, well now, what of this!?

    Mary Kassian claims she came up with the word “Complementarianism”.

    Could it be John Piper is being dishonest here? Could it be he knows Mary Kassian proffered the word but refused to acknowledge her?

    How very interesting. Right in character, isn’t it?

  78. Tree wrote:

    One of the men (not an elder or any kind of church leader) affirmed a point I made. When I later thanked him for speaking up, he said he appreciated thoughtful discussion as an excellent way to learn and encouraged me to keep being a contributor. Pretty sure he was the only man with that opinion! But a number of the women later told me that they quite enjoyed the discussion, appreciated my points, and hoped I joined them again.

    Many people have never heard anything but this Party Line, so they assume it is true and Biblical. They really do appreciate discussions which are not exchanges of groupthink. Those who are insecure in themselves or their beliefs cannot tolerate Bereans in their midst, and that shows the weakness of their position.

    Attagirl, Tree!

  79. Lowlandseer wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

    But wouldn’t this mean that God would have to also completely control every translator for over a millennia? What about all the illiterates throughout history? In some cases it was verboten for a lay person to own scripture. What about language differences? Latin only in Mass in medieval Germany as one example? In so much of history, scripture was kept from the masses as a magical book only the priests understood. Even in Calvins Reformed Geneva, differing translations/interpretations were not allowed. Castilio is one very sad example of this stance.

  80. Lydia wrote:

    But wouldn’t this mean that God would have to also completely control every translator for over a millennia

    Not just “over a millenia”.
    Exactly 1611 years, until the reign of Kynge Jaymes.

  81. Paula Rice wrote:

    Well now, well now, what of this!?

    Mary Kassian claims she came up with the word “Complementarianism”.

    Could it be John Piper is being dishonest here? Could it be he knows Mary Kassian proffered the word but refused to acknowledge her?

    Keeps the WOMAN from becoming too “muscular”.

  82. Lowlandseer wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

    God’s Word is wonderful, but it is more complex than meets the eye. If our English versions were ‘clear’ than why do we have to study the meanings of the texts in Greek and Hebrew? Why do we have to put them in their contexts and learn about history?

    The word “yom” in Hebrew, in the creation story, has 58 different meanings, including “a long time”. How can we have a “clear” understanding of the English Bible if we don’t understand the Hebrew meanings?

    The Greek texts say that a woman will be saved by “the Childbearing”, a noun, which refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus and salvation coming through Him. Bible translators changed this word to a verb “childbearing”. Big difference between a noun and a verb.
    Many people are, rightly, confused by this passage in English Bibles and it makes no sense. And they’re right. Because it’s supposed to be a noun.

    Paul wrote to Timothy that there was one woman (“the woman”) teaching one man error.
    Paul didn’t want to humiliate her, he wanted her to learn correctly first before she taught someone else. (That would be true of a man teaching error as well.) Paul’s sentence in the Greek text, referring to this one woman and not to all women for all time in the Christian church, was changed by Bible translators: “I don’t permit a woman to teach.” Paul NEVER wrote that.

    Paul didn’t want women wearing pearls and elaborate clothing in the church. There was a temple in the community to a pagan goddess and it was commonplace as part of that tradition for women to dress up with pearls. Paul didn’t want those pagan traditions to be part of the church and for those women to leave that behind. He wasn’t saying that women could never dress up, never wear pearls.

    The Holy Spirit does guide us in understanding God’s Word. But a ‘clearer’ understanding of God’s Word is also obtained through study.

  83. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Before the C”B”MW ever convened and held up the mis-directing sock-puppet of gender roles, they had already pulled the crucial switch behind the illusion. It’s about cutting off the Head from His Body, and persuading people to join themselves to a spiritually lifeless corpse held together by legalism. The “evangelical world” they postulate, in which the Bible is God – bolstered by the utterly false but beguiling and seductive claim that anyone who disagrees with them has rejected the Bible and God – is already a counterfeit, apostate, blasphemous caricature of God’s Kingdom, built in opposition to and rebellion against Jesus.

    Bears repeating over and over again. Great insight and analogy for what is really going on!

  84. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    How can one believe that tornados are God’s angry judgment on middle-America without turning themselves into a flake? You can’t pretend that God is good while teaching that he is a vindictive murderer and not go crazy.

    Doublethink, Comrade, Doublethink.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

    “We are for the withering away of the state, and at the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of the state which have existed up to the present day. The highest development of the power of the state, with the object of preparing the conditions of the withering away of the state: that is the Marxist formula.”
    — Comrade Stalin, Dictator of Russia

  85. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It’s about cutting off the Head from His Body, and persuading people to join themselves to a spiritually lifeless corpse held together by legalism.

    In That Hideous Strength, didn’t the Transhumanists of N.I.C.E. worship the Head?

  86. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    But wouldn’t this mean that God would have to also completely control every translator for over a millennia
    Not just “over a millenia”.
    Exactly 1611 years, until the reign of Kynge Jaymes.

    You would think God would have determined they not kill each other over who was in control!

  87. Lydia wrote:

    But wouldn’t this mean that God would have to also completely control every translator for over a millennia? What about all the illiterates throughout history? In some cases it was verboten for a lay person to own scripture. What about language differences?

    If we accepted that God preserved translations, then we have to accept that the Watchtower translation is also preserved. I’m sure most Christians who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses with “a high view of Scripture” would not accept their translation as “preserved”.

    I don’t want to trust men to read and interpret the Bible for me. I can read Greek, and that alone has taught me that translators often translate their bias. We do not have original manuscripts, but we can learn to trust the speaking of the Holy Spirit into our lives. And no one Christian has any more Holy Spirit than someone else, whether they listen or not. After all, we have to give an account for how we followed God, not how we followed other men.

  88. @ On the Healing Journey:

    I just wanted to say I love this comment!! The ot authority didn’t work, Jesus showed us a new way of freedom. These men are trying to claw it away from us and we can’t let them.

  89. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Of course, nowadays, audiences do not believe in magic; we know perfectly well that we are being fooled. But that’s the source of all the fun: we know the illusionist has fooled us, but we’ve no idea how, and that’s what’s so impressive. We’re not deceived: we know Derren Brown isn’t psychic.

    Not even Born Again Bible Believing Spiritual Warriors?
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/07/24/tutorial-for-naive-christians-its-just-an-illusion/

    When ex-carny Anton LaVey was running his Church of Satan con, there were two groups who swallowed everything he said:
    1) “Bored Aristocrat” CELEBRITIES, his target Marks.
    2) Born-Again Bible-Believing Christians.

  90. @ Deb @ dee:

    “I’m gonna keep hammering the comp crowd from as many angles as possible.

    These manipulators MUST BE EXPOSED!”

    A hearty Hoorah!! Yes, keep that hammering going!!

    Yes, this junk, crap, error, heresy–needs to be continually exposed. It sounds soooo smooth and biblical, but alas, it is a cunning snare to beguile the unwary. It works at dismantling Christ’s Kingdom principles and replaces it with falsehood, distress, and disaster!

    Each of us has our task at hand–to continue to do our part to dismantle the foolishness of man with the truth of the Real Gospel!

  91. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear.

    If that was His intention then (a) there ought to be chapter and verse that states that, (b) Jesus example of speaking in parables was an error on His part since He explained it as a way to keep some people specifically from understanding what He meant, (3) God dropped the ball in not ensuring that we understand about women and head coverings or women and saved (in, by, though, during???) childbirth and (4) we would expect to see those who believe that having some level of agreement with each other on various issues, when in fact there are more opinions than there are people about just a lot of stuff.

    But, yes, I think that the pastoral epistles are clear enough including in talking about the internal working of the church that we can at least have some skeletal framework on which to built some functioning units for the purposes of church, when church is defined as community of believers.

  92. @ Jack:

    “I don’t think that this is the “end” of Christianity but they will find their organizations diminished and disconnected.

    This will lead to smaller membership and in turn greater need to control to prevent defectors and the cycle will continue.

    Eventually there will be a reset or backlash but by then many will have left the faith.
    I speak from experience that once you cease going to church and remove religion from your life, it’s hard to go back. It just doesn’t have a place anymore.”
    +++++++++++++++

    the end of christianity? far from it. The vine and the branches are alive and well ex-institution.

  93. Deb wrote:

    The SEBTS grad they called has been at the church for less than ten months, and he is already beginning to sneak this stuff in. His latest move is to offer a bi-monthly Bible study on Sunday evenings that will span two years (meeting in the fall and spring).

    And which study did he choose to do with those willing to participate?

    Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith — a condensed version of his Systematic Theology.

    How refreshing would it be if they started digging into the actual Bible text in their Bible study! Can graduates of SEBTS even do that? Can they derive their doctrine through studying the Bible or do they have to use Grudem to bottle-feed the congregation the approved infant formula?

  94. Lydia wrote:

    He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

    Do we need to remind him this is America?

    Until he Takes Back America for Christ, establishes the Holy Republic of Holy Gilead, and HOLDS them all Accountable(TM).

  95. siteseer wrote:

    How very interesting. Right in character, isn’t it?

    Maybe he has selective memory issues? Because it sure seems like he selects certain verses out the bible and forgets others, like all the ones that comprise the New Covenant.

  96. Lydia wrote:

    Latin only in Mass in medieval Germany as one example?

    Gosh Lydia, I grew up with the Latin mass (sermons in the vernacular, though).

    I still sometimes pray the old prayers in Latin (a little bit in Greek), without even realizing it. And yes, I do know the ‘meanings’. It all changed with Vatican II. No more carrying missals (prayer books) to mass. No more veil head covering. (I still have my chapel veil from high school.) The old ways in the old people die hard.

  97. Gram3 wrote:

    Can graduates of SEBTS even do that? Can they derive their doctrine through studying the Bible or do they have to use Grudem to bottle-feed the congregation the approved infant formula?

    Hey! Not all of us are Calvinistas! 😉

    10 years ago there were very few Calvinists at SEBTS. So I’d just be careful of the very recent graduates.

  98. It’s funny how Grudem encourages others to publish in order to outnumber egalitarians and feminists, as if their were many egalitarian resources available at most Christian institutions. From my own experience, when I first encountered complementarianism and patriarchy, I honestly thought those were the only two biblical options. Christian radio stations gave them airtime, Amazon carried all the books, I found blogs by the dozen where women actively spent time writing posts which contained profuse apologies for the “evils” of the female sex and glorifying husbands actively.

    Even my Aunt actively insisted her husband was her “head”, even though it was plainly written on her face that it was killing her.

    It took me a good long time to find any articles, books, pastors (or blog queens for that matter) who discussed egalitarianism.

  99. Paula Rice wrote:

    Men, on the other hand, are, I guess, like the Father, who is submitted to.

    Except when they are supposed to be like Jesus to their wives, then he’s in charge again!

  100. “I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years.” (Wayne Grudem)

    Dear Wayne, the New Calvinist movement has precipitated a lot of controversies! The blogosphere is abuzz with your antics. I’m sure you and your colleagues thought you could slip in under the radar and conquer mainline Christianity within ten years, but some of us got in your way. Don’t fret too much though, you have largely accomplished your mission in SBC. I think you will find that TWW and other watchblogs are onto your schemes and will continue to push back against the new reformation because it is wrong in both method and message.

  101. @ dee:

    “You sound like me. Whoever they hate something, I buy it to see why!”
    +++++++++++++++

    reminds me of a commercial a few years ago about “Plastic”. The wonders of PLASTIC. The peaceful beauty of life as a result of PLASTIC.

    a public service announcement paid for by the plastics industry.

    seemed pretty obvious that plastic had recently gotten some very bad press.

  102. Lowlandseer wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

    You are supposed to be listening to the Holy Spirit for that to work, not piper, or grudem…

  103. siteseer wrote:

    I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man.

    I have had to deal with my own faith as I have thought about how man uses the Bible for his own purposes. I take a big picture approach to the story. The story, from the beginning, tells of a loving God who cared for his created humans in spite of their obstinacy. That is why Jesus came.

    Grudem and others look at the Bible through their own lenses which appear to include the submission on all women in eternity. Jesus knew that men would do this sort of nonsense and warned us about it. Step back from the ever ridiculous parsing of verses on the Trinity- as if mankind could ever fully understand such a being. Instead, focus on His love and his willingness to forgive us all and fight on!

  104. @ Barb Orlowski:

    I swing a hammer pretty well, and I'm left-handed. 😉

    In all seriousness, I HAVE FLAT OUT HAD IT! (And yes I am yelling!!!)

    For the foreseeable future, ALL of my posts will be laser-focused on the Comp crowd.

  105. ishy wrote:

    After all, we have to give an account for how we followed God, not how we followed other men.

    Yes!!! Even Paul said to follow him as he followed Christ. I have always taken that to mean that if what he is doing does not seem to line up with God, then do not follow him.

    But if Paul has preached and gone before us in the right way of following Christ, then he is someone to be persuaded by toward our own following of Christ, which is a much more accurate leadership translation of Hebrews 13 which authoritarians ignore.

  106. Harley wrote:

    My daughter has a lot of friends from college that married their college sweethearts. These couples went into marriage with the right attitude, but then the husbands went to the Baptist Bible college and there in began the problems. The wives became mere shadows of what they were. The vibrant outgoing women my daughter had known. I think that some of these marriages failed. This is what comp teaching does to the young. Ruins lives and marriages.

    Do you know how many stories that we have heard like this?

  107. @ brad/futuristguy:

    “There are always personal, emotional, social, and spiritual consequences to doctrine … *always*.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    never thought about it like that. but yes, true.

    i see an ever-growing prudence in paring down doctrine in quality and quantity.

    my doctrine, at ground zero:

    *God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are as available as air
    *treat people the way i want to be treated

  108. Lea wrote:

    Except when they are supposed to be like Jesus to their wives, then he’s in charge again!

    Yes, because the man takes on the form of a servant like Jesus did, empties himself sacrifically on behalf of his wife, is then risen from the dead, seated on his throne, and restored to his position of reigning over her. Amen?

  109. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Gone is the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead – the living, speaking, active Person of the Trinity making Jesus tangible in His church. Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk. Now, it’s a simple matter to use politics and showmanship to place their own puppet-monarch (gender-roles, literal translations of ancient texts, and the like) on the throne so that they get to call the shots.

    A heartfelt amen and applause from this old sod Nick!

  110. @ Divorce Minister:

    “As a young(er) minister, I used to agree totally with Grudem on complementarianism. However, I have gained more life experience and find that position more and more troubling in light of all the unhealthy power dynamics that seem intrinsic to such a position.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    i would be interested in hearing/reading a post written by you detailing the experiences, observations that led to this process.

  111. @ ishy:

    You bring up another point. God has the power to have preserved the originals. All of them. He just does not operate that way. That is on US, not Him.

    I am not endorsing this guy in the video below but I think he makes excellent points on the overall subject of scripture. In my view, turning the pre enlightenment scripture into the Holy Spirit, literal club or manual has taken away from it’s timeless beauty and our ability to grapple with it. When we dive into the different literary devices the ancients used to communicate across a 1000 years, we discover the very important larger theme of Gods Rescue.

    https://vimeo.com/86521708

  112. elastigirl wrote:

    The vine and the branches are alive and well ex-institution.

    Not so sure about that. This blog attracts people of faith but if I didn’t visit it, I would have zero religion in my life. My wife goes to church but we don’t generally discuss religion. Absence does not necessarily make the heart grow fonder. I’m not alone in my circle of acquaintances.

  113. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk.

    Permission to shamelessly plagurize this?

  114. “This is wonderfully helpful because it sets the denomination on the right course on this issue for a generation or more to come” (Wayne Grudem re: acceptance of complementarian language in the BFM2000 revision)

    The New Calvinists were obviously targeting the next generation of Southern Baptists with their input on the unnecessary revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000. The statement has multiple changes to the 1963 version which trends the denomination toward Calvinist belief and practice. The New Calvinist movement is all about indoctrinating Generation Xers and Millennials with reformed theology, knowing that the non-Calvinist majority within SBC will be passing from the scene in a few years as older generations pass the baton to younger folks. In the meantime, the reformers have been busy putting New Calvinist leaders in place at SBC entities (seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house). A pretty smooth strategy actually – I’ll give them that much. “Wonderfully helpful” as Grudem would put it.

  115. Muff Potter wrote:

    Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority –

    Yes, that is correct, the bible is the ultimate authority in which exists nary a verse that is unreliable to the beliefs and practices of the true Christian faith.

    It is only when you find people straying from the truth, as revealed in the bible, do you discover every form of error and false teaching.

  116. @ Tree:
    I would have loved to have been present for that conversation. I am so proud of you and grateful that you comment here!

  117. @ Christiane:

    You do understand I was speaking of history and scripture and the masses involved as a response to lowlanders’ view on the authority of scripture. Lots of people left out of the equation from early on by both Catholics and later the Reformers. No need to be offended. It is a historical fact. We are now free now to buy our own bibles and study them! Praise God!

  118. ishy wrote:

    Their biggest flaw is that 90% of their core theology is based on about 5 verses.

    And they are not sure about the meaning of many of the clobber verses and their contexts. It is really quite amazing that they are sure that women are prohibited from teaching men but they do not know what “saved by/through childbearing” means other than it does not mean what it plainly says. They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived. It is really quite astonishing once you actually start to test what they are saying.

  119. Lydia wrote:

    He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

    Do we need to remind him this is America?

    Do we need to remind him that God gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us unto all Truth, not Wayne Grudem?! Dr. Grudem filters selected Scripture through a systematic theological grid to make it fit the tenets of Calvinism – that’s all he knows to do. He has theo-political blinders on and is missing what God is saying to His church about the issues he writes so extensively about. Sad to see such a smart man waste his life chasing this stuff. God could use him in His Kingdom.

  120. siteseer wrote:

    I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man.

    Forget Grudem … get alone with Jesus. Find a quiet place for a season, pray for wisdom, and read the Word in huge chunks … God will meet you there.

  121. siteseer wrote:

    I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man. I clearly see now the role that power seekers, controllers, and political Machiavellians with ulterior motives have in its translation. Thanks a lot, Wayne Grudem.

    He’s just a man, who will pass away, but the Word of God abides forever. Don’t let a guy like that shake your faith.

    “The LORD’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined.” Psalm 12:6

  122. siteseer wrote:

    I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man.

    Faith (certainty) in anything other than the very person of Messiah is easy pickins’ for a well place charge or two of C4 to its support members.

  123. Muff Potter wrote:

    siteseer wrote:
    I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man.
    Faith (certainty) in anything other than the very person of Messiah is easy pickins’ for a well place charge or two of C4 to its support members.

    A hearty Amen!

  124. @ Muff Potter:
    The Messiah and the Word are synonymous. Diminish one you diminish them both together. That’s what the Bible teaches us in John chapter 1.

    But hey, if the Bible isn’t your guide, you can pick, choose, or add your own interpretation. Mormons have done it, for example. And anyone can become their own man-made religion, walking around with their glamorous designer faith they flatter themselves with as if they’re full of imagination.

  125. Lydia wrote:

    Lots of people left out of the equation from early on by both Catholics and later the Reformers. No need to be offended. It is a historical fact.

    Hi Lydia,
    I’m not offended, just sharing. The thing is, before printing presses, the masses did not read for the most part (and most women, even among the upper classes, did not read). So the cathedrals became teachers of the gospels using stone and carvings and stained glass, and the great plays and celebrations of the ‘holy days’ acted out the dramas of the bible stories. IF a Church was lucky, it might have a copy of the sacred Scriptures, or a portion of them. It is not without some meaning that the Reformation came after the printing presses. Access and opportunity played a great role in the Reformation, yes. I’ll take the rest of my comment over to the ‘Discussion page’

  126. Gram3 wrote:

    They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived.

    Okay. I give up. Please explain it to me why Paul was not referring to the creation and fall stories in Genesis by that statement? I mean, how more plainly could he have said it?

  127. @ Paula Rice:

    I think scholarship shows us the Word is Christ. Scripture is usually referred to as scripture in scripture except for what some pesky translators changed.

  128. @ On the Healing Journey

    “I’m curious–What do the Comps do with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)?”

    Yah. Like the husband and wife give up membership in Christ’s Body when they marry? i.e. the “one anothers” (previously posted here) don’t apply any more in the marriage relationship?

    Not.

  129. Max wrote:

    Forget Grudem … get alone with Jesus. Find a quiet place for a season, pray for wisdom, and read the Word in huge chunks … God will meet you there.

    Amen!!

  130. @ Lydia:
    Funny, then, how the preaching of it is to coupled with signs and wonders. Funny how that’s supposed to work. Now, why would that be?

  131. @ Christiane:

    Yes, and one must not forget that Latin was not only the ecclesial language of the Church but was also the language of the universities and the language/vocabulary of both law and medicine. The Vulgate was a translation into the common language (vulgar language) of the time.

  132. @ Paula Rice:
    I am further confused about early Gentile converts for whom the Jewish scripture meant very little. The Judaizers were concerned about that, too, ironically as they had their own interpretation of such.

  133. What has God allowed CBMW to accomplish?
    (1) To define a standard – the Danvers Statement – that is faithful to the bible, so there are not 1000 conservative views on this issue….
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    interesting irony, in that the Danvers Statement itself has yielded ‘1000 conservative views’ amongst its proponents on what it means in theory and practice.

  134. @ okrapod:
    What about the masses of illiterates who had to have the priest to interpret meaning? Even Martin Luther admitted he rarely studied scripture as an Augustinian monk and majorly changed his mind when finally studying Romans.

  135. @ Lydia:
    I’m not suggesting anything. Jesus Christ performed signs and wonders in demonstration of the fact that He is the Truth, God Almighty.

    He is the Word of God incarnate, and like His life, that was fully and completely inspired, so is all of Scripture.

    Where you discover Scripture being preached in fullness and power, the Bible says there is to come along with that a demonstration of signs and wonders, just like what was performed in and through the man Jesus Christ.

    Why? Because the Word of God and Jesus Christ are inseparable. Don’t split hairs with the whole Word vs Scripture thing. It’s not supportable. Where Scripture is preached, Jesus is manifest, and signs, wonders, and miracles are intended to occur.

    Why do you think when men like an Al Mohler or a CJ Mahaney preaches that NOTHING happens? That nothing occurs. Why was something like T4G was entirely forgettable? When did you fall off the wagon and start drinking the old wine?

  136. What has God allowed CBMW to accomplish?

    (3) To act as a key player in stopping what was in 1985 a floodtide of evangelical feminism sweeping through the evangelical world almost completely unchallenged. (But even though it is no longer a flood, there is still a steady stream of egalitarianism flowing through the evangelical world, and it continues to harm marriages and the church.)
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm…. egalitarianism continues to harm marriages and the church…. huh….. Wayne Grudem said it, so therefore it must be true.

    what a ridiculously unqualified statement. talk about propaganda!

    NOTICE TO CHRISTIAN LEADERS WHO BASE THEIR LEGITIMACY ON FAMOUS NAMES: if you bought this, you’re a lemming.

  137. @ Lydia:
    The Jewish Scripture? Not sure what you’re referring to. The law?

    Judaism, by the way, was a fairly new religion in Jesus’ day. It wasn’t the religion of Abraham, Moses, and the 10 Commandments, etc. It was based on the traditions of the Scribes and the Parise especially who, incidentally, wanted Jesus DEAD.

    Romans says a righteousness APART from the law was revealed in Jesus Christ. That’s what made the Gentiles dance and sing, Lydia – and the Judiazers mad as h#ll.

  138. Piper is incoherent in the video. He acknowledges the Gospel proclamation by women in China and the global South, but says that Gospel proclamation will be harmed in the long term unless there is a male voice proclaiming the Gospel. ???? He does say that Female Subordination is an essential, but then says that the Gospel needs protections like Female Subordination. The church which is the “pillar and bulwark” of the Gospel will “malfunction” without it. So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?

  139. Reposting a previous comment of mine ~`

    Isn’t it just like fallen nature to develop a doctrine of male entitlement based on

    1. “I’m the oldest/first-created.” 2. “I sinned second.”

    3. “She’s the second.” 4. “She sinned first.”

    Therefore: Men rule everywhere, in every way, at all times, forever and ever, Amen. God said so.
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Missing the whole message of God’s SALVATION here, much . . . . Kids?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature.” 1 Corinthians 14:29

  140. Lowlandseer wrote:

    I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear.

    He might have done so. We don’t know, as we don’t have original texts. We do know that man has had his hand in transcribing the texts for centuries.

  141. okrapod wrote:

    Okay. I give up. Please explain it to me why Paul was not referring to the creation and fall stories in Genesis by that statement? I mean, how more plainly could he have said it?

    I don’t think anybody has said that Paul is not referring to the creation narrative in the famous (infamous?) Timothy passages. I think this whole imbroglio revolves around why it’s there. Is it to issue a neo-Mosaic (with Paul as a new Moses to the Gentiles) statute which silences women, or is it to refute a pagan myth in and around the environs of Ephesus? Which is the simpler solution?

  142. okrapod wrote:

    Please explain it to me why Paul was not referring to the creation and fall stories in Genesis by that statement?

    I believe he was referring to the Creation narrative. But what is not clear is how he connects that to his ban on females doing whatever they were doing while teaching at Ephesus.

    If he is saying that they cannot do that because the Man was created first, then we should expect to find some indication in the Creation narrative that God appointed the Man to be the Teacher/Leader. But that is not what we find in the text of Genesis.

    If he is saying that women should not teach/lead because the Woman was deceived and fell into sin, then I think that is a non-sequitur unless we assume it is more damaging to sin due to deception than to sin intentionally and knowingly.

    That is the problem in my view. I don’t think Paul is appealing to the supposed Order of Creation nor to the idea which others infer from his statement that women are supposedly more susceptible to deception. Paul used Eve as a type of all people–male and female–who were being deceived in the church at Corinth, so it seems unlikely to me that he sees Eve’s deception as being typical only of women.

  143. Muff Potter wrote:

    Is it to issue a neo-Mosaic (with Paul as a new Moses to the Gentiles) statute which silences women, or is it to refute a pagan myth in and around the environs of Ephesus? Which is the simpler solution?

    Lol

  144. Lydia wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    I am unclear on how your comment disproves my point about scripture as final authority not being historically problematic?

    Hi Lydia,
    I was sharing some history as I understood it, but I wasn’t ‘disproving a point’ …. technically, we don’t have the original autographs, and we are all dependent on what we do have that, even when taken together at ‘biblehub’ site, we can see that there are differences in translations that are significant.

    In my tradition, we do believe this one MAJOR point about sacred Scripture: that there is within Scripture enough information for people to be able to find God and salvation, even if the translations of the translations of the translations are a bit mangled . . . something remains, and that something can bear fruit

    I honestly don’t know what Protestant people do to resolve the ‘authority’ issue regarding a much-translated Bible as reference. I do know my own Church’s teachings, but that does’nt ‘cross over’ into communities of faith that do not have teaching magisteriums.

    I once asked, if two members of the same Church, see a passage of Scripture in a different light, how does this get resolved. But no answers came. I’m not sure there are any answers, unless it’s consensus. ‘Consensus’ is a more workable way to examine Scripture within the whole Body of Christ. But is ‘consensus’ always ‘inerrant’????? I don’t think so, no.

  145. @ Muff Potter:
    Yes, that is it, IMO. But the cultural and historical context into which Paul was speaking gets ignored despite the long narrative in Acts of Paul’s experience with the followers of Ephesian Artemis.

  146. But there remain some challenges, and I would encourage younger pastors and scholars who support CBMW in the following ways:

    (1) Play offense and not just defense. ETS is an excellent place for many young scholars to do that…” –Wayne Grudem
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I found this article on CBE. Very thought-provoking.

    A Question Mark Over My Head
    Experiences of Women ETS Members at the 2014 ETS Annual Meeting

    From page 11:

    “David Howard, a complementarian professor of Old Testament at Bethel Seminary and the 2003 ETS president, explained that the nominating committee process has become “somewhat of a coordinated effort” and “somewhat more politicized.”45

    Dan Treier, a systematic theology professor at Wheaton who describes himself as egalitarian in some respects and soft complementarian in others, said, “Not only has there been an attempt to keep women off the board, but there has been an attempt to stack the board with complementarian males and to keep egalitarian males out of the picture.

    Another male complementarian who has been in leadership explained what he saw at play: “There are very strong complementarian forces that prevent women from getting on the nominating committee. . . . This subculture, this machine, is working at full force. These people want to control it.

    My opinion? Complementarian pastors and ‘scholars’ has taken Wayne Grudem seriously on this point of his. Wayne Grudem has prompted the creation of a society of male supremacist theology dix.

  147. okrapod wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    Yes, and one must not forget that Latin was not only the ecclesial language of the Church but was also the language of the universities and the language/vocabulary of both law and medicine. The Vulgate was a translation into the common language (vulgar language) of the time.

    I know. My godmother is of Russian (Ukrainian) descent and they pray using a Byzantine liturgy (not in Latin). There are at least sixteen ‘rites’ within the Catholic Church, only one of which is the Latin rite, so there is quite a variety representing all of the five major centers of the Church as it spread out from Jerusalem. I think the most beautiful of all the liturgies is that of St. John the Divine, which is Eastern.

    The Church my godmother grew up in did not pray in Latin, but it was a Catholic Church …. just of Russian heritage in its ways of praying.

  148. elastigirl wrote:

    interesting irony, in that the Danvers Statement itself has yielded ‘1000 conservative views’ amongst its proponents on what it means in theory and practice.

    🙂

  149. ION:

    Setting aside the secondary issues of fundamental human rights and humanity’s eternal destiny before its Creator, and moving onto Cricket…
    Joe Root’s commanding double-century has given England every chance of salvaging a draw from the second Test at Old Trafford. In reply to England’s 589-8 declared, Pakistan were 57-4 at the close, 332 runs from saving the follow-on.

    For newer Wartburgers who are unfamiliar with Cricket, the follow-on occurs when the second team in are bowled out for more than 200 runs less than the first team in got before getting out (or, in this case, declaring so as to put the second team in before they themselves were all out). This saves the first team in from having to guess how long to stay in for the second time before trying to get the second team in out, also for the second time. Thus, when the first team in are in for the second time, they can press home their advantage from the first innings because they know exactly how many runs they have to score and how long they have left in which to score them, in their second innings.

    IHTIH

  150. My simplistic understanding of 1 Timothy 2:13 – 15:

    Yep. Adam was first.

    Yep. Eve sinned first.

    So what? (Greek: 1161 dé (a conjunction) – on the other hand, moreover, indeed now . . . , on top of this . . . , next .)

    Women are SAVED
    (Greek: sózó: to save used principally of God rescuing believers from the penalty and power of sin – and into His provisions (safety).)

    End of story.

    i.e. What part of Christ’s SALVATION does not cover every aspect of Adam and Eve’s transgression?

  151. Grudem’s postulate is that the family unit and the church are harmed by egalitarianism. Where I believe he may be failing is equating egalitarianism with secular feminism. Also how much is cultural conservatism dictating biblical theology in all of this? I am a social conservative, but I wouldn’t want my cultural beliefs to influence my biblical interpretations. It might produce something like ESS, for example.

  152. @ Paula Rice:

    Word (capital W) and word (lower case w) are not synonyms. That is why we use upper case W for one and lower case w for the other. In fact, to try to make them synonymous is the logical fallacy of equivocation. That would be to use the same word which has two different meanings thusly:

    1. The Word is God.
    2. The bible is the word.
    3. Therefore the bible is God.

    Nope, that is using the term ‘word’ in both the first and second premises but the meanings of that word are not the same.

    Example:

    1. Aristotle was Greek.
    2. Greek is a language.
    3. Therefore, Aristotle is a language.

    Same word but different meanings.

    The Word which was in the beginning with God and was God is a person. The bible is the inspired word of that God now in written form, but is not a person and is not that God itself.

  153. @ Daisy:
    There is a school of thought that Paul was a widower. Since he had been a member of the Sanhedrin marriage was one of the requirements.

  154. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Setting aside the secondary issues of fundamental human rights and humanity’s eternal destiny before its Creator, and moving onto Cricket…

    Perhaps, for you, there’s a relationship here of some kind. Perhaps not. Or maybe it’s unconscious or subliminal. Whatever the case may be, sports are fun and interesting, but can also be, for some, a hiding place for misogyny.

    Like, “Hey guys, I’m just having a bit of fun here with my sports updates, but I’m just adding this to the discussion as a demonstration of my male bravado!” 😛

    Which is fine if that’s what you feel compelled to do. Just pick a real sport next time why don’t you? haha

  155. okrapod wrote:

    So, the comps can think that the context was one thing and the egals can think that the context was something else, and this way we seem to keep getting back to where we started. I absolutely agree with you about what translators should do when they can, but I am not at all convinced that we know as much as we need to know in order to achieve a reliable level of accuracy in doing that in all instances.

    It’s not subjective in many cases. There are portions of the Scriptures where the underlying language is in fact referring to BOTH sexes, but male biased translators go with the masculine only, even though the original language is referring to men and women collective, not just men.

    There are other male-biased translation of other words in the text, too.

    Rethinking Male-Centered Translations of the Bible
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/05/04/rethinking-androcentric-translations-of-the-bible/

  156. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    I find this intriguingly prophetic, since the accountability clause has boomeranged back on CBMW. The past few months, Mr. Grudem and other theologians in CBMW are being pushed by their academic-level peers toward that same “public accountability and price to pay” that he himself advocated for institutions that embrace “evangelical feminism.”

    Great catch. They are being held to their own standards by others.

  157. Patti wrote:

    I am curious. Is there anyone here who was once convinced by their own reading of scripture and/or upbringing that egalitarianism is biblical, that changed to an interpretation of hierarchy?

    I had the opposite experience.

    I used to be a complementarian but the more I looked at the Bible, the more contradictions I saw in it by using a complementarian understanding.

  158. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    There are always personal, emotional, social, and spiritual consequences to doctrine … *always*.

    Definitely.

    But most complementarians (maybe outside of Aimee Byrd and one or two others) don’t want to acknowledge that fact, or, they continue to place doctrine above people, even when they’ve been shown and told repeatedly that the fruit of that doctrine is bad.

    I wrote a little bit about that here:
    ‘Doctrines, Theological Views, and Biblical Hermeneutics Have Real-Life Consequences – Personal Experience Vs. Sola Scriptura’
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/doctrines-theological-views-and-biblical-hermeneutics-have-real-life-consequences-personal-experience-vs-sola-scriptura/

  159. Christiane wrote:

    I honestly don’t know what Protestant people do to resolve the ‘authority’ issue regarding a much-translated Bible as reference……I once asked, if two members of the same Church, see a passage of Scripture in a different light, how does this get resolved. But no answers came

    Well, I don’t want anybody to be lacking in answers so I will supply some. As to the first question the answer is that they do not resolve the ‘authority’ issue. As to the second question the answer is they do not get it resolved.

    This is not to say that there are not a lot of proposed solutions, but it does mean that agreements are not reached either by authority or by consensus. Individuals continue to hold differing opinions and continue to believe that the have the personal inner witness of the Holy Spirit for whatever that opinion is.

    Something is amiss about this process.

  160. 1 Timothy 2:13 – 15 still . . .

    Seems to me Paul is refuting objections to women’s full inclusion as members of Christ’s Body.

    Maybe word play with the term “childbearing?” The word in verse 15 is only used that once in the Bible.

    I’m thinking the meaning of that particular word — to the recipients of the letter — included a reference or implied meaning of “the birth of the Child” (meaning Jesus, of course).

    Maybe a reference to God’s promise (right when dealing with Adam and Eve at the fall) that He would give them the Deliverer (i.e. the person who would deliver both of them from the plight/falleness/sin wherein they now found themselves) through the painful childbearing of Eve

    — emphasizing the fact that the Redeemer/Christ was born of the WOMAN’S seed, not the man’s.

    Maybe an implied reminder of Mary’s joyful willingness in the “childbearing” of the Savior through whom even the men are salvaged, i.e. without the woman’s “childbearing” the men would not be saved, either.

    Also, I’m wondering if maybe an indirect reminder of the angel Gabriel’s message to “highly favored” Mary, the mother of Jesus.

    Imo, Paul was brilliant.

    These are just my musings, welcoming further illumination, correction, understanding.

    We all know how we kind of make up words out of other words — like transforming Google into “googling.” Better examples are escaping me at the moment.

    My impression is that the word “childbearing” in v15 might be Paul’s own coined word which aptly highlighted God’s truth about the whole
    women-and-the-fall discussion.

  161. Curious as to why there are no ‘receptive’ women on the panel who can vouch for the beauty of complementarianism as they too, live it out!! How is it that only men can speak to this? This makes me nauseous, couldn’t watch the whole thing! I’ve tried to speak to this in my church, but male leadership refuses to take me seriously. We are not even SBC

  162. @ okrapod:

    So, does this logic of yours inform you to regard the bible as authoritative or not?

    Do you believe the bible is absolutely reliable, and is to be regarded as Holy Scripture, used by Christians throughout the centuries as the one book we are to use as the basis of our faith and practice?

    Where does sound doctrine come from? Is that something we are to invent ourselves from a source that, perhaps, contradicts Scripture?

    Where does your faith in God depart from that which is found in the Bible?

    Are you suggesting that the Bible is not fully and completely inspired, and is not the sole authoritative source we are to draw from for teaching and instructing people about who we are, the reason for the existence of the cosmos, and God’s plan of redemption?

    Do you profess to be a bible-believing Christian, or not? Or are you professing to be a Christian who doesn’t believe that the Bible deserves to be regarded as a holy, inspired book that is holy like God is holy? Or us it a lower form of holiness that is not on par with the holiness of God?

  163. trs wrote:

    My simplistic understanding of 1 Timothy 2:13 – 15:

    Yep. Adam was first.

    Yep. Eve sinned first.

    So what? (Greek: 1161 dé (a conjunction) – on the other hand, moreover, indeed now . . . , on top of this . . . , next .)

    Women are SAVED
    (Greek: sózó: to save used principally of God rescuing believers from the penalty and power of sin – and into His provisions (safety).)

    End of story.

    i.e. What part of Christ’s SALVATION does not cover every aspect of Adam and Eve’s transgression?

    How about the Holy Spirit? Does the third person of the Trinity have any influence over both genders of Christians or not???

  164. okrapod wrote:

    This is not to say that there are not a lot of proposed solutions, but it does mean that agreements are not reached either by authority or by consensus.

    maybe it’s not a win-lose thing ….. supposing people see the same thing from different perspectives and each share witht he other what they have seen . . . they don’t ‘agree’, because their perspective is different, their experience of what they are observing is not going to be the ‘same’ as the other

    But supposing, in sharing, they each contribute to the other some information that enriches their own understanding of what is being observed, and in the end, the sharing between the diverse perspectives becomes a win-win?

    I think ‘diversity’ in the Church needs to be reconsidered and re-evaluated. Currently my own Church has been for some years re-examining the contributions of Martin Luther to the whole Body of Christ. And it is yielding some interesting results.

    You see, Okrapod, if some of the Calvinists who had misgivings about the ESS theory had spoken up SOONER, then maybe, using the way the Church works best, some re-evaluation might have been done by Grudem, Ware, et al . . . . but a lot of time went by and it almost looks as if these non-ESS Calvinists were giving the ESS folks enough rope to hand themselves …… that is NOT the way the Church works together, no.

    Maybe ‘collegiality’ is a better term than ‘consensus’, because there is respect and there is a care to listen and to contribute and help and offer an honest opinion when matters of disagreement arise. Sadly for the ESS crew, they have been made to look like fools, and it was other Calvinists who were involved in that.

    I like that term ‘collegiality’ as a go-to way for the Body of Christ to work together, yes. This pattern offers a way for diversity to SERVE the Body and build it up, not fracture it further.

  165. Forgot to add:

    The Greek in 1 Timothy 2:15 says, ” . . saved through THE childbearing …”

    Again — possibly a reference to God’s promise of THE birth of THE CHILD through THE woman’s seed.

    Again — I see a play on words, for whatever that’s worth. lol

  166. @ elastigirl:

    Regarding Wayne Grudem’s effort to incite an offensive (and let’s be literal about it: an attacking military campaign) at the ETS:

    Again, from the A Question Mark Over My Head
    Experiences of Women ETS Members at the 2014 ETS Annual Meeting
    :

    “The 2014 annual meeting attendance comprised seven percent women, which included all three levels of membership, exhibitors, and spouses.”

    A female who attended the ETS Annual Meeting remarked, “If a huge majority of ETS theologians hold to the view that women are complementary to men in God’s design, then they should be troubled at the prospect of looking at the text without female eyes. . . . This is the key word. You can’t have seven percent women and say [she started chuckling] we believe in the complementary relationship.

    I think the complementarian militants haven’t have a logic problem. They haven’t really thought things through.

    (at least not with their minds & brains… maybe with some other body part, i dunno)

  167. @ Deb

    Totally.

    I’m not sure I understand your question. Thanks for asking so I can clarify.

    The Holy Spirit indwells every believer. No question.

    I think Paul’s point in the 1 Timothy verses is that who was created first and who sinned first matters absolutely not at all in the Church. Salvation applies equally and totally to every believer.

    God’s salvation restores the fall’s messed up relationships.

  168. Daisy wrote:

    But most complementarians (maybe outside of Aimee Byrd and one or two others) don’t want to acknowledge that fact, or, they continue to place doctrine above people, even when they’ve been shown and told repeatedly that the fruit of that doctrine is bad.

    I wrote a little bit about that here:
    ‘Doctrines, Theological Views, and Biblical Hermeneutics Have Real-Life Consequences – Personal Experience Vs. Sola Scriptura’
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/doctrines-theological-views-and-biblical-hermeneutics-have-real-life-consequences-personal-experience-vs-sola-scriptura/

    This is one of many thought-provoking quotes I found in your post, Daisy:

    Complementarians indulge in use of personal experience and personal anecdote quite a bit, yet they will condemn non-complementarians who mention their own personal experiences to illustrate an idea or argument.

    The bottom line still remains true, whether complementarians like it or not: doctrine can and does have real-life consequences on people. Our personal experiences, our lives, are influenced by what we believe and what we are taught.

    In the current dialogues where those who are Reformed/Calvinists are challenging the hyper-complementarians, there seem to be at least two lines of inquiry. One is about pro-Nicene/Constantinople orthodoxy in Trinitarian theology, versus attempting to justify human gender roles with Eternal Subordination of the Son and related doctrines long rejected as non-orthodox.

    The other is about orthopraxy. In the long-noted absence of detailed commandments or descriptions in Scripture of how complementarianism is “supposed” to work, there’s been a trail of attempts to fill in the abstractions with personal stories. However, there is also sufficient evidence from the narratives available to at least conclude there are some severe problems in practice with CBMW-type teachings. So, proponents are being called out on their apparent ignorance, denial, and/or deflections related to how hyper-complementarian doctrines create a direct line to various forms of control, abuse, and violence toward women and girls especially — and how it diminishes the humanity of men and boys as well.

    As one writer put it in way back in the 1980s, “Ideas have legs.” Or, as I would say, Our worldview leads to our world-do. Doctrines have real-world consequences.
    It seems the hyper-complementarians, or whatever they are choosing to call themselves, have not been doing so well in responding to either of those two lines of challenge in recent days …

  169. @ Jack:

    “Absence does not necessarily make the heart grow fonder. I’m not alone in my circle of acquaintances.”
    +++++++++++

    i completely agree.

    my main point is that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are very findable without the man on the stage with the mic, the dozen men wearing ‘pastor’ hats, the loud band on the stage, the home group, the small group, the life group…

    A lively 2-way exchange between human and God/Jesus/Holy Spirit happens ex-institution. I mean, it’s available.

  170. ishy wrote:

    And no one Christian has any more Holy Spirit than someone else, whether they listen or not. After all, we have to give an account for how we followed God, not how we followed other men.

    I have learned more from Sojourner Truth, who had been a slave, about God than I have ever learned from Wayne Grudem & Co.

  171. Paula Rice wrote:

    Perhaps, for you, there’s a relationship here of some kind. Perhaps not. Or maybe it’s unconscious or subliminal. Whatever the case may be, sports are fun and interesting, but can also be, for some, a hiding place for misogyny.
    Like, “Hey guys, I’m just having a bit of fun here with my sports updates, but I’m just adding this to the discussion as a demonstration of my male bravado!”

    I worked for Yorkshire Cricket in England and I appreciate Nick’s updates.
    (I got the job through a relative that worked for them and I got to tour all over England and stay in nice hotels. It was a lovely experience. They were lovely, humble, gracious, kind people.)

    I’m in California

  172. Velour wrote:

    I have learned more from Sojourner Truth, who had been a slave, about God than I have ever learned from Wayne Grudem & Co.

    you will love this:

    “TRUTH: stronger than fiction 🙂

    An excerpt from “Ain’t I a Woman” by a woman six-feet tall

    “There were very few women in those days who dared to “speak in meeting”; and the august teachers of the people were seemingly getting the better of us, while the boys in the galleries, and the sneerers among the pews, were hugely enjoying the discomfiture, as they supposed, of the “strong-minded.”

    When, slowly from her seat in the corner rose Sojourner Truth, who, till now, had scarcely lifted her head. “Don’t let her speak!”gasped half a dozen in my ear. She moved slowly and solemnly to the front, laid her old bonnet at her feet, and turned her great speaking eyes to me. There was a hissing sound of disapprobation above and below. I rose and announced“Sojourner Truth,” and begged the audience to keep silence for a few moments.

    The tumult subsided at once, and every eye was fixed on this almost Amazon form, which stood nearly six feet high, head erect, and eyes piercing the upper air like one in a dream. At her first word there was a profound hush. She spoke in deep tones, which, though not loud, reached every ear in the house, and away through the throng at the doors and windows.

    “I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me!

    And a’n’t I a woman?

    I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear de lash as well! And a’n‘t I a woman? I have borne thirteen chilern, and seen ’em mos‘ all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And a’n’t I a woman?

    “Den dat little man in black dar, he say women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wan’t a woman! Whar did your Christ come from?” Rolling thunder couldn’t have stilled that crowd, as did those deep, wonderful tones, as she stood there with outstretched arms and eyes of fire. Raising her voice still louder, she repeated, “Whar did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him.” Oh, what a rebuke that was to that little man.

    Turning again to another objector, she took up the defense of Mother Eve. I can not follow her through it all. It was pointed, and witty, and solemn; eliciting at almost every sentence deafening applause; and she ended by asserting: “If de fust woman God ever made was strong enough to turn de world upside down all alone, dese women togedder (and she glanced her eye over the platform) ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now dey is asking to do it, de men better let ‘em.” Long-continued cheering greeted this. “’Bleeged to ye for hearin‘ on me, and now ole Sojourner han’t got nothin’ more to say.”

    Amid roars of applause, she returned to her corner, leaving more than one of us with streaming eyes, and hearts beating with gratitude. She had taken us up in her strong arms and carried us safely over the slough of difficulty turning the whole tide in our favor. I have never in my life seen anything like the magical influence that subdued the mobbish spirit of the day, and turned the sneers and jeers of an excited crowd into notes of respect and admiration. Hundreds rushed up to shake hands with her, and congratulate the glorious old mother, and bid her God-speed on her mission of “testifyin‘ agin concerning the wickedness of this ’ere people.”

    Source: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda J. Gage, eds., History of Woman Suffrage, vol. I (Rochester, N. Y: Susan B. Anthony, Charles Mann, 1881), 114–17.

    Narrative of Sojourner Truth”;
    a woman who said ‘womens is ‘comin up’ and they bringin the mens up with them’ 🙂

  173. @ Judy:

    “I’ve tried to speak to this in my church, but male leadership refuses to take me seriously. We are not even SBC”
    +++++++++++++++

    seems to me it’s time to no longer take them seriously.

  174. Velour wrote:

    I worked for Yorkshire Cricket in England…

    Bah goom!

    Velour also wrote:

    I’m in California

    NotCerne Abbas? Gosh. You learn something new every day.

  175. @ Christiane:

    I do not think that they want to listen or interact or modify their thinking or such. They want to win out over the other persons’ ideas. A side angle to this is that it creates a huge industry for books, lectures, one more seminary or bible college, one more mega church with a little different take on things, etc. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained through disagreement.

  176. Divorce Minister wrote:

    As a young(er) minister, I used to agree totally with Grudem on complementarianism. However, I have gained more life experience and find that position more and more troubling in light of all the unhealthy power dynamics that seem intrinsic to such a position.

    Nicely said.

  177. okrapod wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    I do not think that they want to listen or interact or modify their thinking or such. They want to win out over the other persons’ ideas. A side angle to this is that it creates a huge industry for books, lectures, one more seminary or bible college, one more mega church with a little different take on things, etc. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained through disagreement.

    That is sad. I suppose the spirit of ‘collegiality’ only works well among people of good will.

  178. Christiane wrote:

    @ Christiane:
    Sorry, for length. Pain meds are working. Overtime. Tomorrow I will behave. Love to all.

    Praying for you friend. Feel better.

  179. Christiane wrote:

    “Den dat little man in black dar, he say women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wan’t a woman! Whar did your Christ come from?” Rolling thunder couldn’t have stilled that crowd, as did those deep, wonderful tones, as she stood there with outstretched arms and eyes of fire. Raising her voice still louder, she repeated, “Whar did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him.” Oh, what a rebuke that was to that little man. – Sojourner Truth

    Thank you so much for posting that speech from Sojourner Truth. So inspirational.

  180. Gram3 wrote:

    It is really quite amazing that they are sure that women are prohibited from teaching men but they do not know what “saved by/through childbearing” means other than it does not mean what it plainly says. They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived.

    Looks like not only “the Woman” has been deceived.

  181. @ Paula Rice:

    That is a heap of questions there. I am an episcopalian. I believe that the scripture is sufficient in itself for all things pertaining to salvation. I believe in prima scriptura but not sola scriptura. The methodist belief in this area is quite similar and perhaps almost identical. This belief about scripture is somewhere between catholicism and protestantism. Here is a link. It is a tad lengthy but quite readable.

    https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/06/10/the-anglican-way-scripture-first-but-not-alone/

  182. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I worked for Yorkshire Cricket in England…
    Bah goom!
    Velour also wrote:
    I’m in California
    NotCerne Abbas? Gosh. You learn something new every day.

    I did look up the Cerne Abbas village yesterday. Quiet lovely and the carvings in the hillsides.

    I didn’t have a glamours job at Yorksire Cricket. I sold their merchandise to fans
    from the mobile shop.

    I don’t have a complete grasp of cricket, yet. But I do have a complete grasp of the lovely food and tea times that I had there.

  183. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk.

    Like the Egyptian Priests make the statues of their gods speak via hidden voice-tubes?

  184. trs wrote:

    Also, I’m wondering if maybe an indirect reminder of the angel Gabriel’s message to “highly favored” Mary, the mother of Jesus.

    Luke’s Magnificat is the most beautiful and comforting thing I’ve ever heard. It is good news that stands on its own sans all baggage. No other holy book on the planet even comes close for gut resonance and sheer hope for all people.

  185. Paula Rice wrote:

    Romans says a righteousness APART from the law was revealed in Jesus Christ.

    I agree with this. Not sure what the problem is. The early converted Gentiles did not have Romans. At least Not all of them.

  186. Further,

    I believe 1 Timothy 2:12 does not in any way apply to relationships within the Body of Christ. Rather, Paul is disputing a type of governance that completely controls people.

    From what I can tell, “authenteó” (in that verse) refers to a form of extreme authoritarianism — the kind without any accountability.

    (The Inquisition and John Calvin are a couple of examples that come to mind.)

    Imo, in English, the sense of the sentence is more like:
    I do not permit any woman either to teach or to practice (this godless, pagan form of extreme authoritarianism which may even involve killing human beings).
    OR

    “I permit a woman neither to teach nor to practice (exercise) authoritarianism, (i.e. complete control over another person).”

    Imo, a person can’t understand what Paul is saying here without understanding what authenteó means.
    ~~~~

    Here’s a context for this verse that works for me.

    Imagine if a non-believer had been present during the Ananias and Sapphira incident. Not understanding the working and power of the Holy Spirit, a person could conclude that the Apostles had complete control over the disciples — even to the point of ordering their deaths.

    What if outsiders witnessed women and men worshiping Christ together as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians — through the Spirit-empowered gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    They attributed the power and authority of the Holy Spirit to the participating individuals instead of to God (Whom they could not see).

    Perhaps the women were the focus due to the pagan cults that operated in that city at that time. Maybe cultists wanted to know how they, too, could exercise that kind of power and “control” . . . maybe especially over men.

    So . . . Paul, in the context of the passage which is about worship, inserts a disclaimer which is verse 12.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I’ve been delving into the “women keep silent” assumptions and my brain just comes up with this stuff, which obviously needs refinement and reality checks.

    And this place is GREAT for that — for thinking and civil feedback, that is.

    Apologies for the length.

  187. Velour wrote:

    Praying for you friend. Feel better.

    Thanks, Velour

    surgery was Monday, and yesterday was the WORST, but it is easing up some today, so I can relax with the pain meds . . . now I’m not used to them, so I noticed a lot more run-on writing (well, more than usual) …. sorry for that

    I’m glad you liked the excerpt about Sojourner’s speech. I think she was magnificent. Thanks again for prayer. God Bless!

  188. @ Velour:

    Any job connected with Yorkshire Cricket is glamorous in its own way… As regards not having a full grasp of cricket – well, that’s fine of course, because neither does anybody else!

    I won’t lie – I know very little about Cerne Abbas, though I used to like Dorset (my grandmother lived there a while back). It was the first place that came to mind whose initials were “CA. 🙂

  189. Paula Rice wrote:

    Do you believe the bible is absolutely reliable, and is to be regarded as Holy Scripture, used by Christians throughout the centuries as the one book we are to use as the basis of our faith and practice?

    The statements all seem very powerful, either this or that. You’re in or you’re out. You’re right or you’re wrong. You believe God, or you’re some kind of heathen.

    In my opinion, it’s not that simple.

    There are two branches of my family that are polar opposites: Russian Orthodox Christians and Presbyterians. They have Bibles. And their faith traditions interpret some things the same and some very differently.

    At the end of the day, I watch for the fruit: Does this person show the Royal Law of Love toward others no matter what denomination of Christianity they follow.

    Lots of people at my former NeoCalvinist church know their Bibles. And many of them are also the most loveless, hateful, awful people I have ever met. They might as well as take their Bibles and toss them in the trash. Because what is the Bible if you haven’t been transformed by God?

  190. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Any job connected with Yorkshire Cricket is glamorous in its own way… As regards not having a full grasp of cricket – well, that’s fine of course, because neither does anybody else!
    I won’t lie – I know very little about Cerne Abbas, though I used to like Dorset (my grandmother lived there a while back). It was the first place that came to mind whose initials were “CA.

    Yorkshire Cricket. Yes, I learned from fans that any job connected to it was glamorous. I also had to have people tell me, “Do you know who was just talking to you?” Anyway, I had just chatted with some world famous cricket star and had no clue who they were. It was all in good fun. I told them I was from California…and I had no clue what it was all about, but I’d do my best to follow along and learn.

    The C.A. village looks lovely. How nice that you were able to spend time in that area when your grandmother lived there.

  191. @ Muff Potter

    Agreed.

    Undeniably — the Good News is stand-alone GOOD NEWS, and beautifully spoke at that.

    The great thing about Truth is that Truth can never be a lie and the lie can never be the Truth — no matter what, no matter who.

  192. Judy wrote:

    Curious as to why there are no ‘receptive’ women on the panel who can vouch for the beauty of complementarianism as they too, live it out!! How is it that only men can speak to this?

    Allow me to represent the complementarian perspective for you, if I may.

    Why were there no receptive women on the panel, you asked?

    Women weren’t on the panel because that would have been an invitation for them to speak on a subject involving biblical interpretation, coming dangerously close to teaching and preaching in the presence of men.

    Complementarianism is about ontological identity. God created men and women to be different in who they are because their bodies are different.

    Complementarians believe that men and women are fundamentally different, and those differences affect our roles in life. They believe who you are dictates what you do.

    As an example, Complementarians will point to how they believing baby-making should occur, and that the way this takes place should be a reflection of the different roles men and women play. In the act itself, it is the man who gives and the woman who receives; the man who penetrates and the woman who is penetrated.

    The same holds true for panel discussions, and why women shoul sit and listen in church.

    When a woman speaks, you see, she is penetrating the conversation, which is not her role. When a woman offers speaks during a panel discussion with men, it causes a great deal of confusion, and men are as intimidated as they would be if she initiated sex.

    Moreover, people watching and listening would wonder who the man is and who the woman is, resulting in mass pandemonium. This would disrupt God’s order and bring disgrace upon the gospel because it’s not how He created things to be.

    In order to preserve the gospel, women should be both silent and unseen during panel discussions, which is why they are nowhere present on T4G stage along with the men.

  193. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Keeps the WOMAN from becoming too “muscular

    Ha. I saw me one of those muscular women today. I had to go see a doctor ar the hospital on Ft. Campbell. That hospital stations guards at all public entrances. The guard at the door I went in was a woman…. a soldier…. big boned ….5’9, maybe 5’10. She was armed, and wearing a bullet proof vest, as well as a wedding ring set.
    I’d say that if Piper and Grudem tried to double-team her, she’d lay a first-round smack-down on the duo.

  194. @ Velour:

    I believe we are of the same mind here. Putting it another way:

    If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: … etc etc

     Did satan quote from the scriptures? Yes, actually.
     Did satan bring the word of God? Well… if he did, Jesus didn’t respond to it.

    Similarly:
    Jesus did many other wonderful things in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book [or any other, because the world would not contain the books that could be written]
     Is most of what Jesus did, found in the Bible? No.
     Does that mean most of what Jesus did was not of God? (Well… maybe it wasn’t of God. That being the case, I’m in trouble, because I’d rather pinned my hopes on him!)

    I.e., you can quote/preach/whatever scripture without bringing the word of God. And you can bring the word of God without quoting/preaching/whatever from scripture.

  195. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ha. I saw me one of those muscular women today. I had to go see a doctor

    I think they probably have the same effect on wee Mr Piper too.

  196. Deb wrote:

    I swing a hammer pretty well, and I’m left-handed.
    In all seriousness, I HAVE FLAT OUT HAD IT! (And yes I am yelling!!!)
    For the foreseeable future, ALL of my posts will be laser-focused on the Comp crowd.

    We have our own 21st century Jael!

  197. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Praying for you friend. Feel better.
    Thanks, Velour
    surgery was Monday, and yesterday was the WORST, but it is easing up some today, so I can relax with the pain meds . . . now I’m not used to them, so I noticed a lot more run-on writing (well, more than usual) …. sorry for that
    I’m glad you liked the excerpt about Sojourner’s speech. I think she was magnificent. Thanks again for prayer. God Bless!

    I hope it eases up some more. No worries about the sentences. We’re a good group and we understand.

    If I were near, I’d drop off a meal for you or something. I’m in California (Silicon Valley).

  198. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I believe we are of the same mind here. Putting it another way:
    If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: … etc etc
     Did satan quote from the scriptures? Yes, actually.
     Did satan bring the word of God? Well… if he did, Jesus didn’t respond to it.
    Similarly:
    Jesus did many other wonderful things in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book [or any other, because the world would not contain the books that could be written]
     Is most of what Jesus did, found in the Bible? No.
     Does that mean most of what Jesus did was not of God? (Well… maybe it wasn’t of God. That being the case, I’m in trouble, because I’d rather pinned my hopes on him!)
    I.e., you can quote/preach/whatever scripture without bringing the word of God. And you can bring the word of God without quoting/preaching/whatever from scripture.

    That will preach, brother Nick!

    Amen.

  199. Velour wrote:

    There are two branches of my family that are polar opposites

    Yes, well, there are polar opposite views. Some people are uncomfortable with this reality and attempt to find ways to marry things together. For example, as I’ve mentioned before, Protestants believe God created the Bible, whereas Roman Catholics believe the Church created the Bible.

    Polar opposite views. You can’t have it both ways.

    Some things don’t work both ways.

    This is an important issue to come to terms with as someone who professes Christ. Sooner or later it becomes obvious where you stand.

    Jesus said it best. He prefers we be hot or cold. When we attempt to mix the hot with the cold, the result is lukewarm. “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” Rev 3:16

  200. Nancy2 wrote:

    a woman…. a soldier…. big boned ….5’9, maybe 5’10. She was armed, and wearing a bullet proof vest, as well as a wedding ring set.
    I’d say that if Piper and Grudem tried to double-team her, she’d lay a first-round smack-down on the duo.

    ROFL.

  201. Nancy2 wrote:

    Bad wording on my part Nick.

    Au contraire, I think you were exactly right!

    (To be fair, I did quote you rather selectively. As you spotted, of course.) 😉

  202. Paula Rice wrote:

    Jesus said it best. He prefers we be hot or cold.

    Jesus preferred that we be hot or cold about Him, not a book.

    The Bible hadn’t even been created for a long time. There weren’t printing presses.
    People were poor and the vast number were illiterate. Yet God chose those times
    to be born, live, die, and be resurrected. He didn’t wait until now. He brought people to faith…without a book.

    Our way today is not the only way.

  203. Sam wrote:

    It’s funny how Grudem encourages others to publish in order to outnumber egalitarians and feminists, as if their were many egalitarian resources available at most Christian institutions. From my own experience, when I first encountered complementarianism and patriarchy, I honestly thought those were the only two biblical options. Christian radio stations gave them airtime, Amazon carried all the books, I found blogs by the dozen where women actively spent time writing posts which contained profuse apologies for the “evils” of the female sex and glorifying husbands actively.

    This is especially true in the pre-internet days. Most everything I was ever exposed to growing up was pro- complementarian.

    And comps do present the situation as though there are only two options:

    1. Be Complementarian (which is associated with being godly, biblical, conservative, holy, etc)
    or
    2. Be Feminist (reject God, the Bible, be a liberal)

    They did not present any third alternative. That was one thing of a few that kept me stuck for a long time in complementarianism.

  204. Velour wrote:

    Jesus preferred that we be hot or cold about Him, not a book.

    And the book did not exist when Jesus spoke those words.

  205. <a href="And comps do present the situation as though there are only two options:
    1. Be Complementarian (which is associated with being godly, biblical, conservative, holy, etc)
    or
    2. Be Feminist (reject God, the Bible, be a liberal)

    This is just your basic straw man argument. It’s a logical fallacy, and therefore, false.

  206. dee wrote:

    Grudem and others look at the Bible through their own lenses which appear to include the submission on all women in eternity.

    Jesus knew that men would do this sort of nonsense and warned us about it.

    Step back from the ever ridiculous parsing of verses on the Trinity- as if mankind could ever fully understand such a being. Instead, focus on His love and his willingness to forgive us all and fight on!

    I know I brought this up on the last thread, but I cannot figure out why complementarians see complementarianism as a tool, or THE tool, to fix what they see as wrong with people or culture.

    The NT never instructs Christians to clean up culture.

    Secondly, where the NT (and Jesus) talks about humanity’s problem, it always goes back to sin.

    Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”

    But Jesus (and other portions of the NT) said things like this:

    Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated?

    18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man.

    19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander

    And:

    What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you?

    2 You crave what you do not have. You kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask.…

    There is nothing in any of that saying women, feminism, or a supposed desire for women to usurp a man’s authority, are to blame for things gone wrong in the world.

    Complementarians are using the wrong tool to fix a problem that doesn’t even really exist.

  207. Lydia wrote:

    The early converted Gentiles did not have Romans. At least Not all of them.

    You seem to be suggesting something here like the bible isn’t necessary and we don’t need it because there have been times when it wasn’t complete and because that was the case back then it’s the truth we’re to apply now, or something.

    Well, let me offer you an apology.

    I’m sorry that there were times when the Bible, as we know it today, wasn’t fully completed, and that this has led you to have doubts regarding the efficacy of God’s Word, and the amazing unfolding of His revelation to us over time, as wonderfully and miraculously revealed to us in the Bible.

  208. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    OT, but this is too good not to interject: pigs are flying, hell has frozen over, aaaaaand Tim Bayly is seriously considering voting for Hilary Clinton.
    And it’s not the Onion.
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/07/first-blast-trumpet-monstrous-regiment-women

    If any of this causes that guy to question his views on women, I guess that’s pretty good.

    On the other hand, I find it funny how some patriarchalists / complementarians cannot stick to their own convictions, or are not consistent.

  209. Gram3 wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    Their biggest flaw is that 90% of their core theology is based on about 5 verses.
    —-
    (Gram3 said)
    And they are not sure about the meaning of many of the clobber verses and their contexts. It is really quite amazing that they are sure that women are prohibited from teaching men but they do not know what “saved by/through childbearing” means other than it does not mean what it plainly says. They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived. It is really quite astonishing once you actually start to test what they are saying.

    On the flip side of the coin is how most complementarians ignore or water down all the examples in the Bible that refute their gender views.

    All the Deborahs, Junias, etc, are explained away or ignored.

  210. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I.e., you can quote/preach/whatever scripture without bringing the word of God. And you can bring the word of God without quoting/preaching/whatever from scripture.

    At my former NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church many people espoused a hatred for gays. They had vile speech, and were proud of it.

    I can’t do that because of my job, I have to uphold anti discrimination laws, and because a boss (who is a wonderful, talented professional) is gay.

    On a deeper level, I couldn’t abide by the lack of love. In these groups people also proudly shun gay relatives. John MacArthur recommends this.

    As a Christian, I can’t.

    Years ago, in December a few weeks before Christmas, some friends called to say that their young neighbor in the countryside in their town by a river had been taken by paramedics to my city’s emergency room. He was dying of AIDS.

    It was the middle of the night, a pouring rain storm, I was in bed, cozy and warm.
    And God insisted that I go visit this young man in the middle of the night. I had never done anything like that before, or with an AIDS patient (which on my own strength would have frightened me). But the Lord was insistent. “Go!”

    So I got dressed, got a teddy bear and some Christmas candy together (early Christmas gifts from others). I called a little old lady friend Catherine, 100 years old, Catholic, a retired social worker and a lovely, warm, kind person who could melt anyone’s heart. I asked her if she wanted to come with me. I told her the Lord insisted I go, and I was going. It would be nice to have company, but I understood if she wanted to sleep.

    She said she wanted to come. She got out of bed and got dressed as well.

    I went to a 24-hour supermarket and bought a small table top Christmas tree, with little decorations on it, some sports magazines, entertainment magazines, and some snacks.

    My elderly friend and I went to the hospital. I told the nurse at the ER that, “Sean’s [the young man who was so sick] Christmas Angels have arrived.”

    He was so stunned when my little old lady friend and I walked in with gifts to see him. I introduced us. He was so terribly weak. And he hugged us. I got him a Pepsi and fed it to with him a straw. Sean kept hugging Catherine, 100 years old. She stroked his hair.

    He kept saying, “This is the best Christmas I’ve ever had in my entire life.” He was in his mid 20’s. His mother had died when he was a child. His family that remained was very dysfunctional and they had disowned him. They lived back East in Massachusetts.

    The little room for indigent patients was nothing spectacular to look at. Old large discolored white tiles on the floor. No art work on the walls. Old, tired sink near by.
    It was 3am and it was pouring rain outside.

    But I could feel the presence of God and the angels in that room. I could feel them.
    I thought when I went to give Sean some Pepsi or a hug or whatever that I would bump into an invisible visitor. That room was physically ugly but it was so beautiful because it glowed from the presence of God!

    Sean said to me, “If you ever need anything, call on me and I’ll be there.” I smiled and I thought to myself, “What is a guy with AIDS who is this weak going to do for me. He couldn’t even lift a box if I moved.” I smiled and nodded. Sean repeated it, “If you ever need anything call on me and I’ll be there.” I nodded and said, “If I ever need anything I’ll call on you and you’ll be there.” He smiled weakly and said, ” Yes.”

    I went, or so I thought, to minister to a young man named Sean dying of AIDS that night.
    I thought that was what God wanted me to do.

    Instead something entirely different took place: I was ministered to. It was glorious.

    I told Sean I would see him a few hours later that day, bring him some Mickey Mouse socks from the mall to keep his feet warm. He said he’d like that.

    When I called the hospital in the morning to ask about Sean, the nurse said, “Oh you’re the lady who was here with the 100-year old lady visiting Sean. Sean passed away peacefully this morning at about 6:30 a.m.”

    “When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.” That is what my Lord would have me do. The Royal Law of Love.

  211. Velour wrote:

    I hope it eases up some more. No worries about the sentences. We’re a good group and we understand.

    If I were near, I’d drop off a meal for you or something. I’m in California (Silicon Valley).

    You are so kind. And this IS a good group, yes, with a good purpose. You are about three thousand miles away, but I am so grateful for your offer of food. My son had duty for three years up in Petaluma at the Coast Guard School, teaching in the Wine Country. (You lucky Calies.) God Bless. 🙂

  212. Now I know how to sound theologically competent to the Reformed crowd. That I am a “convictional egalitarian”

  213. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I hope it eases up some more. No worries about the sentences. We’re a good group and we understand.
    If I were near, I’d drop off a meal for you or something. I’m in California (Silicon Valley).
    You are so kind. And this IS a good group, yes, with a good purpose. You are about three thousand miles away, but I am so grateful for your offer of food. My son had duty for three years up in Petaluma at the Coast Guard School, teaching in the Wine Country. (You lucky Calies.) God Bless.

    Oh that’s my home county, Sonoma County.

    That’s a nice area. I knock exactly where that is in Petaluma.

  214. @ ishy:
    Btw, if you got the idea I was a complementarian from my response to Judy, go back a re-read that, and do so knowing I was being completely sarcastic.

  215. Paula Rice wrote:

    Yes, that is correct, the bible is the ultimate authority in which exists nary a verse that is unreliable to the beliefs and practices of the true Christian faith.

    But then, what role does the Holy Spirit play in the life of the believer?

    And what of all the many differing interpretations Christians have of that same Bible, on many topics?

  216. Paula Rice wrote:

    The Messiah and the Word are synonymous. Diminish one you diminish them both together. That’s what the Bible teaches us in John chapter 1.

    I think you’re conflating Jesus The Word with the written word.

  217. Nancy2 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Keeps the WOMAN from becoming too “muscular

    Ha. I saw me one of those muscular women today. I had to go see a doctor ar the hospital on Ft. Campbell. That hospital stations guards at all public entrances. The guard at the door I went in was a woman…. a soldier…. big boned ….5’9, maybe 5’10. She was armed, and wearing a bullet proof vest, as well as a wedding ring set.
    I’d say that if Piper and Grudem tried to double-team her, she’d lay a first-round smack-down on the duo.

    LOL …. if Piper and Grudem can be taken out by just hearing a woman preach, a smack-down would probably kill them.

    I kind of picture Piper and Grudem forced to listen to a woman preach, and watching them slowly ‘melt’ into a puddle and the puddle evaporates leaving a pile of clothing on the floor.
    (Boy, these pain meds are inspirational!)

  218. trs wrote:

    Isn’t it just like fallen nature to develop a doctrine of male entitlement based on
    1. “I’m the oldest/first-created.” 2. “I sinned second.”
    3. “She’s the second.” 4. “She sinned first.”
    Therefore: Men rule everywhere, in every way, at all times, forever and ever, Amen. God said so.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Missing the whole message of God’s SALVATION here, much . . . . Kids?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature.” 1 Corinthians 14:29

    Their perspective also tends to overlook:

    In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

    And:

    And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

    No man played a role in the conception and birth of the Messiah.

  219. Paula Rice wrote:

    But hey, if the Bible isn’t your guide, you can pick, choose, or add your own interpretation.

    Of course, for those for whom the Bible is their guide, they also pick, choose, and add their own interpretation. By definition.

  220. ishy wrote:

    Also a straw man argument, which coincidentally didn’t even relate to the point they were making.

    It completely relates to the point. I’m not the one here whining about the fact the Bible personifies God’s revelation to us in that it has been something that has not taken place in one sitting, but rather it unfolded over time, as we see in the development of the Bible.

    That, apparently, is a problem for some people who think it should have been written like a Stephen King novel, by one guy, over a short period of time.

    So, I’m just sorry that God has let these people down in how He choose to unveil himself to us over a period of time, using countless authors. Maybe the Bible should have been titled, “The Great Scandal”.

  221. Gram3 wrote:

    So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?

    I know; it’s sad. People ask him questions as if he has answers, and all he has is a collection of random word associations. He reminds me of the final scene in That Hideous Strength (an ironically female subordinationist manifesto), where the bad guys become unintelligible.

  222. @ Paula Rice:

    What version of the Bible do you use? Do you read the Bible in its original languages, or an English translation?
    Do you you know the history of the Bible, how it is we get our English translations?

    Those are some of the points people here have been trying to get across to you, I think.

    They are not attacking the Bible or saying they don’t believe in it or trust it, as you seem to think they are doing.

  223. Paula Rice wrote:

    As an example, Complementarians will point to how they believing baby-making should occur, and that the way this takes place should be a reflection of the different roles men and women play. In the act itself, it is the man who gives and the woman who receives; the man who penetrates and the woman who is penetrated.

    “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

  224. @ Daisy:
    1. He is the Spirit of Truth, who leads us into the Truth, who inspired the Scriptures to be written, and “Your word is truth” (Jn 17:17).

    2. People can be dumb. Complementarians are a good example of this.

  225. Paula Rice wrote:

    So, I’m just sorry that God has let these people down in how He choose to unveil himself to us over a period of time, using countless authors. Maybe the Bible should have been titled, “The Great Scandal”.

    I don’t think anyone has said that God let them down.

  226. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
    Such a man of mystery. Must I be forced to pursue you? Why such an onion? You make me weep, having to work, peeling off all the layers.

    It was a really great link that he posted for you. I learned something valuable from it.

  227. @ Deb

    Ohhhhhhhh. NOW I get it. Duh on me. lol

    In that case . . . .

    Goes without saying . . .

    The cells that God took from Adam changed into something else, as did the same mud that God had used to form Adam, when God formed Eve. Likewise did the spirit/Spirit God breathed into Eve to give her equal-but-lesser being.

    So, naturally and supernaturally and in every possible way, the woman’s dollop of the Holy Spirit is Self-constrained by the obvious, absolutely fact-supported, ontological limitations of the female subset of humanity.

    That’s godzwill, dontchaknow!

    Everybody knows that, right?

  228. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:Daisy wrote:

    They are not attacking the Bible or saying they don’t believe in it or trust it, as you seem to think they are doing.

    I do prefer to read the Bible in English, since it is the only language I speak and understand.

    Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

    Is Daisy your real name?

  229. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:Daisy

    Hey, sorry, I didn’t mean to conflate the two of you together.

    Or did I….? Hmmm

  230. A brief tangent, before I go to bed:

    How do you escape from a locked room, using only a sheet of paper?

    1) You tear the paper in half.
    2) Put the two halves back together again to make a whole.
    3) Put the whole in the door.
    4) Climb out through the hole in the door.

    “Hole” and “whole” sound the same. So they must be the same.

  231. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    It seems the hyper-complementarians, or whatever they are choosing to call themselves, have not been doing so well in responding to either of those two lines of challenge in recent days …

    I agree.

  232. okrapod wrote:

    A side angle to this is that it creates a huge industry for books, lectures, one more seminary or bible college, one more mega church with a little different take on things, etc. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained through disagreement.

    I can’t remember if it was this blog or another site I was on, but a week or two back, I saw someone online say that complementarians create all these gender problems and problems in marriages, then they write books with purported solutions to the problems they have created, and they try to sell these to the rank and file who believe in comp or who attend comp churches.

  233. I do often wonder why God didn’t preserve any original manuscripts. I suspect that He knew we would probably put them behind glass in a temple and worship them.

    Likewise, I find it interesting that Jesus Himself never wrote anything down, that we know of. Imagine how we might worship something in His own handwriting!

    Still, I still find the Scriptures, and how we got them, fascinating.

    Completely off-topic: My job of 12 years is ending next week, somewhat unexpectedly. There is severance, and some good freelancing leads, but it has been extremely stressful. If you have 10 seconds to fire up a request for provision, I would appreciate it.

  234. Bridget wrote:

    And the book did not exist when Jesus spoke those words.

    That is true.

    Even when Christians started writing the letters down and copying them when Christianity started out, not all churches had the whole New Testament.

    Some churches only had a single book, or one or two pages from a book.

  235. @ Daisy

    “their perspective tends to overlook”

    which perspective misses too much of the wonderment, grace, glory, goodness, power, love, redemption, intelligence, and incredible design of God.

    Picking and choosing one’s own puzzle pieces makes for an extremely distorted view. That’s for sure.

  236. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    As one writer put it in way back in the 1980s, “Ideas have legs.”

    Or Friedman: ideas have consequences.

    Comp has a lot of consequences its proponents pretend don’t exist or don’t matter.

  237. GSD wrote:

    Completely off-topic: My job of 12 years is ending next week, somewhat unexpectedly. There is severance, and some good freelancing leads, but it has been extremely stressful. If you have 10 seconds to fire up a request for provision, I would appreciate it.

    Praying that God will see you through this transition period in your life.

  238. Paula Rice wrote:

    That, apparently, is a problem for some people who think it should have been written like a Stephen King novel, by one guy, over a short period of time.
    So, I’m just sorry that God has let these people down in how He choose to unveil himself to us over a period of time, using countless authors. Maybe the Bible should have been titled, “The Great Scandal”.

    Your tone here was very rude, as it has been in a few other posts on this page and ones in the past.

    You’re the one who has behaved through this thread as though the Bible was written in one day by one guy.

    Several of us here have tried hinting or straight out discussing different aspects of the Bible, such as
    -the fact that some of the earliest Christians did not have copies of it, or that
    -how you got your English translation today is a product of textual criticism, which is based on scholarship.

    Nobody here has said they feel “let down by God” in how the Bible arrived in its final form. That is a peculiar accusation to make.

  239. Paula Rice wrote:

    1. He is the Spirit of Truth, who leads us into the Truth, who inspired the Scriptures to be written, and “Your word is truth” (Jn 17:17).

    2. People can be dumb. Complementarians are a good example of this.

    point 1.
    So all Christians today are left with is a book, the Holy Spirit does not act in the life of a believer, beyond affirming the Bible to them, is that what you are saying there?

    point 2.
    I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe ‘dumbness’ to any and all Christians of different churches or denominations who adhere to different interpretations of the same book (i.e., the Bible).

  240. trs wrote:

    The cells that God took from Adam changed into something else, as did the same mud that God had used to form Adam, when God formed Eve. Likewise did the spirit/Spirit God breathed into Eve to give her equal-but-lesser being.

    Yup. The first Petri dish clone was done in the Garden of Eden. God intentionally left some critical cells out in order to make woman a little less hu-MAN.

  241. Paula Rice wrote:

    I do prefer to read the Bible in English, since it is the only language I speak and understand.

    Your English version is a product of textual criticism and interpretation by scholars who do know Greek and Hebrew, who had to make educated choices on how they felt the underlying text should be best translated into English.

  242. GSD wrote:

    Completely off-topic: My job of 12 years is ending next week, somewhat unexpectedly. There is severance, and some good freelancing leads, but it has been extremely stressful. If you have 10 seconds to fire up a request for provision, I would appreciate it.

    I hope you get a job soon.

  243. @ Lowlandseer:

    “Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    how do you explain 41,000 different denominations and organizations throughout the world?

    if God does, in fact, ensure that the meanings are clear, why 10s of thousands of variations, full of disagreement with each other?

    who’s right?

  244. Tim wrote:

    Regarding gender language: if the original language uses a word or phrase that technically says “man” (or similar) but in context refers to both women and men, then in English we need to use language that makes clear the reference to both men and women. That’s what good translators do.

    Well, when Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” he was oviously only speaking to the menfolk. What man would want to be treated the way these comps insist that women are to be treated, even in the most ideal comp world?

  245. Daisy wrote:

    GSD wrote:
    Completely off-topic: My job of 12 years is ending next week, somewhat unexpectedly. There is severance, and some good freelancing leads, but it has been extremely stressful. If you have 10 seconds to fire up a request for provision, I would appreciate it.
    I hope you get a job soon.

    I will be praying for you.

    I also look at Alison Green’s blog HR Ask a Manager. Good discussions about
    the good, the bad, and the ugly from her and great posts and advice from others.

    There’s also an open thread day for any work related topic 1 day a week.
    And another open thread another day of the week for any topic.

    http://www.askamanager.org/about

  246. BJ – Baylor is quite a long ways from Dee’s church. Several hours to be precise. My daughter went to Texas A&M College, in College Station. College Station is about an hour’s drive south of Baylor. Very pretty area. We have driven past their new football stadium several times. There are several really good churches in Baylor, but I don’t know which ones. I will have to ask her. She went to a big Baptist church in College Station. When I lived there for 3 mos, I went to it with her. Those young men who go into the ministry from A&M and Baylor, will often go to the Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth. My son goes to church with several of these young men. He stays away from the ones that are comp. Even though he feels women shouldn’t preach, he’s not a comp, but an egal.

  247. Much of the Bible is the history of the Israelites. Let’s set aside the historical parts of the Bible for a moment and focus on what God tells his people to do, what Jesus tells his followers to do, and Paul’s sections on gifts. Now, let’s take a black Sharpie, and mark out all of those thing that comps say women can’t do, what’s left? What is really left from the Bible that actually applies to women? Almost nothing!

  248. @ Christiane:
    Are you suggesting there was never a time when the Catholic Church banned Scripture reading for the non clergy ….which was part of the larger original point before you deflected with the typical Catholic platitudinal rah rah sell job.

    If Scripture is the final authority how did that affect early converts and even during the state church time when Scripture was often regulated for so many. That is the topic. No need for deflections.

    I think you guys are great. I am all about freedom of worship and even those who want exclusive tribes. This is just a convo.

  249. Nancy2 wrote:

    What is really left from the Bible that actually applies to women? Almost nothing!

    ‘The Sermon on the Sudsy Glass’ has Jesus saying wives can and should rinse off all soap bubbles to the satisfaction of their husbands. 🙂

  250. Velour wrote:

    At the end of the day, I watch for the fruit: Does this person show the Royal Law of Love toward others no matter what denomination of Christianity they follow.

    Bingo

  251. Velour wrote:

    Lots of people at my former NeoCalvinist church know their Bibles. An

    I have a cousin who is an extremely educated theologian that I would. Not. Dare. Debate on Scripture. He is also agnostic and ended up a Dean of Humanities at a large University. If is not a magic book, is it?

  252. Lea wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Your story made me cry. Beautiful.

    Thanks, Lea.

    It was an amazing night. We have an amazing God.

  253. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    you can quote/preach/whatever scripture without bringing the word of God. And you can bring the word of God without quoting/preaching/whatever from scripture.

    Good way to put it. After I read it 3x. :o)

  254. @ Lydia:

    Are you saying that having access to written scripture, had that been possible, would be an advantage to people who were illiterate? Are you saying that the scriptures were not read aloud as part of the mass such that even the illiterate had access to scripture? I thought, and I am not any authority on this, that one of the early issues in determining what was or was not scripture was what was being used and what was being approved for reading aloud during worship. I don’t know if that is true, but we do have Paul giving instructions to have his letter read to people, which I assumed meant that someone in the congregation who could read would do so for the benefit of those who could not.

    One of the issues with imagery and iconography has been that the message can be relayed in more ways than just words on a page, or speeches from a preacher, or for that matter words of any sort. I am just not seeing that the universal church (that would be the church before the great schism) was in any way trying to deny people access to the message of scripture. Now they certainly did and the RCC still does retain the authority to interpret scripture to the magisterium of the church, but that is a different but related idea.

    BTW, I read a history of Ireland, and what I read is basically what Christiane said. The Irish with all their huge history of poets and history of putting their own history into poetry were an oral society which, when given the opportunity of reading and writing took it up with the same enthusiasms that they had previously directed toward memorization of the poetry and history of the people. And took up Christianity enthusiastically. They combined the two and Irish monasteries produced large amounts of copied documents. At one low point in Christianity on the continent, or so the book said, the Irish sent missionary monks to re-evangelize the continent. Allegedly the monks had good success with the people partly because they did not live behind monastery walls while on mission in Europe but rather in hermitages among the people while they interacted with them and re-taught them Christianity.

    This just does not look like some plot by the Church to keep everybody in the dark. It does look to me like people struggling against huge odds and persevering the best they could.

  255. Daisy wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    I do prefer to read the Bible in English, since it is the only language I speak and understand.
    Your English version is a product of textual criticism and interpretation by scholars who do know Greek and Hebrew, who had to make educated choices on how they felt the underlying text should be best translated into English.

    And I would add that translators have also manipulated the Scriptures to suit their own agendas, as we’ve seen the Comp-promoting ESV Bible promoters do.

    Then there are issues in which people are products of their time. The King James Bible has words that show up in English that aren’t in the Hebrew or Greek texts that were put there because their boss was a King and they were his subjects.

  256. Paula Rice wrote:

    You seem to be suggesting something here like the bible isn’t necessary and we don’t need it because there have been times when it wasn’t complete and because that was the case back then it’s the truth we’re to apply now, or something.

    Well, let me offer you an apology.

    I’m sorry that there were times when the Bible, as we know it today, wasn’t fully completed, and that this has led you to have doubts regarding the efficacy of God’s Word, and the amazing unfolding of His revelation to us over time, as wonderfully and miraculously revealed to us in the Bible.

    Paula, was it the determinist God revealed or the free will God in this Word of God. You would think even that would be clear.

    Why approach the Bible as an “either/or” proposition? Why assume I have doubts about what it is. I dont. I think your view actually takes away from the beauty of this collection of books over 1000 years and it’s overarching theme of Gods consistent provision of Rescue.. I don’t think God forced anybody to write. I think He inspired them to do so. And we see some inconsistencies and we can start with the law that became less and less important as we read through the Old Testament past Torah. And who decided which books would go into this collection? Did the “Word of God” decide? If so why are some left out of some traditions?

    We are meant to read it, study it, discuss it and ponder it. I think it is amazing it exists at all. But it is not Jesus Christ.

  257. okrapod wrote:

    This just does not look like some plot by the Church to keep everybody in the dark. It does look to me like people struggling against huge odds and persevering the best they could.

    I most definitely do think history provides us with “plots” to put forth certain understandings of Scripture which were political in influence. I think of Zwingli’s students who decided believers baptism was taught in Scripture. They were hunted and drowned for daring to say so against the church state interpretation. i think of the Donatists who protested taking communion from corrupt priests and argued for good fruit in priests. Augustine said they should be wiped out. I think of the brutality in England over interpretations that fit political sided. I think of Castellio banished and ruined for daring to attempt what he thought was a better translation.

    History is full of rulers using the scripture as a club to control. They held the keys to understanding. Even the KJV was an attempt to placate Protestants who view their new king as possibly Catholic. The examples are legion if you enjoy researching that sort of thing. The ruling authorities decided what was taught and what it meant.

    Just think of Luther’s story. He admitted that even as a Catholic priest he did not know scripture at all and it shocked him when he studied it. And then take a look at his interpretation!

  258. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Basically the senior pastor/elders orchestrated criminal harassment/stalking of a grown woman. She responded by moving out of the family home, disconnecting her cell phone, disconnecting her email, and making sure that even her husband didn’t know the safe location she was living at.
    What a terrifying world this sounds like. And in our country and in this millenium. It has ‘cult’ written all over it.

    Indeed it does.

  259. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    Well now, well now, what of this!?
    Mary Kassian claims she came up with the word “Complementarianism”.
    Could it be John Piper is being dishonest here? Could it be he knows Mary Kassian proffered the word but refused to acknowledge her?
    Keeps the WOMAN from becoming too “muscular”.

    Look at this wonderful woman – 80 years old and body builder: Ernestine Shepherd.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATMByqkeM94

  260. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Judy:

    “I’ve tried to speak to this in my church, but male leadership refuses to take me seriously. We are not even SBC”
    +++++++++++++++

    seems to me it’s time to no longer take them seriously.

    Love this. So true!

  261. @ Lydia:

    This conversation seems to have shifted from the idea that the church denied people access to scripture, which I think is how it started, to this now which is about whether people misused scripture. Those are not the same issues.

    Of course people misuse and misapply scripture, Jesus even accused the teachers of the law of misusing and adding to the law to the detriment of the people. When did that ever not happen? And of course it is often involved with politics. For example, the current social and political situation in the US. For that matter there is a certain large religious persuasion right now undergoing right much uproar on an international scale–not just Christianity. None of that is what I am addressing. I thought you were saying, were you not, that the church was denying people access to scripture. I think mention was made of not letting laity have bibles, and mention was made of the use of Latin. So I talked about bibles, literacy, reading scripture in mass, and the use of Latin in some aspects of the culture other than just the church, and the production of copied manuscripts as an aside based on what Christiane brought up. This is what I have been talking about.

  262. ^Correction. There shouldn’t be a word above. I don’t know how that happened.
    I was replying about the story I wrote of seeing a dying young man during the Christmas season one year.

    “When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.”

  263. ishy wrote:

    You are sort of proving their point in how complementarians argue badly, because they can’t actually address the points made. They just shout “UNBIBLICAL!” even though they didn’t engage the actual text or the concerns about manuscript integrity.

    They cannot be consistent, either. Plain sense one minute (1 Timothy 2:12) and convoluted non-explanations the next 1 Timothy 2:15.) Cultural considerations (holy kissing and hats for women no longer necessary) one minute, no cultural considerations the next (Ephesus and Ephesians and 1 and 2 Timothy.)

    Making it up as they go along. And this really becomes apparent when you ask them to explain their logic and where they ground ideas which they say are unassailable. It is remarkable the chutzpah they have to think that people are that stupid or easily intimidated by their supposed brilliance.

  264. Daisy wrote:

    On the other hand, I find it funny how some patriarchalists / complementarians cannot stick to their own convictions, or are not consistent.

    I have to say I am surprised by the Baylys on this. It’s like they’ve gone all Two Kingdoms when we weren’t looking.

  265. Daisy wrote:

    All the Deborahs, Junias, etc, are explained away or ignored.

    Everything must be made to fit the narrative, and the narrative is that women are subordinate and cannot be leaders except when they say it is OK. Or something.

  266. Daisy wrote:

    In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

    This falls into the same category as Ephesians 5:21. It cannot possibly mean what it plainly says, because “head” must mean boss, and this part of 1 Corinthians 11 makes it seem like Paul is talking about origin or source instead of authority. Nothing to see here or Ephesians 5:21. Move along to Authority and pay no attention to the context.

  267. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    People ask him questions as if he has answers, and all he has is a collection of random word associations.

    It is much better for me to read what they say because I’m not distracted by the histrionics and can use my mental red pen.

  268. Gram3 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    On the other hand, I find it funny how some patriarchalists / complementarians cannot stick to their own convictions, or are not consistent.
    I have to say I am surprised by the Baylys on this. It’s like they’ve gone all Two Kingdoms when we weren’t looking.

    I don’t keep up with the Baylys and have only heard about them every few months.
    What are they doing now?

  269. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

    Let’s take a moment to honor the one who provided us with such profound insight into human relationships: Doug Wilson. And let’s also honor those who think Doug Wilson is brilliant: The Baylys, John Piper, Jared Wilson, The gospel Coalition. They all deserve credit for promoting this perversion of marital intimacy.

  270. @ okrapod:

    When people study scripture they often come away with different understandings such as the case with transubstantiation, baptism, Free will, Calvinism, OEC, YEC, etc. Historically, There was an attempt to keep many people ignorant and illiterate to control them by the very political church state systems. And later, in a “free” country we did this with slaves. The SBC was founded on this shameful belief.

    Just look at the explosion of denominations, sects and such when average people were allowed to be educated. I understand the need to defend a persons tribe but not at the expense of historical truth. The Popes, Princes, Kings and Electors were about power and the church was used to keep people under control. It seems rather disingenuous to pretend the magisterium were big cuddly teddy bears who wanted the best for people while they lived in palaces high above the teeming poverty stricken illiterate masses who were convinced to spend what little they had on indulgences in order to build more splendor in Rome. And just do a bit of research on the punishments meted out for daring to disagree with the church. Where there good types who tried to help people? Of course. Thank God. They often worked around the system in place, though.

    All this goes back to the main discussion on a collection of books being the final authority for a believer. For over a millennia the average person could not get near the collection of books- scripture. What could they do but believe what they were told or keep their mouth shut if they disagreed?

    Could they know Jesus Christ? I say, yes.

  271. Nancy2 wrote:

    As a married woman, will somebody please tell me to which Lord and Master I should lift my prayers and supplications: my Lord and Master in Heaven, or my Lord and Master that I married?

    Bruce Ware is happy to answer that question. You must pray only to the Father because ESS. You may ask your husband for what you want, but you must do so with an appropriate measure of humility and in such a way that you do not impinge on his masculinity lest he be forced into passively acquiescing to you or into abusing you. Phrase things carefully so that he feels like it is his idea in the first place.

    You’re welcome.

  272. @ Velour:

    If you follow Gram3’s link name in that post back up to mine, someone earlier in this thread (who I quoted) linked to a thing on the Bayly blog – it appears as though one of the Baylys may be voting for a woman candidate (Hillary) vs The Donald.

  273. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?
    I know; it’s sad. People ask him questions as if he has answers, and all he has is a collection of random word associations. He reminds me of the final scene in That Hideous Strength (an ironically female subordinationist manifesto), where the bad guys become unintelligible.

    I need to see that film. Piper and random word association! This is so true! Like the Exodus 22 tweet asking if was God mooning the Pope. You gotta wonder how many retweets there were for that one.

    I think there are some potentially hilarious SNL scripts with the way these guys communicate and their enthralled listeners. It is scary, though.

  274. Lydia wrote:

    Just look at the explosion of denominations, sects and such when average people were allowed to be educated.

    Well, denoms have proliferated along with ideas. So when we look at that what can we say? Maybe the bible is too confusing for anybody to understand, for whatever reason, and no agreements can be reached. Fault of scripture. Maybe the people were not as ‘educated’ as they might seem. Fault of the people. Maybe unscrupulous leaders saw an opportunity to create their own little empires and convinced people to follow them. Fault of the leadership. Perhaps some of this is due to the mix of religion and culture in various nations and subcultures. Fault of cultural diversity. Maybe some secular power people took up the cause, like the german princes(?) with Luther, and it is mostly political. Fault of power politics. Maybe the people never were converted in the first place, regardless of which side of what fence they were on, and they just never could construct stable and workable conditions for church building. Nobody’s fault, just a sad situation.

    I never said, and you know this I think, that the universal church was some cuddly teddy bear. But now I am saying that neither has been the divided church some cuddly teddy bear either. It is a crying shame on christianity, but there is enough blame to go around on this one.

  275. Lydia wrote:

    Why approach the Bible as an “either/or” proposition?

    Why not? It’s either true or its not. You seem to think it contains truth, and it’s up to you to judge its veracity. That’s the impression I get, and it seems like a common denominator here. Besides yourself, I’ve noticed it’s an opinion Bridget, Velour, Daisy, Potter, Elastigirl, among others, hold.

    Is this something the SBC promotes and teaches? I’m curious about the common thread here that’s quite noticeable and pronounced. There’s a whole group of you and you’re all regulars. I can’t help but wonder as to why you’re all so comfortable here with promoting this view if yours of the Bible that is at odds with mainstream Christianity. I dare say, it’s rather an anti-Christ platform, which I find highly ironic. I mean, if you’re going to criticize things like Complementarianism, what source do you use to judge its error?

    Honestly, for some of you who reject the total reliability of the Bible as the singlemost source judging truth and error, it leaves me with the impression you’re influenced more or less here by peer pressure or something, like you’re adopting these opinions as though they’re the soup de jour.

    If not the Bible what, pray tell, anchors your faith? Your own good opinions? Your education? Surely, that cannot be, especially when some of you are such sinners, smh

  276. Gram3 wrote:

    Piper is incoherent in the video. He acknowledges the Gospel proclamation by women in China and the global South, but says that Gospel proclamation will be harmed in the long term unless there is a male voice proclaiming the Gospel. ???? He does say that Female Subordination is an essential, but then says that the Gospel needs protections like Female Subordination. The church which is the “pillar and bulwark” of the Gospel will “malfunction” without it. So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?

    We must consider the source. John Piper thought it was *a tragedy* for *The Gospel* that the abusive Mark Driscoll was fired. Piper cared not one wit about all of the firings, excommunications and shunnings of good and godly people at Mars Hill, the wrecked lives, marriages, and family.

    For me, the firing of Mark Driscoll and the closing of Mars Hill was an answer to fervent prayers that I pounded God in Heaven with…to stop that horrible man his destruction.

  277. Paula Rice wrote:

    Honestly, for some of you who reject the total reliability of the Bible as the singlemost source judging truth and error, it leaves me with the impression you’re influenced more or less here by peer pressure or somethin

    Could you please tell me a little bit more about yourself, because I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

    I can’t remember if you’re the Paula (or perhaps another) who was in CJ Mahaney’s church and saw him cry, saw his antics.

    You seem articulate and well-read to me.

    You seem to have a good sense of humor on some things. You could grasp of the shortcomings of Comp and articulate them well.

    And you also seem intractable, unwilling to engage with others, listen to what people are really saying. You seem edgy toward other people in many of your posts. Hostile, even.
    What’s that about?

    Are you struggling with some personal problem? (Past or present.)

    Do you need us to pray for you about anything?

    We’re a diverse group, as you know, in countries around the world.

  278. Daisy wrote:

    @ Velour:
    If you follow Gram3’s link name in that post back up to mine, someone earlier in this thread (who I quoted) linked to a thing on the Bayly blog – it appears as though one of the Baylys may be voting for a woman candidate (Hillary) vs The Donald.

    Knock me over with a feather.

  279. Paula Rice wrote:

    If not the Bible what, pray tell, anchors your faith?

    That’s a really good question. I would think that my faith has multiple anchors. One is that I had an experience with something (or someone) transcendent that changed my life, and I haven’t gotten over it yet. The Bible informs me about that experience. IF I read it correctly.

    The challenge is interpretation. We see everything through 21st century Western lenses. But the Bible is ancient literature, written primarily to people in a very different world, in a different time, and a different language. And to paraphrase Peterson, what it meant to them, is what it means. There is an objective reality that can only be grasped when we read the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When we start pulling verses out of context (as if the Bible was written with verses) and filtering them through our cultural lenses, we get the sort of weirdness that we see in the Calvinista/Comp movement.

    To be a proper anchor, the Bible needs to be stuck in the contextual seabed of history, culture and language.

    (Typed with one finger, on my ohone.)

  280. Is the question (Paula Rice’s) that is being raised also rooted in the differences between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

    Anything else.

    Maybe the heavy-hitters Gram3, Max, Lydia, and others can weight in on this and its history. Sola Scriptura hasn’t always been around. It’s from the Reformation period.

  281. Paula Rice wrote:

    Surely, that cannot be, especially when some of you are such sinners, smh

    Should have put “sinners” in quotation marks, so it’s understood to be a position and a belief promoted by others here, regarding themselves and others who share their version of the Christian faith.

    But it begs the question. If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are), yet do not rely upon Scripture as authoritative, used to judge between truth and error, then where does that leave you? It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations, more or less. Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

    Let’s call it Flower Power, then, shall we? And maybe if I change my name to Sunflower or Peony, I’d seem less “rude” lol

  282. Harley wrote:

    This is what comp teaching does to the young. Ruins lives and marriages.

    Harley,

    My ex-NeoCalvinist pastor also was a control freak, along with his hand-picked yes-men elders, who called any question from a thinking adult “gossip”.

    Like you, I’ve seen NeoCalvinism/Comp destroy lives. The whole thing makes me so angry I couldn’t even properly read or comment over on Tim Fall’s blog when some man was over there calmly defending Comp and its proponents.

  283. Paula Rice wrote:

    yet do not rely upon Scripture as authoritative,

    Are you quoting that group from the late 1970’s that met in that hotel in Chicago and signed that statement?

    “Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement as a very thorough statement of what they mean by “inerrancy”. The statement elaborates on various details in Articles formed as couplets of “We affirm…” and “We deny…”. Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves. In the statement, inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author’s intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic.”

  284. Velour wrote:

    Are you quoting that group from the late 1970’s that met in that hotel in Chicago and signed that statement?
    “Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement

    I am not sure if Paula Rice was referring to the Chicago Statement (signed in the late 1970’s at a hotel in Chicago in this discussion about the authority of Scripture). I believe its proponents were Grimsted and Rushdoony. I believe that their plan was to have the United States modeled after the Old Testament and to Reconstruct that period, having a theocracy.

    http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/general.htm

    It’s also from the Shepherding Movement, of course.

    They seem pretty out there. Supporting slavery. Supporting slavery for non-Christians.
    Saying that slavery in The South was a good thing. Denying the Holocaust.

    Supporting Patriarchy. Women as second-class citizens. Profound racial prejudice toward the Jewish people. (And to think our Lord was Jewish, his parents on earth were Jewish. His family was Jewish. His disciples were Jewish. The people He evangelized were Jewish.)

    No thanks. These men behind that Chicago Statement have horrible beliefs and they manipulated a few words to make themselves seem plausible.

  285. @ Lydia:

    “…Piper and random word association! … I think there are some potentially hilarious SNL scripts with the way these guys communicate and their enthralled listeners. It is scary, though.”
    +++++++++++

    Ha! “…a beach ball, a dog, a log, a poodle, a noodle, a doodle….”

    A Christopher Guest film (not word associating) — waiting to happen. it would write itself.

  286. Paula Rice wrote:

    It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations, more or less. Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

    It does not leave me following the crowd. I have not thrown the Bible out with the bath water. But I do follow the Holy Spirit as best I can, and I am not ashamed of that, nor should anyone be even if you mock them for it with your “flower power” remarks. If you read Scripture carefully, you’ll see that God worked with and through people in same strange ways. Since God is one . . . I wouldn’t expect much different from the Holy Spirit.

  287. Gram3 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

    Let’s take a moment to honor the one who provided us with such profound insight into human relationships: Doug Wilson. And let’s also honor those who think Doug Wilson is brilliant: The Baylys, John Piper, Jared Wilson, The gospel Coalition. They all deserve credit for promoting this perversion of marital intimacy.

    You mean “The Rapist’s Guide to Married Sex”?

  288. I have lived in Silicon Valkey my whole life. I am going to go check out Grace Bible Fellowship.

  289. okrapod wrote:

    Are you saying that having access to written scripture, had that been possible, would be an advantage to people who were illiterate?

    It’s called “Magic Book-ism”.

  290. @ Paula Rice:

    Yes, the bible contains truth. There are a number of ways to interpret many passages. I’ll make an informed decision on how I interpret them. My faith is anchored in a number of things, the bible being one of them.

  291. Christiane wrote:

    LOL …. if Piper and Grudem can be taken out by just hearing a woman preach, a smack-down would probably kill them.

    I kind of picture Piper and Grudem forced to listen to a woman preach, and watching them slowly ‘melt’ into a puddle and the puddle evaporates leaving a pile of clothing on the floor.

    Like a cross between The Rapture and The Wicked Witch of the West?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPO43kCh3_c

  292. Paula Rice wrote:

    If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are)

    Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.

  293. Leslie wrote:

    I have lived in Silicon Valkey my whole life. I am going to go check out Grace Bible Fellowship.

    It was so sad what happened there. All of the dear saints who were so mistreated.
    I have never seen anything like it.

    Many ex-members told me that they and their families fled due to the rising Authoritarianism of the pastors/elders, the legalism, and the fact that they had overstepped Biblical bounds. These were families and couples who loved the Lord.

    I just laugh at what a hot mess that place is. My ex-pastor claimed to have has a pastoral job at John MacArthur’s church that MacArthur said was a lie and that he was only a volunteer, like scores of others. Teaching credential he claimed to have, and all of the stories he claimed around that, the State of California Teacher Credentialing said was a lie and they’d never credentialed him. Ph.D. he claimed he had is $299 from an online diploma mill in Missouri.

    Oh well, I’ve come out the other side of it. I’ve learned here and elsewhere about Comp, about the heavy-Shepherding Movement from the 1970’s (9Marks is this all over again), and on and on.

    Pride goeth before the fall. And what a fall he and the other pastors/elders are going to have with the level of pride they have.

    I’ve heard so many horror stories, from so many people, all ages of the horrible way they were treated there, hauled into meetings.

    A lovely family told me that they were going to join and the husband said the Holy Spirit warned him in prayer, “No.” A wife’s uncle toward her “no” (they have no outside authority, they answer to no one). Others received similar warnings from discerning Christians.

    I feel so sorry for all the damaged lives from those false teachings.

  294. @ Paula Rice:
    I don’t know how to communicate this without it sounding condescending so please don’t take it that way. I grew up around a ton of scripture reading. It was beautiful. If I were willing to get up early enough I would find my mother tucked away reading scripture and praying every morning of her life. It was never shoved down our throats. She had a map of the world in her office and prayed over countries. Church was not a drudgery of what a horrible sinner I was or an excuse to do harm to others but the exciting opportunity to be an every day image bearer.

    But something changed in churches and I cannot really pinpoint how or exactly when scripture started to become a weapon and people had no tolerance at all for differing interpretations. Interpretations became a litmus test for fellowship. Examples from the seekers to the Neo Cals abound. Both were hawking comp. The seekers thought heinous sins were “mistakes” and trotted out their proof texts. They were selling Jesus as a social activity. It needed to be cool to be a Christian. The Neo Cals insist PSA, ESS is part of the Gospel and trot out their cherry picks. All of it was included in the Gospel, dontcha know?.

    I saw people around me falling for all sorts of things and using scripture as a club. I grew up with the concept of scripture as an aid to the Holy Spirit sort of thing. Now it had become a book of rules, roles and formulas that would help me choose my next car or showed me how to make narcissists honest if I just do what it said to do. The bible tells us to go to redemption groups and tell our past forgiven sins in detail. Right? It tells us we are all just as big of sinner as the child rapist and that we must get married and have children. Right?

    i spent 10 years or so just diving into scripture study because, well, maybe I didn’t really get it? Groupthink is quite powerful. It is scary how powerful it is. I am the town crier about groupthink. The more I dove in the more I needed to learn. It is vast. For 3 years of that 10, I only read and studied the Gospels. At some point, hopefully, one gets the message that our God in the flesh is bigger and more all encompassing than we can ever imagine. And the overall message is His incredible provision for our rescue. And we are to reflect Him in mercy, justice,, etc.

    We are to help put the broken world to rights in our little corners –which is no easy task. But a frustrating one.

    What anchors my faith is when the image of God breaks through in each of us. When it is the stronger portion of ourselves. I believe that is truly being human. We are less human when we do evil. It is about choosing right instead of wrong which is not easy on a daily basis, quite frankly. It’s not about being doormats, either.

    This is going to sound silly but I had a bit of an epiphany reading a bio of Amy Carmicheal to my then 6 year old. She wanted to know if God would save the young girls sent to be Temple prostitutes that Amy could not save. Those girls might not ever hear about Jesus Christ much less see a bible.

    What do you think? Do they have any chance at eternal life with our precious Savior after years as a temple prostitute with no access to scripture or a missionary?

    Some of my extended family were medical humanitarian aid workers in Afghanistan and came back with some sobering encounters. They met more than they would ever imagine who approached them warily to ask about Isa because they had dreams about him and wanted to know more. Dangerous sobering stuff.

    I have a Russian friend born and bred an atheist who just wondered for years if there wasn’t more to it. She finally got up the nerve to approach an elderly neighbor who she thought might know. Yes, the old woman told her there is a God and His Name is Jesus Christ and you pray to him. So she did. When the wall came down she and her husband took advantage of a window of opportunity and applied for visas. They were in their late 30!s when they came here. There are so many events like this. Another Russian friend asked her grandmother right before she died. Why did they ask? What made them even think such a thing?

    This is bigger than scripture. This is the Holy Spirit blowing where it pleases. John 3:6 stuff. All without a bible. But, they certainly wanted one when they could get one. And I want to read it for its larger beautiful message again. I am just thankful I had that experience in my young life.

  295. Lydia wrote:

    All this goes back to the main discussion on a collection of books being the final authority for a believer. For over a millennia the average person could not get near the collection of books- scripture. What could they do but believe what they were told or keep their mouth shut if they disagreed?

    Could they know Jesus Christ? I say, yes

    Yes, they could know him. The tragedy is that in spite of knowing him, they could be kept in bondage, weighed down with many strange and terrifying teachings with no way to ascertain for themselves whether these things were actually found in the scriptures.

  296. Nancy2 wrote:

    Leslie wrote:
    I have lived in Silicon Valkey my whole life. I am going to go check out Grace Bible Fellowship.
    You may want to check out their church contract, uh, covenant:
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/grace_bible_fellowship_of_silicon_valley_sunnyvale_ca/gbf_membership_covenant_100917_approved.pdf
    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.

    These heavy-Shepherding groups, like my former church, tell people that Membership Covenants are “Biblical”. In point of fact, they aren’t Biblical at all.
    They are simply a tool of authoritarian control.

    Jesus required people to sign how many pages to follow Him? Answer: 0 pages

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-church.html

    We are a priesthood of believers. We are to submit to God, not to elders. The rule they claim over peoples’ lives is false.

    Also at my ex-church they wanted us to enforce obedience to criminal acts (not protecting children, not calling the police, etc.). Those are are illegal and crimes on their part that the pastors/elders can be arrested and prosecuted for, and land in jail or state prison for.

    In the United State it is not legal to contract for unlawful acts and it is not enforceable.

  297. GSD wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    If not the Bible what, pray tell, anchors your faith?
    That’s a really good question. I would think that my faith has multiple anchors. One is that I had an experience with something (or someone) transcendent that changed my life, and I haven’t gotten over it yet. The Bible informs me about that experience. IF I read it correctly.
    The challenge is interpretation. We see everything through 21st century Western lenses. But the Bible is ancient literature, written primarily to people in a very different world, in a different time, and a different language. And to paraphrase Peterson, what it meant to them, is what it means. There is an objective reality that can only be grasped when we read the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When we start pulling verses out of context (as if the Bible was written with verses) and filtering them through our cultural lenses, we get the sort of weirdness that we see in the Calvinista/Comp movement.
    To be a proper anchor, the Bible needs to be stuck in the contextual seabed of history, culture and language.
    (Typed with one finger, on my ohone.)

    Maybe this is one reason NT Wright is so interesting. He was an Ancients scholar before he studied theology.

  298. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Are you saying that having access to written scripture, had that been possible, would be an advantage to people who were illiterate?
    It’s called “Magic Book-ism”.

    I wasn’t actually playing the magic book card at all. I was saying it is easier to control such people who are dependent in a church state culture and encourage believe all sorts of superstitions, etc. However, I do believe in the Holy Spirit.

  299. Leslie wrote:

    I meant as an undercover agent.

    Oh. Thanks for explaining.

    Do you have experience with heavy-Shepherding and those types of abusive churches?
    I had no clue. I was quiet naive. I had been at a mega church, invited by a friend,
    and I thought it was ‘off’. It was too anonymous. I also thought the pastor was too irreverent and I suspected something was wrong with his marriage (as he was making nasty digs at his quiet wife before us that left me seething. He was having an affair and his ministry crashed.)

    So I thought surely a small church, knowing each other, Bible-believing (it means obey them without question), adhering to God’s Word. Endless promises of care by the elders.
    I just thought, “Oh this is so nice. They honestly care about us. Not like a bunch of wealthy guys in German cars at the mega who don’t even know our names.”

    Like Gram3 has said in previous posts here that many times when people leave one bad church, they think they will go to the opposite of the bad church — and frequently miss the red flags of the new place. From the fire to the frying pan, so to speak.

    I didn’t know about having to research the church’s website, I mean all of the links and what they believed.

    It all seemed so nice at first. The potluck lunches. And there are lots of nice people there. But wow, to see you dear friends maligned before all by pastors/elders. Screaming sessions behind closed doors. Trumped up charges. Salem Witch Trials II.

    I’ve learned about Comp and NeoCalvinism (didn’t know a thing about it before).

    At least I’ve learned enough to help other people who want to leave, learned it here.
    And I’ve used my gifts to help people outside the walls of the institutional church.

    Take care.

  300. Daisy wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    Nobody here has said they feel “let down by God” in how the Bible arrived in its final form. That is a peculiar accusation to make.

    I think we are extremely blessed to be alive right now. We are, for the most part, a literate people and have many translations, study tools, interlinears and such at our fingertips. We can study Greek and Hebrew. When I think of what Catherine Bushnell had to go through to write “Gods Word to Women”, I count my many blessings even more. We really have no excuses!

    Yet, the bible does not save.

  301. okrapod wrote:

    One of the issues with imagery and iconography has been that the message can be relayed in more ways than just words on a page, or speeches from a preacher, or for that matter words of any sort. I am just not seeing that the universal church (that would be the church before the great schism) was in any way trying to deny people access to the message of scripture. Now they certainly did and the RCC still does retain the authority to interpret scripture to the magisterium of the church, but that is a different but related idea.

    One of the problems that I see is that the teaching of eternal torment in hell was given a great place and embellished to keep people in fear and obedience. I do not see the concept of hell treated in the same way in the scriptures at all.

  302. This discussion on the Bible is somewhat discomforting to me, but I think there is some ‘apples and oranges’ going on here.

    I came to know the Lord through reading the Bible by myself. I was not raised in a Christian home, I knew very little about Jesus other than phrases everyone hears. I have great respect for the word of God because of that and because it has been my faithful guidance through the tribulations of my life since. The Spirit has been my comfort and guidance, too, of course, but I find that he so often uses the words of the Bible, brings them to my mind at an opportune time.

    The Bible tells us of Jesus Christ. We know his actions through its words.

    Access to it represents our freedom. Without it, we’d be subject to the power brokers who would convince us it says what they need it to say. They try to do this even when we have access to search it for ourselves. Imagine how far they would go if we could not.

    There are so many passages in the Bible where it refers to and explains itself as trustworthy and pure. We are exhorted to study it and treasure it in our hearts, to long for it as an infant longs for milk (and that’s saying a lot!)

    At the same time, the Bible is difficult and hard to understand and its words are twisted by the unscrupulous and the deceived; we can’t deny that.

    We need to realize the Bible is a book. It is meant to be read as a book (beginning at the beginning and moving through to the end) and studied and puzzled over. It’s not a magical document that a person can just pick sentences out willy nilly and think they’ve got anything figured out.

    We need to recognize the limitations of a book, the size of which can be easily carried around and read from cover to cover, to explain and illuminate all there is to know. To imagine that the mind of the Almighty God who spoke this universe into existence could be more than scarcely revealed in this little book would be insane!

    We are all at different places in our study of the scriptures. We get things differently but people even get different ideas out of Shakespeare or popular literature. And, what you understand something to mean at one age may be different than what you realize years later. Is this a defect of the Bible or just part of the journey, part of the learning curve, part of the limits of our humanity?

    God could have just given us a bulleted list. I guess he wanted to give us something more to chew on. I wonder about it all the time.

    The most disconcerting thing to me is that there are people with the audacity to tamper with the scriptures for their own purposes. How many of these fools have had their hands on it over the ages…

  303. Paula Rice wrote:

    If not the Bible what, pray tell, anchors your faith? Your own good opinions? Your education? Surely, that cannot be

    I woke up and read the comments about the Scriptures, and when I came to this by our Paula, it reminded me of how the sacred Scriptures point us towards the One Who Saves. And I thought of how this poem reflects on a powerful encounter with Our Saving Lord:
    “AFTER one moment when I bowed my head
    And the whole world turned over and came upright,
    And I came out where the old road shone white,
    I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
    Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
    Being not unlovable but strange and light;
    Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
    But softly, as men smile about the dead.

    The sages have a hundred maps to give
    That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
    They rattle reason out through many a sieve
    That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
    And all these things are less than dust to me
    Because my name is Lazarus and I live.

    G.K. Chesterton “The Convert”

  304. Lydia wrote:

    It seems rather disingenuous to pretend the magisterium were big cuddly teddy bears who wanted the best for people while they lived in palaces high above the teeming poverty stricken illiterate masses who were convinced to spend what little they had on indulgences in order to build more splendor in Rome. And just do a bit of research on the punishments meted out for daring to disagree with the church. Where there good types who tried to help people? Of course. Thank God. They often worked around the system in place, though.

    Hi Lydia,
    well, there are no excuses for the abuses by powerful people in the Church, no. So, I can read your thoughts here and agree with much of your frustration with what went on. But yes, when the Church Catholic became too worldly, there WERE good types who ‘wanted to help people’. And, in their simplicity of soul, they were more powerful than all the bejewelled ‘princes of the Church’, yes. That’s the beauty of the Body of Christ. When it works well, it comes to the aid of those who have gone too far in the wrong direction, and points them back to Our Lord, but gently, yet firmly, by example, by the way of grace.
    So many ‘good’ people all down through the ages of the Church. So many.
    I think of Francis of Assisi who changed the Church …. one person, one reformer, no earthly power, no ‘wealth’ (he gave all of his money away), and yet he carried the peace of Christ to those who had lost their way.

    I think of Damien of Molokai and how he was much unsupported by the powers of the Church, but still, he changed the Church through how his life and death reflected Our Lord’s example.

    Lottie Moon was not Catholic, and yet she is embraced by the Body of Christ and her work is celebrated formally in the Anglican Church. She struggled ‘as a woman’ to answer a call to serve and received little encouragement from the powers that be, and yet …. not one of these ‘gated community’ mega-pastors can come near her for how she brought Our Lord to others, even in the end perishing from starvation for love of her Chinese people.

    ‘good people’ …. they reside in Christ, and are not bound to or separated by denominations …. they can, by their own example in imitation of Christ, re-direct a forlorn and discouraged Church. Their power is not of this earth, nor is it even ‘their’ power, it belongs to Our Lord working through them …. and He will keep sending these good people until He returns.

  305. Christiane wrote:

    Lottie Moon was not Catholic, and yet she is embraced by the Body of Christ and her work is celebrated formally in the Anglican Church … not one of these ‘gated community’ mega-pastors can come near her for how she brought Our Lord to others

    Lottie Moon’s ministry continues to serve as a model of how to do it right on the foreign mission field. She was a tremendous Gospel teacher, preacher, and evangelist. When she returned from China on furlough, she was welcomed in Southern Baptist pulpits to preach … something that SBC’s new reformers would frown on – it just wouldn’t be the complementarian thing to do. However, they are thrilled to receive funds from the annual Lottie Moon offering to finance their “new and improved” mission effort under Calvinist leadership. Mission and evangelism is defined differently in the world of reformed theology … harvesting the “elect” is not the same as reaching the lost “from every nation, tribe, people and language.” Lottie had a burden to carry the Gospel to China, rather than a theology.

  306. Max wrote:

    Lottie Moon’s ministry continues to serve as a model of how to do it right on the foreign mission field. She was a tremendous Gospel teacher, preacher, and evangelist. When she returned from China on furlough, she was welcomed in Southern Baptist pulpits to preach … something that SBC’s new reformers would frown on – it just wouldn’t be the complementarian thing to do. However, they are thrilled to receive funds from the annual Lottie Moon offering to finance their “new and improved” mission effort under Calvinist leadership. Mission and evangelism is defined differently in the world of reformed theology … harvesting the “elect” is not the same as reaching the lost “from every nation, tribe, people and language.” Lottie had a burden to carry the Gospel to China, rather than a theology.

    Max: I once shared in a sermon that Lottie Moon preached and the Associational Director of Missions and his wife were in the audience. I wish I had a picture of the two when I said this–the Director of missions looked extremely angry and his wife was smiling.

    For better or worse I think I went on this Director of Mission’s list to be gotten rid of from this church and association. You see my saying Lottie Moon preached made me a LIBERAL!

  307. @ Velour:

    looks like we’re both up very late and up very early…. frustrating as far as sleep goes. but TWW is a great diversion for those hours.

  308. elastigirl wrote:

    @ mot:

    that Associational Director of Missions is a small-minded git.

    I can never prove it but IMO most of the ministers in the Association follow the party line so they can keep their church. I just can not live my life that way.

  309. @ Christiane:
    I figured such a lecture was coming even through I said there were good people in that mandatory corrupted system. Been reading you a lot of years. The consistent love bombing then the system promotion. It still works for you though. You are one of the best Catholic evangelists I have ever run across. I wish we could all be that good at it for Jesus Christ.

  310. okrapod wrote:

    It is a crying shame on christianity, but there is enough blame to go around on this one.

    I don’t think the average person had much of a choice in those days unless they were willing to give up their life. Many did just that.

  311. Folks,

    Just a reminder that there are those among us who are going through some tough times right now and need prayer. (You may have seen their posts here and on the Open Discussion thread and know their screen names.)

    People who’ve had surgeries or health problems and are in pain.
    People who have lost jobs and need provision.
    People waiting for housing.
    People who have had loved ones die recently.

    If you would be so kind as to pray for our TWW friends here, if you have a moment, that would be lovely.

    ********************
    Additionally, Jeanette Altes (being treated for a tumor, job loss, looking for work, long-time poster here) will have rent due on the 1st of the month and will need help.
    Her rent is $565, but GoFundMe takes out some fees so she needs $620. (Also some money for food, gas for her car, and household supplies.) http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp

    Also, our friends in Texas – Marquis and her son Billy – horribly abused by their church leaders after Billy was a violent crime victim by a church member will also need help.
    They will have rent coming due. They need food and gas as well. Billy is going into high school and as many know young men eat a lot!
    https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

    *Catholic Gate-Crasher kindly offered to get school clothes for Billy through her job in the clothing industry at some special sales and get them to Dee & Deb. We’ll figure out how to get them from North Carolina to Texas (where this family of two lives).

    *Technology needs for Billy. Billy needs a laptop for school and his mom can’t afford one. (He may have other needs for school.) Does anyone have an extra they’d be willing to donate?

    Thank you kind friends.

  312. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Velour:
    looks like we’re both up very late and up very early…. frustrating as far as sleep goes. but TWW is a great diversion for those hours.

    It was hot at night. I’m up with the windows open, cooling off the house, drinking coffee.
    Some time I pull those blue ice packs (used for injuries) out of the freezer and wrap them in pillow cases and sleep with them. I was too tired to do that last night. My bad. It would have helped me sleep better.

    Have a great day.

  313. @ Velour:

    one thing great about where we live — cool mornings & nights (except when your home absorbs the heat of the day). don’t you just love that marine layer, every few days?

  314. mot wrote:

    … I think I went on this Director of Mission’s list to be gotten rid of … saying Lottie Moon preached made me a LIBERAL!

    SBC DOM’s in my area have always served as front men for the ruling theology of the day (with some exceptions). Most change their colors like chameleons. They forget that there is another “list” kept in Heaven which will reveal the secret motives of the heart and agendas of men. It is my opinion that God writes a note in the ledger for those in ministry who frown on anyone (male or female) who preaches the Gospel (the right one).

    As a side-note, so many ministry wives are caught in a tension of yielding to complementarianism, while an egalitarian at heart. I hope the DOM’s wife that you mention was eventually set free from that bondage … not by divorce, but by the DOM coming to his right spiritual mind.

  315. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Velour:
    one thing great about where we live — cool mornings & nights (except when your home absorbs the heat of the day). don’t you just love that marine layer, every few days?

    Indeed.

    Not today, but another weekend I am planning to drive to Capitola. Have a meal at Gayle’s Bakery (so good). Go to the beach.

  316. Paula Rice wrote:

    Why not? It’s either true or its not. You seem to think it contains truth, and it’s up to you to judge its veracity. That’s the impression I get, and it seems like a common denominator here. Besides yourself, I’ve noticed it’s an opinion Bridget, Velour, Daisy, Potter, Elastigirl, among others, hold.

    …Honestly, for some of you who reject the total reliability of the Bible as the singlemost source judging truth and error,

    Those are not my opinions. You have misunderstood my position(s).

  317. Paula Rice wrote:

    I can’t help but wonder as to why you’re all so comfortable here with promoting this view if yours of the Bible that is at odds with mainstream Christianity.

    The Father, the Son, and the Holy Scriptures?
    https://bible.org/seriespage/father-son-and-holy-scriptures

    I find your attitude that because anyone may seemingly be disagreeing with you must mean they are anti-Christ, anti-Bible, or not be a ‘true’ believer to be very arrogant and rude. And this attitude keeps cropping up in your replies to various people.

    The funny thing is, I sort of agree with much of what you’re saying (at least to a point or a degree), but you don’t understand where I’m coming from.
    I don’t think I can ever articulate my views to you in such a way you will understand them.

  318. mot wrote:

    I can never prove it but IMO most of the ministers in the Association follow the party line so they can keep their church.

    That would explain why SBC’s 45,000+ pastors (mostly non-Calvinist) do not have “family talks” to inform their congregations about the proliferation of New Calvinism in SBC ranks. That exercise would be too little too late at this point. If New Calvinist leaders are sinful enough to bring back ancient practices of shunning and excommunication, they wouldn’t have a problem with black-listing dissenting pastors. All sounds like God, doesn’t it?

  319. GSD wrote:

    To be a proper anchor, the Bible needs to be stuck in the contextual seabed of history, culture and language.

    True.

    The Bible, I’d say, points to Jesus but is not Jesus.

    I also don’t think the Holy Spirit points to the Bible. One of his several tasks as delineated in that Bible is to… point to Jesus (among other things, tasks, responsibilities).

    I do not think the Trinity consists of
    Father, Son, Holy Bible.

  320. Velour wrote:

    Is the question (Paula Rice’s) that is being raised also rooted in the differences between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

    I might should look into that Prima Scriptura view some more.

    I think Sola Scriptura is pretty good, in- so- far as Protestants / Baptists don’t go nuts with it and misapply it, which they often do.

    (Like the sola- scriptura- believing- Christians who yell at depressed Christians to “read the Bible more!” and discourage them from seeing a psychiatrist and go on anti-depressant medications, for example.)

  321. Paula Rice wrote:

    But it begs the question. If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are), yet do not rely upon Scripture as authoritative, used to judge between truth and error, then where does that leave you?

    It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations, more or less. Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

    You clearly are misreading my views on this, and I think the views of several other participants on this thread.

    You said,
    “…yet do not rely upon Scripture as authoritative”

    In so far as I remain a believer, I do regard the Scriptures as authoritative.

    However, I don’t hold an uninformed view of the English Bible translations we have in the present that they just fell out of Heaven one day, already completed.

    I am also not under the illusion that everyone approaches the biblical text with no prejudices and biases (including the scholars who translated the Hebrew and Greek into English), because everyone does.

    YOu said,
    “It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations,”

    You’re doing that very thing, too.

    You are filtering your understanding of the Bible and its purpose (and related issues, such as biblical inerrancy and sufficiency), through your own set of biases and preconceptions – but mocking everyone who doesn’t share your particular understandings and preconceptions down to the last jot and tittle.

    You said,

    Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

    Once more, you’re in the same position as the rest of us. Who says your concepts of the Holy Spirit is any more correct than anyone else’s here? Because you read the Bible?

    -Well I’ve read the Bible too, as have most others on this thread, and their interpretations of the Bible may not be the same as yours.

    Unless, maybe you are completely denying that the Holy Spirit does anything for believers today (other than supposedly point people to the Bible).

    You said,

    Let’s call it Flower Power, then, shall we? And maybe if I change my name to Sunflower or Peony, I’d seem less “rude” lol

    I’d now add condescending to the list.

    I’m not, nor have I ever been, a hippy dippy, Flower power, touchy feely, liberal, either.

  322. Paula Rice wrote:

    Honestly, for some of you who reject the total reliability of the Bible as the singlemost source judging truth and error, it leaves me with the impression you’re influenced more or less here by peer pressure or something, like you’re adopting these opinions as though they’re the soup de jour.

    Paula.
    That is ridiculous. The Bible is full of commandments and stories which I believe to be true. However, it is how those truths are interpreted. For example, many used to believe that the Bible did not condemn slavery or racism. And how does one explain the thousands of different denominations all of which interpret some parts of the Bible through their own peculiar lens.

    Secondly, we all go through periods of doubts, questions, etc. To even imagine that the people who visit her and comment are cut from the cloth is naive and unfair since you do not know the struggles of the individuals.

    Please take a step back.. I know you have struggled in your own life and I am willing to cut you some slack but I have found your recent comments rather hostile.

  323. Max wrote:

    mot wrote:
    If New Calvinist leaders are sinful enough to bring back ancient practices of shunning and excommunication, they wouldn’t have a problem with black-listing dissenting pastors. All sounds like God, doesn’t it?

    So true.

    Here’s my review about my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church on YELP:
    https://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale

    Thankfully this blog and its posters taught me so much, as did a few other blogs.
    I have now summarzied those un-Biblical NeoCalvinist authoritarian issues for others, wanting information and to escape. I didn’t want them to have to search for information the way I did.

    Current church members have contacted me, wanting out of my ex-church. They know that something is terribly, terribly wrong there with the pastors/elders and this level of control over adults’ lives. Their comparison, even without my input, has been other churches they’ve gone to in which NONE of these troubling practices took place.

  324. Daisy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Is the question (Paula Rice’s) that is being raised also rooted in the differences between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?
    I might should look into that Prima Scriptura view some more.
    I think Sola Scriptura is pretty good, in- so- far as Protestants / Baptists don’t go nuts with it and misapply it, which they often do.
    (Like the sola- scriptura- believing- Christians who yell at depressed Christians to “read the Bible more!” and discourage them from seeing a psychiatrist and go on anti-depressant medications, for example.)

    As for me, I am not listening to anything that came out of that Chicago Statement/Inerrancy of Scripture.

    The proponents of it are sick and twisted men – advocating that the U.S. forms of government and systems be abolished in favor of an Old Testament model, that their special little group take over our country, that have supported slavery and said it was a good thing, they have advocated that non-Christians be slaves in our times, they have denied the Holocaust, and they have made vile, hate-filled attacks on the Jewish people (apparently it’s lost on them that Jesus was Jewish).

    Why did anyone listen to them for a single second? They are nutcases.

    I’m not a crafts person, but if I was — I’d fold them tinfoil hats. Those guys have wires loose!

  325. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Are you saying that having access to written scripture, had that been possible, would be an advantage to people who were illiterate?
    ————-
    HUG said,
    It’s called “Magic Book-ism”.

    Pretty much, I am on board with Sola Scripture, but when carried too far, it can lead to trouble.

    Like, if you were following the written word blindly when reading this Bible version, you might get the wrong idea about marriage and adultery:

    Wicked Bible
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

    Snippet:
    ——————
    The Wicked Bible, sometimes called Adulterous Bible or Sinners’ Bible, is the Bible published in 1631 by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, which was meant to be a reprint of the King James Bible.

    The name is derived from a mistake made by the compositors: in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:14), the word “not” in the sentence “Thou shalt not commit adultery” was omitted, thus changing the sentence into “Thou shalt commit adultery”. This blunder was spread in a number of copies.

    About a year later, the publishers of the Wicked Bible were called to the Star Chamber and fined £300 (equivalent to £45,051 as of 2015)[1] and deprived of their printing license.[2]

    The fact that this edition of the Bible contained such a flagrant mistake outraged Charles I and George Abbot…
    ————-

  326. @ Bridget:

    too long!

    i really don’t get all that weather talk… high pressure, low pressure, off-shore flow… i don’t the weathergirl & -guy really get it either. they just know the words, corresponding gestures, and of course perkiness.

    i’m bored right now, you see…

  327. @ Velour:

    They, the “scholars” insisted on scripture as authoritative. I was so struck by the cognitive dissonance in the statement (especially article 10) I forgot about their ruse on the use of hyperbole in scripture until Muff mentioned it and I went and retread it. They were literally (no pun intended) counting on people to eschew ancient literary devices because they claimed they were not there in translation. Malpractice? Ignorance? Deception? Take your pick. They demanded a consistently literal interpretation so they simply deemed it so.

    That is the go to statement on inerrancy and scripture as authoritative. What they were really advocating was THEIR interpretations– whatever they may be. (Oh the irony this statement was crafted long before the YRR movement had its tentacles everywhere)

  328. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    too long!
    i really don’t get all that weather talk… high pressure, low pressure, off-shore flow… i don’t the weathergirl & -guy really get it either. they just know the words, corresponding gestures, and of course perkiness.
    i’m bored right now, you see…

    I took meteorology in college. That was a fascinating class and I learned so much!
    I never thought I’d like it. For you and me – here in Northern California/Silicon Valley when our fog rolls in it’s because it’s really hot inland. Nature is trying to balance things out, exchanging cool air with hot air.

    There’s so many other fascinating concepts. I am so glad that I took that class.

  329. Trying to get this back on topic (though the discussion has been interesting). Maybe God is interested in the process of building Christ’s church, and that process is messy. Maybe God likes some variety of expression just like I like a mixed bouquet much better than one flower and a fruit salad better than one fruit. Maybe some conservative inerrantists misuse the Bible and misunderstand what is meant by the inerrancy and the authority of the Bible. Maybe God’s Holy Spirit is sufficient to work when people misuse their ecclesiastical power and join with the state in a very unholy alliance. Maybe some people who believe in Sola Scriptura have inferred that it means “me and my Bible.” Maybe some people do not hold the Bible in high enough regard even though we only know Jesus from those texts. Maybe God does not expect us to have everything figured out (duh!) but rather expects us to live as a community seeking him and following Jesus and sharpening each other. Maybe the bazillion denominations reflect human sinfulness or maybe they reflect the conclusions that different people reach about the truth or both. Maybe the denominations are like families or cultures which are messy and hurtful at times and refreshing and supportive and healing at other times.

    Maybe arguing about denominations or parsing the Chicago Statement is like those who argue that males bear the image of God directly but females only indirectly (9Marks, Ware, Owen) or that one sex is somehow superior to the other (rarely stated that directly.) Maybe God made two sexes because it pleased him to do that. Maybe God is pleased to see the different manifestations of good in various groups of his people just as he is displeased to see the evil in those same groups. Maybe God wants us to help one another purge (or at least recognize) the evil in our own tribe and strive to emulate the good in other tribes.

    Maybe that is why cranky conservative inerrantist Gram3 carefully reads the comments from people here who are not any of those to try to listen and learn from what they are saying because I know I have been very wrong about some things I believed very firmly.

  330. Lydia wrote:

    That is the go to statement on inerrancy and scripture as authoritative. What they were really advocating was THEIR interpretations– whatever they may be. (Oh the irony this statement was crafted long before the YRR movement had its tentacles everywhere)

    Yes, I was on to them.

  331. elastigirl wrote:

    Yes, the bible contains truth. There are a number of ways to interpret many passages. I’ll make an informed decision on how I interpret them. My faith is anchored in a number of things, the bible being one of them.

    Regarding this part:
    “Yes, the bible contains truth.”

    If she is anything like the KJVOs I used to run into years ago (and maybe she’s not, but if she is), that phrase will set her teeth on edge.

    It’s not enough to say or believe the Bible “contains” truth…

    You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.

    But even if you stick a group of 100 Christians into a room who all agree that the Bible is THE truth, and they all ascribe to a literal translation, inerrancy, etc., they will all still disagree on some doctrines.

    They will still interpret it differently. They may occasionally agree with each other on some topics, but not all.

    Which does rather make me wonder what is the point in having a holy, infallible book if its readers cannot agree on what it says.

    I once had a web page bookmarked that discussed some of this stuff.

    I’d like to link you to that, but I cannot find the page at the moment. I’ll keep looking for that page.

    In the mean time, here’s another good one:

    Not everything in the Bible is Biblical!
    http://www.marcalanschelske.com/not-biblical/

  332. @ Lydia:

    “A mighty wind!”
    +++++++++++++++

    “This flame, like all flames, represents the light and darkness. It also represents the uncertainty of life and its delicacy. It also represents a penis.” (:o i said it!)

  333. Gram3 wrote:

    Maybe arguing about denominations or parsing the Chicago Statement is like those who argue that males bear the image of God directly but females only indirectly (9Marks, Ware, Owen) or that one sex is somehow superior to the other (rarely stated that directly.) Maybe God made two sexes because it pleased him to do that….
    Maybe that is why cranky conservative inerrantist Gram3 carefully reads the comments from people here who are not any of those to try to listen and learn from what they are saying because I know I have been very wrong about some things I believed very firmly.

    You’re lovely, Gram3.

    You know what today is? It’s the day for our favorite frozen dessert: Sacred Cow sundae (Gram3 TM).

    Thanks for helping, along with others here, to teach me to a Berean. To look at the men behind these movements and their motives.

  334. Interesting page:

    Saying Yes to the Bible, and No to Biblicism (in post-Christendom Christianity)
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/12/saying-yes-to-the-bible-and-no-to-biblicism-in-post-christendom-christianity/

    Snippet:
    —————-
    When we refer to Scripture as “the word of God,” we mean it in a different sense. We mean that, in these books of the Bible, we find a collective testimony to God’s existence and interaction with a specific historical people, leading us finally to the one, who, from among that people, we receive as God made man.

    The Bible is the word of God in the sense that it brings us the word about God; but it isn’t to be worshiped or venerated as more than a collection of books that give us an outline and a direction for our faith.

    It isn’t an end in itself, nor is it an authority in itself. It is, like dogma in the last chapter, an indicator and a signpost for what lies beyond its pages. It is “inspired,” we believe; that is to say, it is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16; theopneustos), but not dictated word-for-word.

  335. Gram3 wrote:

    Maybe God is pleased to see the different manifestations of good in various groups of his people just as he is displeased to see the evil in those same groups.

    Gram3, this is something I have struggled with as I’ve witnessed the proliferation of New Calvinism within SBC. As a non-Calvinist, I have worshiped alongside classical Calvinists for many years. For the most part, I have found them to be civil in their discourse, with good perspectives on certain Scripture. Unlike their neo-brethren, they have not had church takeover on their mind but have desired to remain one in spirit with the rest of the Body of Christ, although their theology might run to contrary to that held by other believers. There are manifestations of good among Calvinists. However, this new breed is a totally different animal … they are arrogant, aggressive and militant.

    When I think about the growing division within SBC ranks, I’m reminded of a Charles Finney quote:

    “It is evident that many more Churches need to be divided. How many there are that hold together, and yet do no good, for the simple reason that they are not sufficiently agreed. They do not think alike, nor feel alike … and while this is so, they never can work together. Unless they can be brought to such a change of views and feelings as will unite them, they are only a hindrance to each other and to the work of God. In many cases they see and feel that this is so, and yet they keep together, conscientiously, for fear that a division should dishonor religion, when in fact the division that now exists may be making religion a by-word and a reproach. Far better would it be if they would agree to divide amicably, like Abraham and Lot. ‘If thou will take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, I will go to the left.’ Let them separate, and each party work in its own way; and they may both enjoy the blessing.” (Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion)

    I think SBC is at this fork in the road.

  336. @ Gram3:

    “Maybe God is interested in the process of building Christ’s church, and that process is messy. Maybe God likes some variety of expression just like I like a mixed bouquet much better than one flower and a fruit salad better than one fruit.”
    +++++++++++++++

    this is how I see it. also, i think God is so multi-dimensional that some things which to us seem contradictory (hence all the religious variety) are at once true.

    even so, may crickets of all kinds infest the bedrooms and bodies of those who exploit it for their own benefit.

  337. elastigirl wrote:

    Yes, the bible contains truth. There are a number of ways to interpret many passages. I’ll make an informed decision on how I interpret them. My faith is anchored in a number of things, the bible being one of them.

    I think this was the link I originally wanted to give you but couldn’t find it a few moments ago:

    Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant
    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2015/01/unpublished-being-biblical-means-being.html

    Snippet:
    ————
    So if you want to be biblical–if you want to go sola scriptura and drop the magisterium–then you are morally obligated to assume the burden and responsibility of welcoming the doctrinal diversity you will create.

    The alternative is to be delusional, pretending that opening the bible brings everyone to a consensus. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t happen. And pretending otherwise just sets you up to be judgemental and condemnatory. It tempts you into using the word “biblical” as a weapon.
    ———-end Snippet—-

    Just to be clear on my own views (not to debate with anyone here; you’re welcome to believe as you like), I don’t support the Roman Catholic views on this stuff.

    I’m not into the magisterium, or placing Tradition or official papal pronouncements, on the same level of authority as the Bible.

    However, I do agree with the author’s premise that being ‘biblical’ (in the Protestant sola scriptura sense) entails having to being more open to accepting you’re not going to always get consensus on what the Bible means / says.

  338. @ Daisy:

    “You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.”
    +++++++++++++

    as long as your interpretations agree with theirs.

    their logical heaven will be lonely, for sure.

  339. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.

    How does such a view line up with (I believe this was written to believers):

    “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

  340. Nancy2 wrote:

    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.

    So, it’s enforced unity? Some unity that is, LOL.

    Reminds me of the phrase “Mandatory Fun.”

  341. Jack wrote:

    I don’t think that this is the “end” of Christianity but they will find their organizations diminished and disconnected.
    This will lead to smaller membership and in turn greater need to control to prevent defectors and the cycle will continue.

    If you’re right, then Christianity in America might wind up fulfilling these words of Screwtape:

    “We want the Church to be small, not only that fewer men may know the Enemy, but also that those who do may acquire the uneasy intensity and the defensive self-righteousness of a secret society or a clique.”

    Or a cult.

    Thankfully, there is hope that the Church will live on, outside of institutionalized Christendom.

  342. Daisy wrote:

    You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.

    I don’t feel beholden to these groups that meet at hotels and draft statements about *pressing issues* to suit their own agendas and expect all of us to adopt their language, go along with the program, or that we’re heathens. They really are self-centered. “Because we said so.” Snort.

    The Chicago Statement group wanted their own special little group to take over the United States, run the government and its institutions (they planned for this to spread locally, state-wide, and nation-wide and expected the rest of us to roll over and play dead), have a theocracy, and institute slavery of non-Christians (which they have defended in previous years of our nation as a *good thing*, I guess because it wasn’t them and their children enslaved. Sojourner Truth would beg to differ with them, were she alive having been in slavery and seen all of her children sold.) The proponents’ attacks on the Jewish people are likewise hideous.

  343. elastigirl wrote:

    even so, may crickets of all kinds infest the bedrooms and bodies of those who exploit it for their own benefit.

    I’m glad you returned us to the primary topic of cricket, Daisy, because Pakistan’s first innings has just concluded and the Second Test is therefore At A Stage. Pakistan were bowled out for 198 in reply to England’s 589-8 declared. However, England have opted against enforcing the follow-on and have begun their second innings – only for it to be interrupted by rain at 11-0. The players have gone off for an early tea.

    The non-follow-on decision may, or may not, prove correct if much more time is lost to rain. It has raised some eyebrows, certainly, and is being criticised as overly defensive in the twitterverse. That said, this is only day 3. If it were day 4, enforcing the follow-on would surely be unavoidable.

    IHTIH.

  344. @ Gram3:
    One thing that is never wrong is to stand against spiritual abuse that comes in so many guises –some quite heinous.. There are so many who want to sweep it under the rug and never do the tough task of analyzing how such things could operate for so long in these systems. If I had a dollar for every time someone has said there are no perfect people or churches I would be rich. I have never understood what perfection has to do with not harming children, for example. I have never understood the idea that since this happens everywhere else why not church?

    It is interesting to think about what causes spiritual abuse to be able to not only happen but to become the normal in some groups for so long. Maybe the answer lies there and I think we touch on many of the reasons quite often without attributing them.

    My view of scripture is a bit different. I think there has to be freedom in interpretation but that also means there are groups I won’t feel comfortable with I won’t be comfortable with the cheap grace crowds or those that include comp in the Gospel. I am not an inerrantist because I don’t think the word fits. I believe scripture was Inspired. I have a more conservative view in how the Kingdom operates when it comes to obvious intent with right and wrong.

    If Christians love their tribes (and there are many) more than the lives of innocent children, we are in big trouble. Actually, I don’t view it as Christianity.

  345. Nancy2 wrote:

    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.

    But what they really mean is “You must agree to protect church leadership by submitting to the elders.” Coerced unity is not genuine unity. At best they are striving for harmony; harmony is not unity. Requiring agreement and accord with patriarchy is a way to ensure its survival.

  346. Max wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.
    But what they really mean is “You must agree to protect church leadership by submitting to the elders.” Coerced unity is not genuine unity. At best they are striving for harmony; harmony is not unity. Requiring agreement and accord with patriarchy is a way to ensure its survival.

    You must agree to protect Authoritarianism.

    My ex-pastors are so out of control on these issues, feeling it is their right to control other adults’ lives, that as they spin more and more out of control they are facing arrest and prosecution (including for Criminal Conspiracy, Aiding & Abetting, Obstruction of Justice, Stalking, Intimidating a Witness, not adhering to mandated Child Abuse Reporting laws, the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine, and on and on).

    I think they need to be humbled with handcuffs, Miranda Rights read to them, prosecution, and a tour-of-duty of jail or prison time. The rights they allege they have via Membership Covenants and their *authority* are all criminal acts in my state (California), just like if they were a gang. And at this point they are a gang and they haven’t had anything in common with Christ.

  347. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.

    Does behavior define identity? I once looked up every instance of “sinner“ in the NT to see if believers are called sinners. The result surprised me.

  348. Daisy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.
    How does such a view line up with (I believe this was written to believers):
    “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

    Don’t misunderstand me because I don’t agree with Paula’s assertion but this is a perfect example of how static literal interpretations can become a problem and why we have to be thoughtful about the whole authoritative scripture business.

    Later in 1 John he says:

    “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”

    So we see here the problem with an either/or approach to scripture. And using the either/or approach means we often miss the larger meaning that is so very beautiful and encouraging. We also have challenges defining sin. Some scholars say it is missing the mark of Gods perfection which means we are stuck until we die. Some say it is missing the mark of bearing His image which seems more plausible to me.

  349. Lydia wrote:

    One thing that is never wrong is to stand against spiritual abuse that comes in so many guises

    Edmund Burke’s quote comes to mind “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    Or “good women” I might add, Dear Lydia! Burke’s warning is applicable when aberrant theology slips into the church, with all its manifestations. While some of the issues reported on watchblogs may not be “evil”, they are nevertheless wrong. Hmmm … let’s break down that word “nevertheless” … NEVER.THE.LESS! Christians need to live their lives that way and be prepared to boldly step into the gap for others when “LESS” raises its ugly head in church. As believers, too many of us are living far below the privileges available to us because we have settled for less.

  350. @ Ken F:

    i personally dislike religious language, including “sin”, “sinner”. because the load they carry in baggage far outweighs the meaning. as i see it, we all do wrong at times, for which there are consequences in our lives/relationships. God forgives us.

  351. @ Gram3:

    Something else your comment reminded me of was my utter frustration (back when I was still around the system) of the myopic devotion to Paul instead of Jesus Christ. I had not viewed Paul as an enemy of what is good and just until being immersed in it.

    It broke my heart. I felt like he was not only maligned but elevated to Christ status and he would be appalled! I used to imagine him writing a scathing plea to beg them to reconsider this.

  352. Nancy2 wrote:

    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.

    Interesting to note they also inserted refusing to gossip in the same section as submission. We’ve all seen here how this is used as a club to silence dissent.

  353. Ken F wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.
    Does behavior define identity? I once looked up every instance of “sinner“ in the NT to see if believers are called sinners. The result surprised me.

    Great question. There have been debates that good fruit denotes correct doctrine or what some present as orthodoxy. I tend to think it denotes behavior. I also looked up what believers are called and was also surprised. It is not ‘sinner’. Saints, brothers/sisters, friends, etc.

  354. Bill M wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.
    Interesting to note they also inserted refusing to gossip in the same section as submission. We’ve all seen here how this is used as a club to silence dissent.

    Yes, at my ex-church – Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley – the pastors/elders do this all of the time.

    They also say, when asked any question or if anyone has critical thinking skills, “You are bringing an accusation against an elder without cause.”

    People are constantly told to “obey and submit to their elders” and this level of hyper-control/heavy Shepherding and the pastors/elders manipulatively tell church goers that they will “give an account to God for your souls” – legitimizing their claims to authority, power, blind obedience, abuse, threats, excommunications and shunnings. Because after all, being an arrogant, self-centered bully with no healthy boundaries or respect for others is a really, really, really hard job in this life.

  355. BJ wrote:

    By that are you referring to Baylor? I’m just concerned because my husband and I are sending our son there in August.

    We had an exchange student from Brazil who is like a daughter to us. She went to seminary at Baylor. You don’t have to worry about that school being 9Marxist/authoritarian/Calvinista. Roger Olson was one of her professors and he definitely does not subscribe to their views.

  356. Bill M wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.
    Interesting to note they also inserted refusing to gossip in the same section as submission. We’ve all seen here how this is used as a club to silence dissent.

    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill. Snort. He is a piece of work. (Church insiders give me the emails. They said he’s losing it and is so abusive and they want out.)

    I think his feelings were hurt that I had warned the principal of a Christian school, and law enforcement, about my ex-church whom rented the school gym for a basketball camp.
    The pastors/elders permit their friend who is sexually attracted to children, is a convicted child pornographer on Megan’s List (served prison time), carte blanche access to other peoples’ children – including at the sports camp and do not tell parents or facility owners. If a child is harmed, the facility can be sued.

    The principal thanked me and said that they never permit Megan’s List sex offenders on school property.

    I told him that my ex-pastors/elders said that because their friend the sex offender said a few words about Jesus that he was “all better” and could have carte blanche access to other peoples’ children, explaining why the sexual abuse of children is the No. 1 reason that churches are sued and there’s an epidemic of it.

  357. Nancy2 wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are)

    Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.

    I’m glad you made mention of this so I can explain. And Im glad you brought this up here, under the post about Complementarianism, because what I have to say here not only lies at the heart of the Gospel, but is the reason why Complementarianism is an anti-Christ teaching.

    It all has to do with our ontological identities.

    So, laying aside how each we identify the Bible as being (what you believe the Bible is – a very important component of the Christian faith), and the Trinity (what you believe about who God is – another primary component of the Christian faith), I want to address how each of us identifies ourselves as being, and its’ relevancy to the Gospel, and the debate surrounding Complementarian.

    There is a battleground here. To fight, we must know who we are in Christ. Knowing our identity helps us to identify our enemy, and to recognize the nature of the force we’re warring against.

    We have an enemy, the Accuser of the Brethren, who sows seeds of doubt, fear, and unbelief into our ranks, seeking to disrupt our relationship with God, and cause division among us.

    To guard against these attacks, we must clothe ourselves with the weapons of our warfare. Additionally, we have a responsibility to discern the work of the evil one in our lives. We’re all charged with being Watchmen.

    Our faith in Christ Jesus goes well beyond the promise of a future in heaven; it affects the here and now. Our acceptance of the Gospel radically changes our identity. Our lives were buried in baptism raised with Him in newness of Life. The old man of sin was cut off and we have been we have made new creations in Christ. The old is gone, the new has come!

    There’s a tension in the Christian life between what is and what shall be. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that the reality that awaits us is fundamentally different from the reality we live in today.

    Complementarianism is focused on this very thing. At its core, it seeks to redefine us in our essential being, and to accomplish this, it sought to redefine Christ in His essential Being. The two must be addressed together in order to resist and rid ourselves of this invasion, because Who Christ is has a direct impact upon who we are in Him.

    Who you are in Christ Jesus affects your whole, entire identify. You are no longer estranged from God, living under His wrath, under the power and dominion of sin. As His dearly beloved, fully accepted in Him, your righteousness is not your own that you earned through good works, rather your righteousness is His righteousness that has been imputed to you. It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, which is not of ourselves – it is a gift from God.

    When God looks upon the believer in Christ, He sees us washed, cleansed, and forgiven of our sin. Sin was what had separated us from God prior to our conversion. We no longer stand guilty before God because our sins have been atoned. Nothing now can separate us. We are the Redeemed of the Lord.

    We are not yet as we will be, but that doesn’t change who we are in Christ. The choice to sin remains, but we are no longer “sinners”. Our status and identity has been transformed through our faith in Christ Jesus, and due to the imputation of His righteousness to us.

    Our primarily identity, that supercedes all others, is Christ, who is our life. Other identifiers like gender, race, class, nationality, etc. are all transcended. What unites us together is Christ.

    Knowing Christ, and who we are in Him, is key to our spiritual warfare. A key piece of our equipment is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, which we must not neglect or minimize its importance.

    We must stand fast, knowing that Christ has untangled us from the yoke of sin, and lay hold, by faith, the newness of life that is ours in Christ Jesus! All of this, the Bible says, is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God!

    Complementarianism is a lie. It lies to us about who we are, and who Jesus is. It’s a heretical doctrine that must be resisted and it’s teachers exposed. Know your rights as a citizen of the Kingdom, and fight to defend your freedom!

  358. Lydia wrote:

    the myopic devotion to Paul instead of Jesus Christ. I had not viewed Paul as an enemy of what is good and just until being immersed in it.

    ISTM that setting Paul’s words against Jesus’ words is foolish and, frankly, not very “conservative” because Analogy of Faith.

    In my experience, one reason this happens in my “tribe” is that it is easier to fit Paul into a system, but Jesus blows categories, and that makes people uncomfortable. And even using Paul that way doesn’t really relieve the anxiety of uncertainty because he says things which the other apostles had difficulty understanding.

  359. @ siteseer:
    I appreciated your testimony and how you came to faith in Christ through your reading of the Bible.

    I noticed you referred to it as a book. Yes, it’s a book, but what sets it apart from all others is the fact that it’s fully inspired unlike any other book.

    The inspiration contained in the Bible is intended to be transferred to us, producing in us, as temples of the Spirit, spiritual transformation. The Bible is for us, the singlemost source of the Christian life, whereupon we receive our knowledge and revelation as to who God is producing in us the faith we need to live by.

    Yes, it’s a book. But it’s contents are intended to become fleshed out in us, as they were fully realized in Christ Jesus – the Word who became flesh, and lived among us.

  360. @ Paula Rice:

    Just another view, ok? Not everyone buys into this interpretation of imputed righteousness. That is the interpretation that under girds the idea that one can molest children and be still be righteous. It also under girds sin leveling and a perfect example of which we saw at SGM. It fits in with OSAS and election as being chosen. It comes from the view that we are totally unable to choose, have faith or obey God. So Christ imputed a sort of faux righteousness on us because we cannot be righteous.

    When Scripture says that faith is imputed as righteousness, instead of works of the law, it means that God considers faith to be righteousness as opposed to obedience to the Torah. The way imputed righteousness is taught today is part of the whole law/grace dichotomy which I see as problematic today but not in first century Palestine where it was a huge issue.

    Paul did not deny that a person must be righteous in order to go to heaven, he simply disagreed with the Judiazers as to what righteousness consisted of. Instead of teaching that the Gentiles needed to obey the Torah and be righteous that way, Paul said they needed to be righteous by putting their faith in Christ. Ergo the Abraham example before Torah.

    This is an area to be careful. Paul was certainly not saying a person could be consistently unrighteousness and still be saved as this interpretation is usually twisted to mean these days.

    When a person puts their faith in Christ, God considers their “faith”, righteousness. There is no magic transaction of imputation. This goes all the way back to Abraham. Faith is righteous in that it follows with genuine repentance and obedience. With a life of true faith, a propensity to grow in wisdom and holiness follows. Not perfection but striving to maturity.

    The word impute means to account. It does not mean something foreign to you was transferred to your account. That is a sort of dualism which you touch on quite a bit in your comment.

  361. Gram3 wrote:

    try to listen and learn from what they are saying because I know I have been very wrong about some things I believed very firmly.

    That’s kind of the position I’ve been in the last 2, 3 years. I’m more willing to consider I might be wrong about stuff.

    About this:

    Maybe God likes some variety of expression just like I like a mixed bouquet much better than one flower and a fruit salad better than one fruit.

    If God liked nuts in his fruit salad recipe, I might be one of those nuts. 🙂

  362. @ Lydia:
    Let it be known that nowhere in my comment was there found any encouragement for the believer, or anyone else, to sin and go on sinning. Let’s agree that just because people make wrong assumptions, and misapply the Bible, such as thinking the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and God’s grace means we can sin with impunity, doesn’t mean the teachings of Scripture are false.

    Certainly we should be able to agree that one of the major manifestations of the fallen nature is in its distortions of God and its propensity to misinterpret the Bible.

    One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

    In fact, it is indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that separates the Christian from the non-Christian. I trust that is understood.

    Where the Spirit is at work, there is fruit. We say we cannot judge a person’s salvation, but we can judge fruit, and the Bible is not silent on this matter. “We shall know them by their fruit.”

    Moreover, spiritual transformation only happens by the Spirit. There is no other way. The flesh, the Bible says, profits nothing.

    The Apostle Paul thoroughly addressed these issues in several of his epistles. Again, the Bible is the source for our instruction. In response to the question, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” this is what Paul said:

    By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

    But here, too, is another systemic issue that I’ve noticed at work among those who question the Bible’s authority here – it’s coupled with a propensity to distain the Apostle Paul’s words.

  363. @ Paula Rice:

    You wrote: One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Not true. Several People have consistently brought up the holy spirit throughout this entire discussion on biblical authority.

  364. @ Lydia:

    My understanding of what the Bible says about this stuff is that someone who has truly converted will more often do the right thing and NOT sin, but I also think it may teach (and personal experience bears this out), that even an actual convert may sin occasionally.

    I see people in the news who say they are Christian, but they’ve been arrested or found out for swindling hundreds of thousands of dollars off senior citizens over the years, or repeatedly hiring child prostitutes for years – I have a hard time seeing how such a person is really a believer or follower of Christ.

    Then, though, you have some Christians who act as though accepting Christ translates into immediate full sanctification right here and now in this lifetime, which I don’t see as being right or true, either.

  365. Paula Rice wrote:

    One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Several people here have brought up the work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not take the place of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be our help and impart power to the believer.

  366. Paula Rice wrote:

    But here, too, is another systemic issue that I’ve noticed at work among those who question the Bible’s authority here – it’s coupled with a propensity to distain the Apostle Paul’s words.

    I have not seen anyone disdain the Apostle Paul’s words. Can you reference the comments that did this?

  367. Lydia wrote:

    It also under girds sin leveling and a perfect example of which we saw at SGM.

    And I have to disagree with you here. SGM emphasized consistently, repeatedly, ad nauseum, that we were sinners.

    CJ Mahaney consistently, repeatedly, ad nauseum emphasized that he himself was a sinner, and the worst sinner he knew.

    This emphasis was something he intended to be imparted. He wasn’t just speaking for himself. The “Savior” of SGM was a guy who was stuck, nailed to the Cross, who never triumphed over sin.

    In fact, he’s still there, hanging from those nails. Someone needs to go rescue that poor, pathetic false Jesus from the crucifixion CJ Mahaney inflicts upon his false god, day after day!! Call 911!

  368. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ siteseer:
    I appreciated your testimony and how you came to faith in Christ through your reading of the Bible.
    I noticed you referred to it as a book. Yes, it’s a book, but what sets it apart from all others is the fact that it’s fully inspired unlike any other book.
    The inspiration contained in the Bible is intended to be transferred to us, producing in us, as temples of the Spirit, spiritual transformation. The Bible is for us, the singlemost source of the Christian life, whereupon we receive our knowledge and revelation as to who God is producing in us the faith we need to live by.
    Yes, it’s a book. But it’s contents are intended to become fleshed out in us, as they were fully realized in Christ Jesus – the Word who became flesh, and lived among us.

    Amen. It is Divinely inspired. With this in mind It becomes a challenge for me to make sense of all its nuances. Some things in Scripture are metaphors, while some things are approximations, and some matters discussed are meant to be interpreted literally. And I strive to look at it all through a lens of what you describe. I much prefer the term Infallibilty than inerrancy. I am uncertain presuppositions influenced by culture don’t sometimes corrupt interpretation. On the complementarian issue, I am a social conservative. I believe in the traditional nuclear family where the man in most cases protects the family and he is head of the house, but not not a dictator. Where I disagree is with all this submission and stereotypical roles. For example I know a husband wife team where the wife is the mechanic, The car breaks down and the wife is getting oily under the hood. On the submission issue, shouldn’t a marriage be a partnership rather than the wife a child like servant? I do believe in equality. And I don’t object to woman evangelists or teachers. They are doing something that is a calling. I wouldn’t have problems with a woman preacher as long as she preachers the atonement and the Word of God. Don’t know where this places me. I don’t like labels.

  369. @ Paula Rice:

    I’m not sure where you are going with your various arguments on this thread. Your arguments seems to fit points number 3, 4, 5, 6, and maybe 18 of this link: http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

    If that’s not your intent you might want to consider taking a step back and considering whether or not you are writing in way that could be misunderstood. I don’t believe you are malicious in your intent.

  370. @ Bridget:
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

  371. @ Max:
    O generally point out at this point that Catholicism and the Orthodox churches are the last large defenses among orthodoxy (small o, basically Nicene Christianity) but it occurred to me that denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree

  372. Paula Rice wrote:

    But here, too, is another systemic issue that I’ve noticed at work among those who question the Bible’s authority here – it’s coupled with a propensity to distain the Apostle Paul’s words.

    Who here has questioned the Bible’s authority? Do tell. Please don’t put me on that list.

  373. Lydia wrote:

    @ Paula Rice:
    You wrote: One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.
    —-
    (Lydia replied):
    Not true. Several People have consistently brought up the holy spirit throughout this entire discussion on biblical authority.

    I was one of those people.

    I asked her a time or two where the Holy Spirit is in her worldview, since she is so heavily a Biblicist she appears to make no room for the Holy Spirit, only seeming to say he points people to the Bible and that’s all he does or is good for(?) (Unless I misunderstood her earlier comments)

  374. @ Paula Rice:

    “And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    i doubt Bridget would refuse to take you (or most people) at your word. I suspect she might feel you have misinterpreted things, and that would be the extent of it.

  375. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

    If you can’t point me to comments where people disdain Paul’s words then, okay, I won’t take your word for it. As far as me being sensitive to “it,” I think you are wrong.

  376. Paula Rice wrote:

    CJ Mahaney consistently, repeatedly, ad nauseum emphasized that he himself was a sinner, and the worst sinner he knew.

    1) Then why’d this guy get up on a Pedestal/Altar and stay there?

    2) This also sounds like “Utter Total Depravity” plus “Can You Top This?” Unlike the usual Church Lady types who glory in their own Righteousness, these guys glory in their own Utter Depravity. (Like the Comte/Marquis de Sade?)

  377. DW wrote:

    @ Max:
    O generally point out at this point that Catholicism and the Orthodox churches are the last large defenses among orthodoxy (small o, basically Nicene Christianity) but it occurred to me that denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree

    I don’t know. Missouri Lutherans have been involved in the CBMW since I believe J O O Pruess was on the board of reference of this organization. Missouri Lutheran scholars have studied at the reformed SBTS. You have to turn to the more conservative Lutheran bodies who are very cautious towards the Reformed to find some of the real bulwarks of orthodoxy. This being said, the Book of Concord does contain the Nicene creed. My suspicion is some elements in Missouri will fall away to ESS but most will stay orthodox. The fall out will be much less in more insular separatist Lutheran denominations such as WELS or ELS. We will wait and see how this plays out.

  378. Daisy wrote:

    I see people in the news who say they are Christian, but they’ve been arrested or found out for swindling hundreds of thousands of dollars off senior citizens over the years, or repeatedly hiring child prostitutes for years – I have a hard time seeing how such a person is really a believer or follower of Christ.

    Then, though, you have some Christians who act as though accepting Christ translates into immediate full sanctification right here and now in this lifetime, which I don’t see as being right or true, either.

    The two go together.
    The second provides cover for the first, as well as forcing Christians into a double life. Since everyone (including themselves) expects them to instantly become “a new creature” utterly without sin, they have to hide anything & everything that could possibly indicate their salvation didn’t “take”. Or “Sanctify their Sin” with a coat of God-paint like Driscoll’s “I SEE THINGS…” Either way, it trains in deceit and deception until (like in that old Twilight Zone episode) the Mask becomes the Face.

  379. @ Paula Rice:
    Your understanding of imputed Righteousness came off to me in the same way. God sees us exactly as we are. Instead of the idea that the law produced Righteousness for the Gentiles, it is faith. The resurrection did not impute faith to us, either. It all boils down to what we choose to do. Jesus’ first teaching was Repent and believe.

    If I misunderstood, I apologize.

  380. Lydia wrote:

    @ Paula Rice:

    You wrote: One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Not true. Several People have consistently brought up the holy spirit throughout this entire discussion on biblical authority.

    Maybe Paula has a different Holy Spirit?
    Like the Bible? Or Neo-Cal Pastor/Guru?

  381. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

    To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

  382. Bridget wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    But here, too, is another systemic issue that I’ve noticed at work among those who question the Bible’s authority here – it’s coupled with a propensity to distain the Apostle Paul’s words.
    ———————–
    Bridget said:
    I have not seen anyone disdain the Apostle Paul’s words. Can you reference the comments that did this?

    A person or two above did say they have seen some other Christians elevate Apostle Paul’s words above those of Jesus.

    But saying that, or feeling that way, is not the same thing as “disdaining” Paul or Paul’s words.

    There have been one or two visitors to this blog in the past who are sort of ‘anti-Pauline’ in outlook, but I don’t think most who post here fit that description.

    I do not. I don’t have a problem with the Pauline epistles.

    I don’t know if Paula Rice considers this or not, but this blog draws a wide variety of people.

    This site attracts atheists, agnostics, Catholics, different types of Protestants, and everyone in-between.

    If Paula is reading this post, I hope she realizes it’s not fair or productive to hold everyone on this blog responsible for everyone’s views who posts here.

    I don’t agree with every view or comment I read on here, and so I don’t appreciate being made to feel as though I have to defend them, or being lumped in with people who believe something I may not agree in.

    If I see remarks on this site I don’t agree with, I sometimes just scroll by them without responding to them.
    I don’t want my silence to be viewed as tacit approval of every post or opinion ever expressed here, but I don’t feel the need to debate with other people on every subject.

  383. Velour wrote:

    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill. Snort. He is a piece of work. (Church insiders give me the emails. They said he’s losing it and is so abusive and they want out.)

    Keep dropping those dimes, Velour.

    Maybe Pastor will lose it to the point he drives everyone away (except maybe his pet pedo) and ends up screaming from the pulpit to an empty building.

    Or gets in the news some other way — either as a perp or YouTube spectacle. You did say three police agencies and the State AG have been alerted.

  384. DW wrote:

    Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree

    Some of us are Baptists to the bone, and we just want our SBC, EVFree, and non-denominational free churches back from this mutant strain of Calvinism.

  385. @ Gram3:

    Mark wrote: Don’t know where this places me.
    Gram3 wrote: In good company. 🙂
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    in a place where only the broadest labels apply: human, believes in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit

  386. elastigirl wrote:

    i personally dislike religious language, including “sin”, “sinner”. because the load they carry in baggage far outweighs the meaning. as i see it, we all do wrong at times, for which there are consequences in our lives/relationships.

    “You give yourself too much credit. The world has always been broken.”
    — Chief Bogo, Zootopia

  387. Velour wrote:

    You must agree to protect Authoritarianism.

    Throwing yourself under the bus to grease the wheels for The Great Man.

  388. Velour wrote:

    The rights they allege they have via Membership Covenants and their *authority* are all criminal acts in my state (California), just like if they were a gang. And at this point they are a gang and they haven’t had anything in common with Christ.

    Like Boko Haram and Daesh, “A bandit gang operating under cover of religion.”

  389. Strategies for Churches to Make Women Safe
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/07/22/strategies-for-churches-to-make-women-safe/

    Snippets:
    ———-
    Their abusers believed that Scripture (and therefore God) gave men authority to monitor, manage, and discipline women. Longing to please God, these women submitted to abusive men, regardless of the cost to themselves. Some nearly lost their lives, others went into hiding. All are deeply wounded.

    …..Tragically, however, in her own marriage, Ruth [Tucker] was abused by a man who used Scripture to dominate her.
    Given the terrifying experiences Ruth endured, it is unthinkable that anyone might attempt to persuade her to stand with individuals whose theology fueled her abuse.

    …sadly, I have rarely observed complementarian theologians speaking out against those who use their teachings to abuse others. In fact, it is shocking to observe the defensiveness of some complementarians when they are questioned about the abusive consequences of their theology.

  390. Bridget wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Several people here have brought up the work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not take the place of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be our help and impart power to the believer.

    “Saint John Chrysostom likewise observed that the New Law was promulgated at the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven on the day of Pentecost,
    and that the Apostles “did not come down from the mountain carrying, like Moses, tablets of stone in their hands;
    but they came down carrying the Holy Spirit in their hearts… having become by His grace a living law, a living book”

    The ‘power’ of the Holy Spirit is very little comprehended today outside of circles that interpret Scripture in the context of tradition,
    but this ‘power’ is like NOTHING earthly, and it will be available to us until the coming of Our Lord, as we are still in need of it in this strange and alien land.

    What IS this immense power of the Holy Spirit? well, here it is illustrated in the context of one Christian tradition:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZND53eM-Ks

  391. Daisy wrote:

    …sadly, I have rarely observed complementarian theologians speaking out against those who use their teachings to abuse others. In fact, it is shocking to observe the defensiveness of some complementarians when they are questioned about the abusive consequences of their theology.

    Because Ideology is Perfect in Every Way, Comrades.
    It has to be!
    Ideology says so and Ideology is Perfect in Every Way!

  392. Mark wrote:

    I am uncertain presuppositions influenced by culture don’t sometimes corrupt interpretation.

    Oh, for sure!

    I’ve been meditating on the subject of wisdom. In Proverbs, wisdom is personified as a woman, crying out in the streets. This is what she says:

    “How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?

    How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

    Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.

    The fear of the Lord is the “beginning of wisdom” and we’re told to ask and keep on asking, to seek and keep on seeking, to knock and keep on knocking.

    The Kingdom of God, Jesus said, is like hidden treasure; a pearl of great price; a net that catches all kinds of fish. It’s something we are to desire and seek after, and if we lack wisdom, we’re invited to ask, and we’re told it’s something God desires to generously give us.

    So, we’re on a treasure hunt. I’m glad it’s like this, but it can be frustrating when we go through the deep, dark valleys where the lights go out and our faith is really put to the test.

  393. DW wrote:

    it occurred to me that denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism

    The New Calvinists, at this point, are in hot pursuit of Southern Baptists, Evangelical Free churches, and some corners of Pentecostalism (they are lucrative markets with huge assets). In my corner of the world, I don’t see them interested at all in the Lutherans, and certainly not Catholics (however, YRR churches in my area have attracted some Catholic members – they like the music, I think).

    The reformed movement is all about restoring the gospel that mainline Protestant denominations have lost. They claim to be the last bastion of orthodoxy and purity of belief and practice. Which is arrogance, of course, to think they must Calvinize everyone else to bring the truth back to the church … when the denominations mentioned have faithfully been holding the Cross of Christ up for ALL people.

  394. seems to me labels are for sorting, for other people to sort us. the more labels a person wears, the more their lot or plot is reduced. the more their freedom of perspective is reduced. the more people define who we are, instead of we ourselves defining who we are.

    each of us is so multi-faceted, having been forged through pressure and challenge. why should we let people label & label & label us back down into a lump of coal?

  395. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Since everyone (including themselves) expects them to instantly become “a new creature” utterly without sin, they have to hide anything & everything that could possibly indicate their salvation didn’t “take”.

    Or “Sanctify their Sin” with a coat of God-paint like Driscoll’s “I SEE THINGS…” Either way, it trains in deceit and deception until (like in that old Twilight Zone episode) the Mask becomes the Face.

    Under this sort of thinking, Christians aren’t permitted to have problems in life, either.

    I’ve tried opening up to other Christians in real life, and it resulted not in receiving emotional support and encouragement, but shaming, judging, and criticism.

    I’ve received the message from a lot of Christians that it’s Not okay to have problems, hurt, and to talk about any of that.

  396. Gram3 wrote:

    Some of us are Baptists to the bone, and we just want our SBC, EVFree, and non-denominational free churches back from this mutant strain of Calvinism.

    I resemble that remark! The Baptists I grew up with were neither Calvinist or Arminian … they were Biblicists. Gram3, I keep waiting for the SBC masses to wake up and put the brakes on the reformed movement, but they just snooze on.

  397. Gram3 wrote:

    Max and Lydia may be interested that the fine folks at Johns Hopkins have identified Free Will

    Yes, Max is very excited about this scientific discovery! From the article you cite “… Johns Hopkins researchers found a way to observe people’s brain activity as they made choices entirely on their own …” OK, that does it! The essential tenet of Calvinism has been refuted by a distinguished University! So reformed theology can just go away now!! Humans no longer have to believe that we are all robots remotely controlled by a sovereign God, that we are so totally depraved that we have a total inability to make a choice about the destiny of our souls. We indeed have a free will! Thank you John Hopkins! (Of course, the New Calvinists will refute this refutation by distorting more Scripture and Calvinization of Christendom will continue without missing a beat).

  398. Velour wrote:

    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill.

    It goes with the territory, if you find yourself a sane person in an insane organization you get labeled as the nut by the other inmates.

  399. Velour wrote:

    That was an excellent article.

    My wife found it somewhere. As she was reading it to me last night I could not help but think of the Calvinistas. Do they fail to hit any of the 20 points?

  400. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t know if Paula Rice considers this or not, but this blog draws a wide variety of people.

    This site attracts atheists, agnostics, Catholics, different types of Protestants, and everyone in-between.

    I’m addressing those who identify as Christians. The blog “dissects Christian trends”. The problems discussed here, with few exceptions, deal with issues involving biblical practice and interpretation.

    I didn’t make up the Bible nor invent the Christian faith. As a believer, my task is to follow it. If that’s an area you’re obviously struggling in, take it up with its Author since you’re clearly not open to me.

  401. Bill M wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill.

    It goes with the territory, if you find yourself a sane person in an insane organization you get labeled as the nut by the other inmates.

    well, getting ‘labeled’ when you are in difficulty instead of helped is one way you KNOW you are not with fellow members of the Body of Christ . . . in the Body of Christ it is true that when one member is hurting, all hurt but all also surround and aid the hurting person. And in the case of ‘nuthood’, I have read (somewhere) that it is a really good thing that in the Body of Christ, we are not all nuts on the same day.

    (frankly, I LIKE nuts, if they are well-meaning, kind nuts who are marching to their own drummer and unafraid to be different and joyfully eccentric ….. it’s the people in our lives who ARE different from ‘everyone else’ who have something to offer back and share . . . salt and light.)

  402. @ Max:
    Wait Max! God is controlling the brain to make it look like it is choosing on its own. Much like He makes the earth look older than it really is.

  403. Lydia wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

    To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

    I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.

    He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!

  404. @ Ken F:
    Not at ground zero where I live. Just reading through it was triggering. So glad to be unaffiliated with that mess!

  405. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

    To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

    I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.

    He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!

    Totally agree! They play down and ignore his respect for Phoebe and the fact he had no qualms starting the first church in Europe in Lydia’s home. Junia! There is more as you well know.

  406. Bill M wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill.
    It goes with the territory, if you find yourself a sane person in an insane organization you get labeled as the nut by the other inmates.

    Isn’t that the truth.

    I think that my ex-pastor is just livid that I contacted the Christian school whose gym they rented and told the school to ban them because of the liability to the school, the danger to children, and the danger to the school’s reputation. My ex-pastors/elders believe that their friend who is sexually attracted to children and is a Megan’s List sex offender (child porn) should have carte blanche access to other peoples’ children, including at the 5-day basketball camp in the summer.

    The pastors/elders have wives who are beaten down doormats. Scratch that. They’re wall-to-wall carpeting. Ditto for their daughters. Trained to take abuse.

    So in my last email string I included the district attorney, the major newspaper (San Jose Mercury News), the women’s domestic violence groups (YWCA of Silicon Valley and Next Door Solutions), the Sheriff’s, five police departments whose jurisdictions are involved in one aspect or another of this nut case church, and the heads of the Seventh Day Adventists who rent space to my ex-church in Sunnyvale.

    I asked the District Attorney to please interpret the church Membership Covenant, since the pastors/elders insist that includes the commission of criminal conduct (ratifying child abuse, not protecting children, harassing members who leave for other churches) and that church members are ‘to obey’. I asked the DA in my email, as the highest law enforcement office in my county (Santa Clara) if that were true as it’s my understanding, from having earned a straight ‘A’ in Contract Law that in the United States you can’t ‘contract’ for criminal or illegal acts and that’s NOT enforceable.

    I asked the D.A.: Can’t these pastors/elders be arrested and prosecuted for Criminal Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting, Criminal Harassment, Stalking, Obstruction of Justice, Intimidating a Witness, failure to report as Mandated Child Abuse Reporters, and other crimes?

  407. Ken F wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    That was an excellent article.
    My wife found it somewhere. As she was reading it to me last night I could not help but think of the Calvinistas. Do they fail to hit any of the 20 points?

    They hit them all.

  408. Daisy wrote:

    Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”

    Augustine, the father of the western church, did say that. Sin entered the world through a women’s corrupted soul.

    Orthodox theology is based on his teachings, not the Bible. Yes the bible is part of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy interprets the scriptures through Augustine.

    So in opposition to your thought, subordination-ist would say Eve is to blame, and the world will be redeemed through men.

  409. Lydia wrote:

    a YRR who considers complementarian an “historic” Baptist view

    The history he is talking about is only about 15 years old. Some of these young whippersnappers probably think Al Mohler founded the Southern Baptist Convention.

  410. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill. Snort. He is a piece of work. (Church insiders give me the emails. They said he’s losing it and is so abusive and they want out.)
    Keep dropping those dimes, Velour.
    Maybe Pastor will lose it to the point he drives everyone away (except maybe his pet pedo) and ends up screaming from the pulpit to an empty building.
    Or gets in the news some other way — either as a perp or YouTube spectacle. You did say three police agencies and the State AG have been alerted.

    I think my ex-pastor is really ticked off because I’ve asked the Seventh Day Adventists, whom they rent from, to ban from the all SDA properties given the level of abuse they’re doing and the damage to peoples’ lives, as well as the demands for criminal conduct, not protecting children.

  411. Lydia wrote:

    Wait Max! God is controlling the brain to make it look like it is choosing on its own. Much like He makes the earth look older than it really is.

    Darn it, Lydia! You spoiled my day!

  412. Lydia wrote:

    God sees us exactly as we are.

    I believe God sees us in Christ, not as if to turn a blind eye to our struggles, but because that is where we are seated.

    It’s not God that has a problem with His sight, His vision. The challenge is for us to come into full agreement, through faith, with God’s reality, and for us not only “see” who He is, but to realize who we are in Him.

    More than anything, this is what the Good News of the Gospel is about. The Gospel doesn’t change anything about God because God wasn’t the problem and God does not change.

    The problem was us. We needed to change, and we have been changed through our faith in Jesus Christ!

  413. Paula Rice wrote:

    I’m addressing those who identify as Christians. The blog “dissects Christian trends”. The problems discussed here, with few exceptions, deal with issues involving biblical practice and interpretation.

    I didn’t make up the Bible nor invent the Christian faith. As a believer, my task is to follow it. If that’s an area you’re obviously struggling in, take it up with its Author since you’re clearly not open to me.

    Paula, even if your perspective is correct (to be honest, I’m not even sure exactly what your perspective is because your comments are snarky instead of instructive), I believe you are acting in opposition to the word of God-

    “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition” 2 Timothy 2:24-25

    There are many other passages dealing with the way we treat other people, along these same lines.

    You often have good perspectives to add to the discussion, but when people disagree with you, it seems like you feel justified in being rude to them. I encourage you to think about the way you treat other people. You don’t get extra points for offending people. Also, if you don’t clearly explain your viewpoint, how can anyone consider it?

  414. Gram3 wrote:

    DW wrote:
    Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree
    Some of us are Baptists to the bone, and we just want our SBC, EVFree, and non-denominational free churches back from this mutant strain of Calvinism.

    Amen! Who would have thought this would be happen? I don’t like where this is going.. This is becoming a religious war. Makes me want to go a direction many of our tradition have done in past and that is separatism. I hate this. I don’t like to shun people. We have already seen this where a baptist association didn’t allow a YRR church to join that association. I believe this was in Kentucky. And then there is a shunning of Calvinist leaning seminaries and their graduates. If I were in a church considering such a candidate I would make it difficult if it were in my power to speak at a business meeting. Lord help us!

  415. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Keep dropping those dimes, Velour.
    Maybe Pastor will lose it to the point he drives everyone away (except maybe his pet pedo) and ends up screaming from the pulpit to an empty building.

    My sister and others have wondered if my ex-senior pastor might be a pedo. His ardent defense of them, his outright hostility for boundaries, safety, his constant need to be around children. And then there’s his lies. He’s a pathological liar about everything from his employment history to his credentials.

    Countless former church members – men and women, married and singles, many wealthy, many older, have accused him of lying about them, abusing them, screaming at them.

    My ex-pastor excommunicated a godly doctor (faithful husband for nearly 50 years, loving father to grown children) on some trumped up charge that he ‘wasn’t one of us’ and ‘we’ve worked with him for a long time to no avail’ and that the doctor was ‘doing false teaching’ (he wasn’t, never taught at church or even had a Bible study). Just all lies.
    The good doctor is a personal friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s and even JMac hit the ceiling and was outraged!

    My ex-pastor told us all that he’d been a children’s pastor at JMac’s church, Grace Community Church. JMac told the doctor and his wife that was a total lie and that our ex-pastor was ONLY a volunteer like scores of other people and NEVER on staff! (Ex-pastor still has it on the church website and never described it as volunteer job.)

    Ex-pastor told us stories about ‘defending The Gospel before hostile liberals at a public college in Southern California’ while he was taking classes to become a teacher. I couldn’t find a teaching credential for him on the state’s website. I called the state’s office. Two supervisors ended up vetting my ex-pastor’s lies. They said that the state had NEVER credentialed anyone with his name to teach!

    His “Ph.D.” he told us that he had is from a diploma mill in Missouri, a little shack looking building, and it costs $299. LawProf double-checked the website for me.

    Lie upon lie.

    And then there’s all the dear saints he screamed at behind closed doors. Grievous.

  416. Lea wrote:

    I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.

    He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!

    I agree! They major on only a very few of Paul’s statements, which I believe they take out of context and twist to fit the narrative they are pushing. As Peter even wrote-

    ” just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” -2Peter 3:15-17

  417. Max wrote:

    The history he is talking about is only about 15 years old. Some of these young whippersnappers probably think Al Mohler founded the Southern Baptist Convention.

    I think that convention should be renamed. Captain Al Mohler founded the Sunk Baptist Convention.

  418. Christiane wrote:

    Saint John Chrysostom likewise observed that the New Law was promulgated at the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven on the day of Pentecost,
    and that the Apostles “did not come down from the mountain carrying, like Moses, tablets of stone in their hands;
    but they came down carrying the Holy Spirit in their hearts… having become by His grace a living law, a living book”
    The ‘power’ of the Holy Spirit is very little comprehended today outside of circles that interpret Scripture in the conte

    Spot on.

  419. @ Paula Rice:
    In my view, scripture is teaching We have only been changed through Jesus Christ if we “choose” to have faith, repent and strive to be image bearers. You seem to be walking back the cat on imputed righteousness. I am only engaging this because these differing interpretations are miles apart especially in how we view Gods character and that speaks to the issue of the bible as the ultimate authority and its practical application in daily life.

  420. @ Mark:
    The local association and state convention here had no problem welcoming CJ Mahaney’s SGL Marriot hotel church. Sigh. I kind of wish they would have at least publicly protested.

  421. Lydia wrote:

    God sees us exactly as we are.

    I was in a Bible study once with a fellow who said that when God looks at us, all He sees is Jesus standing in front of us hiding our sin. He went on to say that if Jesus were here today, He would be sitting around the campfire with His disciples telling jokes and drinking beer. To which I responded “Nonsense!” and told him a thing or two about the real Jesus. This is typical of a shallow belief in Christendom (e.g., New Calvinism) that God does it all and we can do nothing. Taken to the extreme, it produces followers who never repent of their sins and stretch Christian liberties beyond their Biblical bounds. God does see us exactly as we are … saved by faith in Christ or lost and undone without God or His Son.

  422. nathan priddis wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”
    Augustine, the father of the western church, did say that. Sin entered the world through a women’s corrupted soul.
    Orthodox theology is based on his teachings, not the Bible. Yes the bible is part of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy interprets the scriptures through Augustine.
    So in opposition to your thought, subordination-ist would say Eve is to blame, and the world will be redeemed through men.

    Not meaning to be a pedant, but I did want to note that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach this. Little-o orthodox in the Western church, with would probably mean Roman Catholicism, might have more to say re: this assertion, but the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach this. The same words get used to mean different things, so it can get confusing.

  423. Velour wrote:

    I think that convention should be renamed.

    There have been recent movements within SBC to rename the denomination and distance themselves from “Southern”, since it ties the SBC to its Civil War racism roots. Names such as Great Commission Baptists have been suggested, but that doesn’t really fit either with the poor shape the denomination is in in fulfilling that Biblical mandate.

  424. Max wrote:

    There have been recent movements within SBC to rename the denomination

    Sanctified Boys Club. After all, the only use they have for women is:

    Providing free daycare for the children.
    Housekeeping services.
    Catering services.

  425. @ Nancy2:
    I just want to reiterate, that regardless of what most SBC churches claim, women are not full blown church members. We are basically “honorary” members. Just compare what male church members can/cannot do to what female church members can/cannot do.

  426. Max wrote:

    his is typical of a shallow belief in Christendom (e.g., New Calvinism) that God does it all and we can do nothing. Taken to the extreme, it produces followers who never repent of their sins and stretch Christian liberties beyond their Biblical bounds. God does see us exactly as we are … saved by faith in Christ or lost and undone without God or His Son.

    Yes, it’s a serious problem when NeoCalvinists preen their feathers and talk about how they’re God’s Elect. Pride goeth before a fall…

  427. Paula Rice wrote:

    I’m addressing those who identify as Christians. The blog “dissects Christian trends”. The problems discussed here, with few exceptions, deal with issues involving biblical practice and interpretation.

    I didn’t make up the Bible nor invent the Christian faith. As a believer, my task is to follow it. If that’s an area you’re obviously struggling in, take it up with its Author since you’re clearly not open to me.

    As you can see, we’re quite the eclectic bunch here at TWW. Some of us here, myself included, do not believe as you believe on all points considered, and yet still consider ourselves Christians. And yeah, I have taken it up with my creator, and by way of reply he said:

    …Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy mango juice and perrier with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest…

    And I’m at peace with that.

  428. @ Nancy2:
    Excellent link. Here are some obvious stumbles by the committee.

    …”The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women just as it brought chaos and tragedy throughout the world.” – Wrong. This is a fundamental error, will screws up any principle derived downstream from this concept.

    Next we have a demonstration of the flawed “redemption” concept that is normal in Christianity.

    ..”Redemption in Christ would call for husbands to forsake harsh or selfish leadership and to extend loving care to their wives (1 Pet. 3:7) and for wives to forsake resistance to the authority of their respective husbands and to practice willing, joyful submission to that leadership.”

    Here is again a misquoting of Scripture and misunderstanding of God.

    …”God chose to reveal Himself to His people through family language:”

    This is in error. For the Scriptures has said:

    ..”God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; “

  429. @ Lydia:
    Allow me to explain, in part, what I mean by “Imputed righteousness”.

    When I use the term, I am always referring to the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

    Jesus did more than just die for us. There was an exchange that took place. His death paid our penalty, yes. The Bible says “the wages of sin is death,” and because we were all under bondage to sin, Jesus, our High Priest, made to be human like us, and offered up His own body and blood as a sacrifice for our sins. His sacrifice freed us once and for all, something the blood of bulls and goats was unable to do.

    Christ removed our sin and simultaneously granted us right standing before God. That righteous is not our own because we never earned it. His right-standing becomes our right-standing just as his death became our death. So, when we approach God, we do so on the basis of his righteousness that is imputed to us. In him, and through faith in him, we may now approach God with freedom and confidence.

    That what I think of when I use the expression “Imputed Righteousness”.

  430. Paula Rice wrote:

    I didn’t make up the Bible nor invent the Christian faith.

    No, you didn’t invent the Christian faith or the Bible, but you have behaved consistently on this thread as though only your interpretation of its text, or its purpose, is the correct one.

    You treat anyone who disagrees with you (or who you assume is disagreeing with you) on these matters as though they are dirt.

    You said,

    As a believer, my task is to follow it. If that’s an area you’re obviously struggling in, take it up with its Author since you’re clearly not open to me.

    As a matter of fact, I have been questioning the Christian faith the last few years.

    Interestingly, one of the things pushing me away from the faith the most is not the Bible…

    But the behavior of people who claim to be Christians, but who are rude, hypocritical, or persons I know in my day to day life who let me down after some trials in my life a few years ago.

    Based upon the behavior I’ve seen you put forward in this thread and an older one, you’re not making the Christian faith look attractive to me.

    Brad and I were just discussing this the other day on here – orthopraxy matters too, not just orthodoxy.

    You seem like you’re an angry person, or that you dislike most of the people who post here, and I do not comprehend where the hostility or anger is coming from.

    I went through an angry or grumpy phase here over a year ago (or there-abouts), for a few days, where I snapped at a person or two, but I later apologized for that to them and the other readers here 2 or 3 times.

  431. @ nathan priddis:

    My only point was the Bible itself doesn’t teach that women are the cause of sin, nor Eve specifically.

    Complementarians have to an awful lot of eisegesis to arrive at those assumptions.

    Jesus and other parts of the NT repeatedly said sin is the problem of the individual and one’s heart (what comes from inside), not caused by something from without (e.g., the entire female sex).

  432. Lydia wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Lydia wrote:
    Paula Rice wrote:
    @ Bridget:
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.
    To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.
    I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.
    He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!
    Totally agree! They play down and ignore his respect for Phoebe and the fact he had no qualms starting the first church in Europe in Lydia’s home. Junia! There is more as you well know.

    Also add, it was people from the household of Chloe who told Paul of the troubles the Corinthian church was having. Apparently HE had no problem trusting the word of a woman’s household!

  433. Muff Potter wrote:

    As you can see, we’re quite the eclectic bunch here at TWW. Some of us here, myself included, do not believe as you believe on all points considered, and yet still consider ourselves Christians.

    OK Muff, as you say, you’ve made your peace with God, and from what you’ve shared about mango juice and Perrier, it sounds like something you’ve devised based on your own terms.

    I hope, however, that I’m wrong about that, only because the terms are not ours to mess around with, nor conform to meet our own standards. It’s all laid out in the Bible.

    Because of this, you can see why I would have concerns with someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, yet has determined his own approach to the Bible. If the Bible determines the Way and marks it out for us, and you’ve added your own map, what prevents you, then, from just saying you acknowledge the teachings of Christ, but have a way of your own that departs from that of Scripture?

    Personally, I would find that to be a more genuine way to describe your faith, especially since you’re unwilling, to would seem, to describe where your fundamental differences with me, for example occur.

    You say you’re a Christian. I say you’re a Christian. Your beliefs differ from mine. You’re at peace with that, but I wouldn’t say you’re at peace with me, at least not in terms of unity. Does saying you’re at peace mean also that you don’t care about differences or divisions amongst those who proclaim the Name of Jesus? Because, here’s the thing – that’s a very important concern of God’s.

    Additionally, I’m sure you’re well aware of schisms amongst Christians. We’re been discussing the ramifications of Complementarian doctrine, and the divisions and disruptions that it’s caused. The history of the church has been characterized by conflicts involving heresy and heretics. Does that concern you, or have you simply adopted a live and let live approach to it all, a laissez-faire type of attitude to it all?

    Anyway, just curious. Whatever the case, I’m glad for you that none of your views are regarded as hostile to the faith shared here as mine have been. Enjoy your Perrier! I’d choose sparkling over still water anyway.

  434. Paula Rice wrote:
    Typo, sorry. The above should have read:

    You say you’re a Christian. I say I’m a Christian. Your beliefs differ from mine. You’re at peace with that, but I wouldn’t say you’re at peace with me, at least not in terms of unity.

  435. @ Paula Rice:
    Paula Rice wrote:

    it sounds like something you’ve devised based on your own terms.
    I hope, however, that I’m wrong about that, only because the terms are not ours to mess around with, nor conform to meet our own standards. It’s all laid out in the Bible.
    Because of this, you can see why I would have concerns with someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, yet has determined his own approach to the Bible. If the Bible determines the Way and marks it out for us, and you’ve added your own map

    You claim to be a Christian, and you approach the Bible and its purpose with your own biases, assumptions, and perceptions, making you no different from Muff, or anyone else posting here.

    You have also devised the Bible and its use based on your own terms but don’t stop to consider that perhaps you are incorrect on some of these things.

  436. Muff Potter wrote:

    And I’m at peace with that.

    I think I’ve said it before but it bears repeating, if I’m confronted with the great here-after, I’m getting in the same line as Muff and eschewing the one with Driscoll. Be sure to have a sign so I can spot you.

  437. @ Daisy:
    Well, this is interesting, because you’re admitting you’re questioning the Christian faith. You gave impressed me on repeated occasions as being prone, looking to contend with me over the faith. And now you’re using me as a reason why you’re considering departing? That’s rich, Daisy. Like I suggested before, turn your hostility toward God. If your faith stands or falls on the behavior of people, especially someone like myself, it’s understandable why you’re on such shakey ground. I’m not your scapegoat, sorry. You’re the one here who’s angry, and that’s your responsibility to deal with.

  438. @ nathan priddis:
    “God commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). This love is protective, nurturing, serving, and edifying. It is not replaced with, but accompanied by, headship. This headship calls the husband to a loving leadership in which he cares responsibly for his wife’s spiritual, emotional, and physical needs.”

    So, a husband must be a benevolent overlord? They also need to explain, in great detail, what it means for a husband to care “responsibly for his wife’s spiritual, emotional, and physical needs.”

    Is there anything about article xviii, it’s conception, and it’s discussion that doesn’t appoint men as “Prophets, Priests, and Kings”? So, where does that leave Jesus with respect to women?

    I’d like to point out that women/wives are always, always a third person portion of the BF&M2K. The men are the we’s and us’s. Wive’s are the thems and theys. Women are always on the outside, looking in.

  439. Paula Rice wrote:

    Does saying you’re at peace mean also that you don’t care about differences or divisions amongst those who proclaim the Name of Jesus? Because, here’s the thing – that’s a very important concern of God’s.

    Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

    I think things like love and behaving well towards each other are much more important, apart from believing.

    There is a ton of biblical support for that position.

  440. Paula Rice wrote:

    You say you’re a Christian. I say I’m a Christian. Your beliefs differ from mine. You’re at peace with that, but I wouldn’t say you’re at peace with me, at least not in terms of unity.

    So, in order for a person/people to be (a) Christian(s) in unity with other Christians, he/she/we must be in 100% agreement with ….. ahem …… you?

  441. Paula Rice wrote:

    Well, this is interesting, because you’re admitting you’re questioning the Christian faith.

    You gave impressed me on repeated occasions as being prone, looking to contend with me over the faith.

    And now you’re using me as a reason why you’re considering departing? That’s rich, Daisy. Like I suggested before, turn your hostility toward God. If your faith stands or falls on the behavior of people, especially someone like myself, it’s understandable why you’re on such shakey ground. I’m not your scapegoat, sorry. You’re the one here who’s angry, and that’s your responsibility to deal with.

    No, I’m not angry.

    You personally are responsible for turning people away from the faith due to your behavior – this is a responsibility you need to accept.

    Even the Bible says,

    “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, … As Scripture says, “God’s name is cursed among the nations because of you.”

    I don’t see you displaying any of the qualities the Bible says one should or can expect to see from a Christian, such as,

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    You said,

    “You gave impressed me on repeated occasions as being prone, looking to contend with me over the faith.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that.

    As I’ve said numerous times, in- so- far as I remain Christian and understand your views correctly, I have agreed with the substance of much of what you have written about Jesus or the Bible.

    I have stated many times here on this blog (long before you began posting) that I’ve been in the midst of a faith crisis for a few years now, so this was not some secret. The long time readers of this blog were already aware of that.

    If I’m contending with anything, it’s been your rude, hostile, and condescending attitude and behavior. I may in the future scroll past your posts without reading or replying, as I don’t see anything productive from corresponding with you further.

  442. @ Paula Rice:
    I do understand where you are coming from but I believe scripture presents more of the Christus Victor or even Ransom theory of atonement which is another reason your definition of imputed righteousness doesn’t work for me. Again, totally different approaches to scripture which tend to make us see other issues and doctrines differently. I am probably the only Christus Victor subscriber left in my neck of the woods in any Baptist background capacity. At least it feels that way, sometimes. Nowadays it is all PSA.

    Although……the Episcopalian priest at Easter sounded very close in his short talk if this baptist girl can get past the accouterments and sacraments as a means of grace bit.. :o)

  443. Lea wrote:

    Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

    Would that be the doctrine of “Doctrine before ~ and more important than ~ salvation”?

  444. siteseer wrote:

    Paula, even if your perspective is correct (to be honest, I’m not even sure exactly what your perspective is because your comments are snarky instead of instructive), I believe you are acting in opposition to the word of God-
    “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition” 2 Timothy 2:24-25
    There are many other passages dealing with the way we treat other people, along these same lines.
    You often have good perspectives to add to the discussion, but when people disagree with you, it seems like you feel justified in being rude to them. I encourage you to think about the way you treat other people. You don’t get extra points for offending people. Also, if you don’t clearly explain your viewpoint, how can anyone consider it?

    Quoting this, because I think it bears repeating.

  445. Max wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I think that convention should be renamed.
    There have been recent movements within SBC to rename the denomination and distance themselves from “Southern”, since it ties the SBC to its Civil War racism roots. Names such as Great Commission Baptists have been suggested, but that doesn’t really fit either with the poor shape the denomination is in in fulfilling that Biblical mandate.

    They were founded on the principle that slavery was a good practice according to the Bible, so they should keep this name so they can forever be reminded of their origin and beliefs of the SBC founders. Didn’t they also support Jim Crow? There was a time during the conservative resurgence when Adrian Rogers said slaves did not have it so bad. It should be a unforgotten mark on the SBC. I may not sound nice, but it is also wrong to sugar coat and deny history.

  446. Lea wrote:

    Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

    No, I meant in a general sense. Unity, harmony, love, agreement, equality, mutuality, are things that matter to God, and should matter to us as well. Peace isn’t built through a myriad of contrary beliefs, it’s built as we unite around the beliefs God intends that his children all share in common, encouraging one another in, and building ourselves up on.

  447. Daisy wrote:

    I may in the future scroll past your posts without reading or replying, as I don’t see anything productive from corresponding with you further.

    Please do.

  448. @ Lydia:

    Matthew 20:28. (KJV)
    “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
    Ransom, in Jesus’ own words.

  449. @ Paula Rice:

    Paula wrote: “Because of this, you can see why I would have concerns with someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, yet has determined his own approach to the Bible. If the Bible determines the Way and marks it out for us, and you’ve added your own map, what prevents you, then, from just saying you acknowledge the teachings of Christ, but have a way of your own that departs from that of Scripture?”

    Paula, how can someone be at peace with you after reading that? You have your own approach to scripture, too. is it that some are departing from your understanding of scripture? Why have concerns about Muff? He is not harming anyone or promoting sinister groups or anything like that.

    I have come to the conclusion our unity is not around the finer points of doctrine but around what we do with the truth of Jesus Christ by seeking to help our little corners of the world be a better place because we are in them.

  450. Mark wrote:

    They were founded on the principle that slavery was a good practice according to the Bible, so they should keep this name so they can forever be reminded of their origin and beliefs of the SBC founders. Didn’t they also support Jim Crow?

    I’m not sure if they supported Jim Crow, but as far as racism goes, I see similarities between how some Christians (including Southern Baptists) used to use the Bible to defend slavery the way some Christians today are using the Bible to defend sexism (what they call gender complementarianism).

    Others have also picked up on this similarity:

    Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/justifying-injustice-bible-slavery

  451. @ Lydia:
    I appreciate the way you communicate your differences and focus on the subject. I think we’re able to agree to disagree. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and interest in these things.

  452. Lydia wrote:

    I am probably the only Christus Victor subscriber left in my neck of the woods in any Baptist background capacity. At least it feels that way, sometimes. Nowadays it is all PSA.

    That’s how I’m feeling. I have gone out to some various big-name reformed ministries with my PSA questions (I was surprised to have one of the big names actually correspond with me), and have asked people from my church and family. I have yet to find a PSA-advocate who will make an honest attempt to answer the questions. They either accuse me of all kinds of things or ignore me. But they won’t show me the Bible passages that clearly put forth the case for PSA. So much for sola scriptura…

  453. Lea wrote:

    Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

    That is essentially the position Dr. Mohler takes with his “theological triage.” In addressing some of the doctrinal differences within SBC, he suggests that Christians should be able to get along on secondary and tertiary issues of faith (method of baptism, open or closed communion, etc.), as long as they can unite around the essentials (deity of Christ, Trinity, etc.). The problem with his proposal in this regard, when it comes to New Calvinism, is that he characterizes soteriology as a secondary, rather than an essential, doctrine. Reducing God’s plan of salvation to a non-essential doctrine in a theological triage doesn’t sit well with majority Southern Baptists which believe the message of the Cross of Christ is the main thing! In the context of this blog topic, Mohler would also argue that complementarianism is a secondary doctrine and we shouldn’t be fussing about it. The problem with that, however, is that they justify subordination of women by first eternally subordinating the Son! When you do that, you are messing with the Trinity, which is an essential of Christian faith. New Calvinists are messing with the foundation to support the new reformation – and the building will collapse upon itself.

  454. Mark wrote:

    There was a time during the conservative resurgence when Adrian Rogers said slaves did not have it so bad. It should be a unforgotten mark on the SBC. I may not sound nice, but it is also wrong to sugar coat and deny history.

    Rogers is thought by some to be a hero of the SBC TAKEOVER! IMO he was part of the evil that invaded and ruined a great denomination!

  455. Lydia wrote:

    Paula, how can someone be at peace with you after reading that? You have your own approach to scripture, too. is it that some are departing from your understanding of scripture? Why have concerns about Muff? He is not harming anyone or promoting sinister groups or anything like that.

    If Paula knew the personal history of some of the commenters on here, she would realize that she is only rubbing dirt in some deep wounds. …….. at least I hope she could see that.

  456. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    God sees us exactly as we are.
    I was in a Bible study once with a fellow who said that when God looks at us, all He sees is Jesus standing in front of us hiding our sin. He went on to say that if Jesus were here today, He would be sitting around the campfire with His disciples telling jokes and drinking beer. To which I responded “Nonsense!” and told him a thing or two about the real Jesus. This is typical of a shallow belief in Christendom (e.g., New Calvinism) that God does it all and we can do nothing. Taken to the extreme, it produces followers who never repent of their sins and stretch Christian liberties beyond their Biblical bounds. God does see us exactly as we are … saved by faith in Christ or lost and undone without God or His Son.

    Uhhh…someone might want to introduce him to the Shema, too. The Lord is ONE. Jesus said in John 10:30: I and my Father are One.

    I have heard the idea that God only sees Jesus when looking at believers because he is too Holy to look at our sin….. and found it a bit pedantic. . It falls in line with the whole totally depraved, totally unable, imputed righteousness business…. and even ESS.

    Like Hagar, I believe Yahweh sees me. El Roi. That kept me anchored during the darkest days of coming to grips with the corruption I saw in what was supposed to be His Body.

  457. mot wrote:

    Rogers is thought by some to be a hero of the SBC TAKEOVER! IMO he was part of the evil that invaded and ruined a great denomination!

    http://www.baptistlife.com/flick/screwup.htm
    Adrian Rogers is quoted as saying, in reference to seminary profs, “If we say that pickles have souls, they better teach that pickles have souls!”

    How reassuring, huh?

  458. Lydia wrote:

    Paula, how can someone be at peace with you after reading that? You have your own approach to scripture, too. is it that some are departing from your understanding of scripture? Why have concerns about Muff? He is not harming anyone or promoting sinister groups or anything like that.

    I’m not saying he’s harming anyone or promoting anything sinister. He’s entitled to his beliefs and opinions as we all are. But surely, surely you understand, that when one places themselves under the umbrella of Christ, professing to be a Christian, there are certain beliefs that go with the territory.

    It’s not like you can say, “I’m a Christian but I reject the Bible” or “I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in the Resurrection” or “I’m a Christian but I also am an Orthodox Jew.”

    Im not saying these are things Potter believes, btw. I’m using them as examples.

    And it depends what the issues are, doesn’t it?

    For some people, alcohol is a big issue, that’s pretty much a central part of their Christian faith.

    Others might say the Apostle Paul was a misogynist. He hated women.

    Another might say the Bible was written by men and isn’t reliable; it’s full of errors.

    Yet someone else believes complementarianism is an essential expression of the Gospel, that God created men and women to be so completely different, that it means we must assign gender roles and live within them in order to fulfill God’s design.

    Things matter. Differences matter. But look at what can happen. Since men and women have “different” bodies, people have decided those differences must mean something, and tried to resolve those “differences” by actually widening the gap, causing division.

    So, yeah, differences are important to understand and address. And the Bible, for the Christian, should be the thing we use as the basis for our agreement, and the source for settling any disagreements we may have in regards to doctrine and practice. But this is where some here disagree with me.

  459. @ Paula Rice:
    For someone who cannot subscribe to “scripture as the ultimate authority”, I sure have spent a lot of time there. :o)

    Doctrinal differences don’t bother me unless they are shoved down people’s throats, are used as weapons against people, used to shut down over half the body, used to spread human authoritarianism or to hide, deflect from or sweep evil deeds against others under the rug. Sadly, all those are very common today.

  460. Paula Rice wrote:

    It’s not like you can say, “I’m a Christian but I reject the Bible” or “I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in the Resurrection” or “I’m a Christian but I also am an Orthodox Jew.”

    In my case, what makes us ‘Christian’ becomes a mystery when the one you realize is the most Christian person you know is also an Orthodox Jew.
    It isn’t about ‘doctrine’, no. It’s something more.

  461. @ Mark:
    If we want to repeat the mistakes of the past, then we should deny or refuse to learn the lessons of history. Right now there is a push in the SBC against racism. That is really great and way overdue, though I suspect that is mainly because it is the cool cause among the young who have no idea what Jim Crow was really like, not to mention slavery.

    But the SBC elites and influencers have merely transferred their wrong thinking to women. They are repeating the mistakes of the past because they did not learn how those mistakes were made and why they were made. Failure analysis has not been done. Post mortem examination has not been done.

    Doug Wilson has also said basically the same thing: slaves here did not have it so bad. Well, even if that is true (and that has not been established as being generally true), it does not justify in any way the *idea* that it is good for one human to own another human and all of the real horrors that idea entails, and it does not justify in any way the *institutions* which upheld and promoted those ideas. Such as the SBC founders and some Reformed luminaries like Dabney. Wilson’s reasoning is flawed. No news there.

    A question for the Thabiti Anyabwile and R. Albert Mohler and Russell Moore and the SBC kids on Twitter is why do they think misogyny with makeup and
    Spanx (Female Subordinationism) is a good thing when slavery and racism is a bad thing? Do they know that the slaveholders and their pastors used the “plain reading” of the Bible to justify slavery? Have they even read Dabney beyond his systematic theology? Boyce? Furman?

  462. Paula Rice wrote:

    So, yeah, differences are important to understand and address.

    And the Bible, for the Christian, should be the thing we use as the basis for our agreement, and the source for settling any disagreements we may have in regards to doctrine and practice.

    But this is where some here disagree with me.

    I find it odd and off- putting you are so deeply concerned with “right belief” and defending the Bible but don’t bother to abide by the most basic of Scriptural instructions on how to treat others who you believe may disagree with you.

    You don’t care at all that how you mistreat people is causing them to doubt the faith more.

    Is this not in the Bible that you say you so ardently believe in?:

    1 Corinthians 13:1,2
    If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.
    If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.…

  463. Lydia wrote:

    Gram and Max will get a kick out of this comment from a YRR who considers complementarian an “historic” Baptist view. Lol! They really have no clue how indoctrinated they are.
    http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2016/07/philadelphia-baptists-dealt-with-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-as-early-as-1736.html

    I enjoyed this comment you left there in response to someone else:

    (Quote by someone else at the blog):
    “Interesting theory. What are your ideas on why modern strict Calvinists would build this theological interpretation, but the apparently strict Calvinists of the Philadelphia Association did not?”

    (Lydia replied):
    Because they were not threatened by masses of educated voting women who did not know their place in the late 1700’s? :o)
    Posted by: Lydia

  464. @ Paula Rice:

    Based on your comment, it might be easier to have atheist friends! I am a baptist, we rarely had unity on biblical interpretation. :o) And it was perfectly normal. Iron sharpens iron and all that. Back in the good old days, we had soul competency drilled into our heads and were very serious about the priesthood of believer. (Not anymore)

    You wrote: But surely, surely you understand, that when one places themselves under the umbrella of Christ, professing to be a Christian, there are certain beliefs that go with the territory.

    Yes, Jesus is the Christ. The promised Savior. Beyond the basics, isn’t it more about how we, as individuals first, then as a body, live out that truth?

  465. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Jan wrote:
    @ Lydia:
    Lydia, this is the first time I have watched a Piper video. Drama queen fits him very nicely.
    Anything like this?

    Yes, I almost had the same reaction!!

  466. @ Ken F:
    PSA is all the rage here even spreading to Non Cals like Methodists and certain Christian denominations. It blows my mind. The Cosmic child abuse theory of atonement?

  467. Nancy2 wrote:

    Adrian Rogers is quoted as saying, in reference to seminary profs, “If we say that pickles have souls, they better teach that pickles have souls!”

    How reassuring, huh?

    Yep–Rogers and the other were the dictators and the others were just following orders. These folk were so militant the “moderates” just did not seem to know how in a Christian way respond to their nastiness and it cost them the Denomination IMO!

  468. @ Lydia:
    It depends, doesn’t it, where your peace is derived from, what you believe about peace, and what it’s based upon. Peace, according to the Christian faith, isn’t something that is achieved through worldly, secular methods. The way to peace with God is, in fact, very narrow. Nor, would it seem, is peace a common, everyday occurrence, despite it being something we all hope for and wish to achieve.

    I like what the Bible says about it in Ps 133:

    How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity!
    It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe. It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the LORD bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.