What Do Words Mean? Wayne Grudem Has Demonstrated That Being Biblical™ May Not Be Biblical.

Posted on by May 28, 2025avatar


“Curiously, the righteous Pharisees had little historical impact, save for a brief time in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. But Jesus’ disciples – an ornery, undependable, and hopelessly flawed group of men – became drunk with the power of a gospel that offered free forgiveness to the worst sinners and traitors. Those men managed to change the world.”  Philip Yancey

What is biblical? After much reading, I decided to repeat a post I wrote in both 2023 and 2012. I realized that it is easier to show what happens when someone decides he is going to define what is biblical when it comes to picking out the specific roles that women may play in the church. Wayne Grudem, the beloved theologian of the gospel™ set, decided he would define for us the “wise” roles that women can play in the church and stay faithful™ to the biblical™ view of proper roles for women.

It should come as no surprise that Grudem, who is a proponent of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), could screw up what he considered as biblical™ rules for women in the larger church. Many believe he descended into error with ESS which some believed was an attempt to develop a theology to prove that women would also be eternally subordinated to men: The Battle for the Eternal Subordination of Women Disguised as a Disagreement on the Functional Roles of the Trinity.

Somehow, the gospel™ theodudes decided that it was in their best interest to pretend Grudme’s painstaking ’83 rules for women’ treatise never existed and have attempted to distance themselves from the entire ESS debate. The Council of BIblical™ Manhood and Womanhood(CBMW) has scrubbed the document off its website. I couldn’t find it on this website that had it up when I wrote my previous blog. Other blogs that agreed with his theoretical, theological musings have also removed it from their website. And it continues to disappear. However, CBMW forgot to look at their reprint of it in a newsletter and Dee has downloaded this for the enjoyment of the reader. 😉

Wayne Grudem Rules

Grudem believes that the Scripture commands us to make sure people are following the proper assigned roles for one’s gender.

I believe that his attempt to be biblically faithful led to serious errors in judgment. From this point, I shall post my 2023 (which includes my post from 2012) on the matter. The title of that post was:

Here Are Wayne Grudem’s 83 Rules for What Women Can and Can’t Do in a Church. They Are Illogical, Inconsistent, and Discriminatory.

It is apparent to me that many of ‘the boys are embarrassed by this outlandish attempt at structuring Biblical™ -based gender roles in the church. As usual, they say nothing but delete and pretend it never happened. I guess the gospel™ dudes are pusillanimous (I’ve been wanting to use that word.)

Let this be a lesson on how attempting to be biblical can lead to trouble.

.

Complaining Pharisee public domain wikicommons

The Complaining Pharisee- Public Domain

“A Pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself.”  AW Tozer

In 2012, I wrote a post that has held its own in discussions surrounding the Pharisaical-type Calvinists who demand submission for women. The question frequently arises, “What can women do in the church?” The frequent answer is, “Not much.” Wayne Grudem, a beloved Calvinist above many Calvinists, sought to answer the question. He dug himself a hole so deep that he is struggling to forget about it. Has he ever repented of the following, or has he revoked the article? Well, not that I can tell. It was published by the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1995, and you can be sure CBMW hasn’t repented either.

A link to Wayne Grudem’s 83 Rule that keeps disappearing.

I have downloaded this list and made multiple screenshots so the theodudes can never deny this article exists.

I am now taking the opportunity to update the post I wrote in 2012. Here is a link to the original—Wayne Grudem: 83 Biblical Rules for Gospel Women. Please understand Grammarly and other bits of help were unavailable, so I wrote without any editor to help me out. I am correcting some spelling errors, links, etc., in this updated post, but you have a link to the original if you want to refer to it, although I can’t think of any reason to do so unless one wants a giggle.

However, I have given you lots to laugh about in this post. For those of you who want to know who Wayne Grudem is, here is a link.

Special thanks to a reader who asked me to update the links in my original post.

Explanation of his lists: Grudem draws a line above which women cannot function in each list of church functions or positions. I remark on these “lines.” Some I find downright derogatory to specific people groups, as you will see.

Begin 2012 post

On my recent vacation, my husband forgot his Kindle and confiscated mine to read Killing Lincoln. I did not mind since I had brought a few books to read, just in case. True book lovers will understand what I mean by “just in case.” I love reading on my Kindle. However, because I am a book fiend, I still have books that have not been read and strewn all over my house. I am working my way through them.

Some need “rules” to prove they are one of the elect or a true Christian.

One was a Christian fantasy called The Light of Eidon by Karen Hancock Link. I am, and always will be, a devoted science fiction and fantasy fan. I expect to be an old and confused lady living in a protective Alzheimer’s Unit muttering about CJ Mahaney and demanding they play Stargate Atlantis reruns.

The book’s protagonist is a young man, Abram, born to be a king in his world. But, he gave it all up to devote himself to pursuing a vocation as a religious leader. He entered a religious order and spent eight difficult years during which he was dedicated to learning how to become worthy enough to touch and tend the Sacred Flames of Eidon, around which the faith of that world revolved. Due to his genuine sacrifice and devotion, he expected to be blessed by the Flames in this endeavor. But, he learned that the Flames and those devoted to them were evil. He had to confront that his sacrifice to the rules was for naught. He faced terrible trials, was betrayed by the religious order, and was sold into slavery by his royal family. Amid his suffering, he begins to find the truth.

While reading the book, I stopped many times, contemplating the many times we have discussed legalism on this blog. It seems that we are far too willing to short-sell grace to obtain a set of rules that will “prove” our devotion. Just like Abram, we like regulations to check off everything we have done to substantiate that we are Christians.

Some would claim that, without rules, we would become “out of control.” I would contend that those who understand grace are the ones who genuinely understand their inability to be perfect and who pursue a life of consistent gratitude for the One who provided the way.

I also have a theory that there are many who, due to the doctrine of election, fear that they might not be one of the chosen. So, they are driven to “prove” their salvation by showing how closely they adhere to the rules set forth by others who they believe hold the key to salvation. These rules and mandates must be correct since such men are saved because they preach election and are admired by truly great men who must also be elect. So, if these men say that people must do (fill in the blank), they do it, hoping it means they are among the elect. The faith becomes a set of dos and don’ts.

Wayne Grudem, a favorite of the theodudes, has rules upon rules for women in the church.

Wayne Grudem is one of these obviously elect leaders. He has focused on defining the rules for women, which he believes falls under complementarianism. Complementarians have done a poor job of explaining what this looks like in marriage. The more we post on this matter, the more complementarianism looks like egalitarianism, except for the name.

I think that men like Grudem realize this and have focused their efforts on “rules” for women in the church. The local church is increasingly becoming the center for Calvinistas to carry forth their agenda. We are told that the local church holds the keys to authority and can define who is and who is not saved. Al Mohler has said that an individual cannot leave their local church unless they obtain permission from the pastors. (Ed. I cannot provide the link for this.) The only reason to leave is serious theological problems. Do you want to bet that Al would not permit me to leave if I have trouble with the following Calvinista theology? (To which I say watch my dust-but I digress).

I first learned of Grudem’s rules for women from a great blog by Australian Marg Mowczko called newlife link. Here is how she addressed the matter.

In an article entitled “But What Should Women Do in the Church?” (his emphasis in italics), Grudem has gone to the trouble of painstakingly listing 83 church ministries in – according to him – decreasing order of the “authority” and “influence” needed to minister and participate in these ministries.  He has categorized these 83 ministries into three lists.

  • List 1 includes ministries that involve “governing authority”;
  • List 2 includes ministries that involve Bible teaching;
  • List 3 includes ministries that involve public visibility and recognition.

According to Mowczko, this was first published in the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Volume 1 No.2 (Fall 1995) and was published on the CBMW (Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) website, which continues to be down after eight months. (TWW thinks they are scrubbing the site of all sorts of references to women as gullible and easily deceived, getting rid of some Driscoll material and eliminating all references to the tie-in of complementarianism and housekeeping, despite the presence of Dorothy Patterson. Time will tell!) Here is the new link.

The infamous lists.

Grudem starts with an amusing warning that rings hollow as I read his interminable lists. He states:

These lists do not rank importance to the church!

He claims that these lists are incomplete! I am most grateful that he ran out of time, or we might have had a book as thick as his Systematic Theology link with which to contend. Good night! As an amusing side note, Dee taught this entire tome, along with my husband and another dear friend, to a mixed Sunday school class. I taught the section on women and commented that Grudem would not be pleased that I was doing so. Of course, I added my own 2 cents, which was hardly necessary since I obviously disobeyed the rules!

The following are the descriptions of church functions under each list. I cannot list all of them. The comprehensive list is found at the link at the top of this post. The numbers beside each item are Grudem’s numbers. Number 1 has the most authority, and the responsibility declines as the list goes on.

List 1 -Governing Authority

  • 1. President of a denomination
  • 5. Senior pastor in local church
  • 6. Member of governing board with authority over whole church (for example, elder in many churches, deacon or board member or church council member in others)
  • 7. Presiding over a baptism or communion service (but see List 3 for serving communion or performing a baptism)
  • 8. Giving spoken judgment on a prophecy given to the congregation (I think this is what Paul forbids in 1 Cor. 14:33-36)
  • 9. Permanent leader of a fellowship group meeting in a home (both men and women members)
  • 10. Committee chairman (or “chairperson”) (explanation: this item and the following two have some kind of authority in the church, but it is less than the authority over the whole congregation which Paul has in mind in 1 Cor. 14:33-36, 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Tim. 3, and Titus 1)
  • 11. Director of Christian Education
  • 14. Moderating a Bible discussion in a home Bible study group
  • 16. Leading singing on Sunday morning (note: this could be listed between 8 and 9 above, depending on how a church understands the degree of authority over the assembled congregation that is involved)
  • 17. Deacon (in churches where this does not involve governing authority over the entire congregation)
  • 22. Meeting periodically with church governing board to give counsel and advice
  • 23. Regular conversations between elders and their wives over matters coming before the elder board (with understanding that confidentiality is preserved)
  • 24. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling one man)
  • 25. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling a couple together)
  • 26. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling another woman)

Grudem speaks to this list.

My own personal judgment in this matter is that in the area of governing authority I would draw the line between numbers 9 and 10; that is, I would approve of a woman as Director of Christian Education or Superintendent of the Sunday School, or as a committee chairman within the church. These activities do not seem to me to carry the sort of authority over the whole congregation that Paul has in view in 1 Timothy 2, or when he specifies that elders should be men (in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1).

I am startled to note that:

  • There is more responsibility in counseling a man (24) than in counseling a woman (26).
  • It appears that overseeing Christian Education (11) for the church is at a lower rank than leading a home group (9).
  • Leading singing (16) has more responsibility than counseling a woman (26).

Why? Can anyone tell this easily deceived woman why? (Editor 2023: I have noticed that some of the theodudes have quietly stopped using the term “gullible and easily deceived women” as of late. I have not heard any statements that they have stopped believing this. This is typical of this crowd. No apologies, no explanation, carry on just like the Royal Family of England.)

List 2 -Bible teaching ministries

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

Here is where Grudem draws his line.

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

He also restricts the age at which a woman can no longer teach a young man.

In our own culture, if children graduate from high school, move away from home, and begin to support themselves, then surely they are no longer under the instruction of their mothers at home, but are functioning as adults on their own. A new household has been formed. In that case, the young men are certainly adult men, and it would not be appropriate for a woman to teach a class with them as members.

Many college students are already living away from home, supporting themselves at least in part, and functioning in our society in all other ways as independent adults. In fact, most college students would be insulted if you called them “children”! For these reasons, it seems to me that a college age Sunday School class (item 10) should have a male teacher.

I find these rankings unbelievably insulting to women, people in countries outside the US, and missionaries. (2023: Dee is fuming…)

  • Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible for men and women (14) is a greater responsibility than writing a study Bible for women alone (16).
  • Bible teaching to college students (10) ranks higher than Bible teaching to women (17)!
  • Working as a missionary in another culture (22) ranks far lower than teaching a home Bible study (9) or teaching a junior high school class (19). Yeah, tell that to the martyrs!

Once again, I say, why?!! Can anyone tell me why? Can someone show me where this is in the Bible?

List 3 -Public Visibility and Public Recognition

  • 1. Ordination as pastor (member of the clergy) in a denomination
  • 2. Being licensed to perform some ministerial functions within a denomination
  • 3. Paid member of pastoral staff (such as youth worker, music director, counselor, Christian Education director)
  • 4. Paid member of administrative church staff (church secretary or treasurer, for example)
  • 5. Performing a baptism (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)
  • 7. Giving announcements at the Sunday morning service
  • 8. Taking the offering
  • 9. Public reading of Scripture
  • 10. Public prayer
  • 11. Prophesying in public (according to 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:29, where this is not understood as having authority equal to scripture or Bible teaching)
  • 13. Giving a personal testimony in church

Grudem then attempts to show he is a man of goodwill, after all.

I personally would also draw the line between items 1 and 2. I do not think that women should be ordained as pastors, but I think it is entirely appropriate for them to have other full-time positions on the “pastoral staff ” of the church (such as youth worker, music director).

However, I find this list odd and wonder why he felt compelled to make it.

  • Giving announcements (“We need help making the coffee) comes in at (7) while giving testimony is (13)
  • Public prayer ranks (10), but collecting the offering is (8).
  • Prophesying publicly is (11), but being the church secretary is (3).

Finally,

This list was compiled back in the mid-1990s. Recently, both Tim Challies and John Piper, both good buddies of Grudem, have said that women should not read the Scriptures out loud in church, nor should they pray behind the pulpit. I do not know if Wayne Grudem has changed his views.

I believe that Grudem has not become more open to the role of women within the church since compiling this list.

This brings me back to the topic of legalism.

I think these lists remind me of a group of people in the New Testament era who believed it was their duty to define, in-depth, how to live out the faith. In doing so, they added burdens to God’s people. They were often Pharisees, and Jesus called them “snakes.” He did not take kindly as they made the faith about a bundle of rules. Instead, He emphasized love and a light burden. Could it be that these complementarians are modeling themselves after the rule makers instead of the One who gave us the gift of grace because of His sacrifice on the Cross.

Let me ask our readers a question:

When you look at this list, do the words “grace,” “love” or “freedom” immediately jump to mind?

Or do you feel weighed down, discouraged or weary?

I look forward to your response!

Comments

What Do Words Mean? Wayne Grudem Has Demonstrated That Being Biblical™ May Not Be Biblical. — 127 Comments

  1. Dee wrote: “Somehow, the gospel™ theodudes decided that it was in their best interest to pretend Grudme’s painstaking ’83 rules for women’ treatise never existed and have attempted to distance themselves from the entire ESS debate.”

    Why would the theodudes try to pretend Grudem never wrote his 83 rules for women? I get why they might want to distance themselves from ESS. But theodudes like Wilson and Webbon have stated support for repealing the 19th amendment. So I’m curious about what might be behind this.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  4. “Let me ask our readers a question:

    When you look at this list, do the words “grace,” “love” or “freedom” immediately jump to mind?

    Or do you feel weighed down, discouraged or weary?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    well, i feel like laughing.

    so, i just looked up, “can camp be unintentional?”

    yes, it can. I learned,

    “One must distinguish between naïve and deliberate Camp. Pure Camp is always naive. Camp which knows itself to be Camp (“camping”) is usually less satisfying. The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious.”

    Wayne is so funny. i picture him as Adam West, in tights, a spandex speedo, boots, a cape, little triangles for ears on top of his head…. thinking he’s saving the world with words like “Biff” and “Socko”.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  5. Thanks Dee for preserving this document for posterity. This way it will be easier to recognise in its next reincarnation. Some conclusions which can be derived from Grudem’s material:

    -Women being publicly visible (even if permissible) may not be beneficial since it might confuse the onlooker about their role. Best to hide them to avoid any misunderstandings.

    -There’s less responsibility involved in counselling & teaching women, since they are cursed to be easily deceived for eternity. Christ’s death & resurrection cannot change the consequences of Eve’s sin.

    -It’s fine for women to direct the use of inappropriate teaching material for the entire church, just so long as they don’t actually teach it to men themselves.

    -Singers (but not instrumentalists) may have a significant level of governing authority over their local congregation. More rules are required on how they can use this wisely. Also women can sing more freely if the songs don’t contain sound doctrine.

    -Sunday morning services are more authoritative than services held later in the day or on other days of the week. In fact, the Sunday service is more significant than any local church meeting in the ancient world.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  6. The theology of the last 65 years can be summed up in two slogans:

    “We want your boys” and “It’s a sin!”

    The war against boys is the same war as the war against women.

    Note how the vacuous Stott (summer camp protege), Packer and Grudem mesh. “Conservative” theology, being “Truth” with the truth taken out, is actually “liberal theology”.

    An eternally subordinated son, needn’t ascend and needn’t distribute Holy Ghost gifts unvetoed – to boys either. This was standard dispensationism / dominionism / determinism / triumphalism (and in some RC movements too) long before Grudem unstealthily plastered it up.

    All manner of blasphemy against Jesus will be forgiven.

    When the bulk of believers believe the proxy war of boys against girls isn’t natural, we’ll find even church finances will get straightened out.

    My Bible (one of the untampered with versions) says we are “male and female”, not male minus female, not male instead of female. My God is not subtractive (zero sum, net zero or absolute zero).

    My experience throughout life was that boys and girls (men and women) in every walk constantly helped each other out in everything. (With a shadow of the overt gender trend at my latest church on a bad day, which is stunting spirituality.)

    Red flag: when I enquire at a church near to my neighbourhood and the pastor states this “doctrine” without my asking. It is on myriad web pages regarding “doctrinal statements”.

    What used to be mainly just custom, with often ad hoc variations in a good spirit has become rigid wishy washiness.

    (There were Boy Scouts who had a girl who was the only girl of that age in the village, or a play “gang” of boys admitting a girl because she was “one of us”, or a gaggle of girls that tolerated a boy that was into dolls while not being doctrinaire about him being / not being a boy – and don’t get me wrong about this – something gave them the right idea. I’m not whitewashing “glass ceilings” in power, which can be about a wrong sort of compromise.)

    Wayne will be flummoxed, that someone called him wishy washy! (Like Piper and Stott.)

    Churchmen of that type have no anthropology or concept of Word, because they insist their “god” has no anthropology or concept of Word.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  7. elastigirl: “grace,”

    I’m sure the old TV comedy series, Are You Being Served? had a few religious connotations. At the department store, Grace Brothers, the menswear assistant (tape round shoulders) was a bit “camp”. Periodically there would be word that Young Mr Grace (retired, in his 90s) was due to come and inspect.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  8. This has been circulating in Scotland since the beginning of the year x

    Rules of Misogyny – For Women Scotland

    1. Women are responsible for what men do.

    2. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.

    3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

    4. Women’s opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.

    5. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

    6. Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.

    7. Women should always be grateful to men for everything.

    8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

    9. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

    10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

    11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.

    12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.

    13. Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves.

    14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

    15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

    16. Everyone owns and controls women’s bodies except the women themselves.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  10. What an incredible amount of time and effort has gone into creating rules and sets of authority that provides nothing in terms of edification or care for the church or individual believer.

    If these “rules” are to have meaning on earth, it must mean that God views all of us with the same list, and somehow I think God doesn’t care . . .

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  13. Luckyforward,

    My thoughts also..
    Further, these clowns go around and demand that we submit to their authority, and yet, as Dee has nicely pointed out above, these “rules” seem to “dissappear” as well as a number of the “TheoBros”..

    So, I am supposed to blindly submit to these clowns, yet the rules and even their “leaders” might “disappear” at any time??? – As Max likes to point out.. “Mark Who”, etc. etc. etc..
    So much for “Eternal Principles” that they “teach”….. Sigh, sigh, sigh..

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  14. Susan: Why would the theodudes try to pretend Grudem never wrote his 83 rules for women?

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    I get why they might want to distance themselves from ESS. But theodudes like Wilson and Webbon have stated support for repealing the 19th amendment. So I’m curious about what might be behind this.

    “The only goal of Power is Power. And Power consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the powerless.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  15. From the post – “ Then why talk about such levels at all? We must do so, because Scripture tells us that there are some kinds of gov- erning and teaching that are inappropriate for women. In order to think clearly about what kinds of governing and teaching roles those are, we first must list the actual kinds of activities we are talking about.”

    No you don’t! Scripture is authoritative, perspicacious and true. What Mr G is trying to do i susurp God’s teaching and replace it with his own, at the same time denying believers the opportunity to consider God’s Word and the agency of the Holy Spirit in this process.

    Not only does he have a problem with the Son (ESS) but also with the Spirit and the Word.

    IMO, he tries to present himself as a Greek scholar and exegete in order to confuse ordinary believers with all his odd opinions. If he were such he wouldn’t need to revise his views so often. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why God the Trinity would remain silent until Mr G came along to help us peasants out. (See his website for other examples). When I bought his Systematic Theology when it first came out, my bookseller and I concluded that he was going to trouble the Church. And so it came to pass…!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  17. “I got 83 problems but Wayne Grudem ain’t one” – some TGC thoughtleader

    The Calvinistas (aka, 9Marxists, Theodudes, etc.) sure do love their lists. I am reminded of current SBC President Clint Pressley’s “99 Steps to Christian Manhood”

    Me? When it comes to lists, I prefer one of the OG viral phenomena, W. Bruce Cameron’s 9 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  19. “Grudem, who is a proponent of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)”

    It’s really pretty simple. If Grudem can get you to buy the lie that Jesus the Son (who ‘is’ God) is eternally subordinate to the Father, then it’s an easy sell to get you to subordinate the wimmenfolk.

    “Sit down, shut up, submit” is their war cry … a battle that Jesus defeated for all believers 2,000 years ago. At the foot of the Cross, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Sad that the dudebros in Grudem’s tribe aren’t spiritual enough to get this!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  20. If Grudem was the Apostle Paul (whom he doesn’t remotely resemble), would he have submitted himself to the leadership and teaching of Priscilla in whose home he stayed? She and her husband Aquila were actively involved in Christian ministry; as equals, they preached the Gospel in the church they founded at Corinth. Would Grudem have advised her “Sit down, shut up, submit!”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  21. Muff Potter: it’s all based on plumbing received at birth

    … rather than the gifts you are given after your new birth.

    The dudebros don’t fully comprehend the conversion of a believer when they are born again. They focus too much on flesh and not the Spirit. Rules and regulations are easier for them to manage, than freedom from religious bondage when you come to Christ.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  24. Burwell Stark,

    “I got 83 problems but Wayne Grudem ain’t one” – some TGC thoughtleader

    The Calvinistas (aka, 9Marxists, Theodudes, etc.) sure do love their lists. I am reminded of current SBC President Clint Pressley’s “99 Steps to Christian Manhood””
    +++++++++++++++

    seems to me step-by-step lists are for people who can’t figure anything out otherwise.

    either because they’re natural-born knuckleheads, or because they’ve been told to distrust the instinctive processes normal people have for knowing and understanding things.

    so they unlearn instinctive knowledge and understanding and devolve down into knuckleheads who can’t know or understand anything without lists and step-by-step instructions

    from someone who makes a living training and selling to knuckleheads.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  25. Max,

    “If Grudem was the Apostle Paul (whom he doesn’t remotely resemble), would he have submitted himself to the leadership and teaching of Priscilla in whose home he stayed? ”
    +++++++++++++++++

    when my kids were young, one of them came home from sunday school with a printed page. the lesson was apparently on priscilla and acquila.

    the picture showed 2 meaty men seated at a table.

    (Apollos) was wide-eyed listening intently, body eagerly propelled forward, towards the speaker.

    (Acquilla), even more wide-eyed, was enthusiastically speaking with a big mouth and big arm and hand gestures.

    a small woman was standing a ways away arranging flowers in a vase, body language tightly closed into a a silent presence, eyelids down with a curved line of a sweet smile.

    this was priscilla.

    a powerful message to kids to imprint on their brains.

    made me sick. maybe this was the beginning of the end of church for me and my kids.

    this was the product of a carefully devised multi-platform campaign of christian d|psh|ts to outbreed the female voice from christianity first, then society at large.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  26. elastigirl: so they unlearn instinctive knowledge and understanding and devolve down into knuckleheads who can’t know or understand anything without lists and step-by-step instructions

    Sometimes with these guys there seems to be a point where they could make a graceful exit before reaching the knucklehead zone. For example they could outline their complementarian views and then acknowledge that Christians may have different interpretations of the passages in question. That as this is a secondary issue, it’s important for local churches to prayerfully read the Scriptures together & discern God’s wisdom in these matters etc. But instead they drag out The Rules (TM) and end up digging an enormous hole for themselves.

    For me personally, his proposed boundary lines for women’s roles are not even the worst thing about this document. I actually find it more depressing that someone sat down, itemised every possible thing they thought a member of the body of Christ might do, & ranked them by number in order of authority (from 3 perspectives). It seems like a long way from the ‘grace and peace’ often mentioned in the NT letters.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  27. elastigirl: a powerful message to kids to imprint on their brains

    Generational indoctrination begins in children’s “church” and Sunday School. The NeoCal dudebros are busy with that age group, shifting belief and practice subtly (or not so subtly at some churches). They are pushing women out of the picture in their teaching illustrations.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  28. Luckyforward: time and effort has gone into creating rules

    It feels reminiscent of the rabbinical development of Halakhic Law — working out in precise detail how to avoid breaking the Commandments.

    —

    I think the impulse to do this must be pretty deeply ingrained in human nature, or in the natures of some subset, or personality types, of humans.

    ==========

    Me thinks that one can imagine at least two ways to be “biblical”

    One way, which might be called “the way of the letter of the commands”, attempts to apply the ancient commands directly to present context. This also carries over all sorts of things that amount to cultural phenomena and infuses them with imputed force of Divine requirement. (I think that the relatively minor, IMO, issue of gender-based rules for hair length and head coverings in the Corinthian correspondence is an obvious example of this)

    A second way, which might be called “the way of the spirit of the commands”, attempts to understand what the ancient commands were for, and tries to accomplish the objectives of the ancient commands in ways that are well-suited to present situations.

    As time passes and the cultures of the world evolve further and further from the cultures of the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, these two “ways of being biblical” will probably increasingly be in conflict.

    —————

    Both approaches aim to take the Scriptures seriously.

    The advocates of the “way of the letter of the commands”, in my experience, tend to be reluctant to tease apart “what is culture” and “what is duty to the Creator”. The charitable interpretation of this is that they are afraid of making a mistake and permitting something that is actually forbidden. Less charitably, perhaps they like the gender-based hierarchy of the old civilization and want to preserve that. And perhaps for many there is a bit of both.

    I am less sensitive to ways that one can err in “the way of the spirit of the commands”, but I’m sure this happens. Reformed may consider that at least some of the ways that common present day “worship” practices depart from scriptural patterns amounts to excessive and improper expressions of “freedom in Christ.”

    —

    Perhaps there is a third way (or perhaps it should be thought of as a “middle way”)– “does what we are doing produce good ‘fruit’ in people’s lives?” Too rigid control squeezes the life out of the group. Too much freedom risks losing sight of the purpose of the group.

    Perhaps future generations will figure this out better than we have, up to this point.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  29. Max: Generational indoctrination begins in children’s “church” and Sunday School. The NeoCal dudebros are busy with that age group, shifting belief and practice subtly (or not so subtly at some churches).

    “Give me your children and I will make them Mine. You will pass away, but they will still be Mine.”
    – Adolf Hitler, Cult Leader

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  30. Straight from Jesus (remember Him? like, God incarnate?)

    Don’t call anyone rabbi (or teacher or father or leader) because we already have One: God.

    If you want to think of yourself as a leader, serve. (Clean the toilet, the fridge at church, empty the used diaper bin, etc.)

    We don’t need buildings because we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We don’t need anyone “in charge” or “in authority” in the church–Jesus has that covered.

    Temple Judaism was ended in AD 70. Why keep trying to remake it in “Christian” form by disobeying the clear teachings of Jesus?

    If men need to be in charge, why did Jesus allow the woman at the well to testify about Him? Why did He allow or send women to be the first to spread the news of His rising?

    He destroyed the world of Noah’s time with water, and as He promised He destroyed the age or world that followed, temple Judaism, with fire just as was promised.

    Why do we keep on trying to rebuild what He knocked down instead of realizing, to quote Wade Burleson, the New Covenant changes EVERYTHING?

    Do we really think we know more than God? Or do we feel our power over others slipping away when they really meet Jesus?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  31. Samuel Conner: The charitable interpretation of this is that they are afraid of making a mistake and permitting something that is actually forbidden.

    In my time “in-country” (as HUG says), I found that there were enough people who got a lot of mileage out of insisting they were the “weaker brother” who would not be able to stand even thinking certain thoughts, even if their own interpretation was based on the most literal reading of a 450-year-old translation (Luther’s) of a text that was at least 1800 years old, and where – as with many of Paul’s letters – we’re only reading half a conversation.

    But then belief in literal inspiration¹ (every single word is! the! inspired! word! of! God!) in conjunction with the most literal reading of the translated text tends to be wholly inappropriate culturally and not meet the requirements for understanding the ancient text.
    —
    ¹ where does that leave the distinctive voice of the writer, that – for instance in many of Paul’s epistles – can be clearly seen?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  33. Christie24,

    “I actually find it more depressing that someone sat down, itemised every possible thing they thought a member of the body of Christ might do, & ranked them by number in order of authority (from 3 perspectives). It seems like a long way from the ‘grace and peace’ often mentioned in the NT letters.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    any Dwarfers here?

    (as in Red Dwarf)

    This is a case of “What Would Rimmer Do” (WWRD).

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  35. When you look at this list, do the words “grace,” “love” or “freedom” immediately jump to mind?

    Or do you feel weighed down, discouraged or weary?

    Ha! I just feel like quitting’, and weighed down, discouraged, and weary. If I wrote a letter to Grudem and the Holy Priesthood of Testosterone, it would go something like this:

    Dear Mr. Grudem,
    I am a woman….. a very confused married woman weighed down with so many doubts and questions.
    Do women truly have souls, or are we just livestock used for work and breeding?

    If we do have souls, who will sit in the Bema Seat and judge me when I stand before it? My husband? My pastor? The church elders? Or will it really be Jesus? And, what will I be judged for: obeying God, or obeying my husband… pastor….elders….. This is so confusing.

    At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, will I be seated at the table, or will I be cooking, serving, and cleaning up afterwards (….. oh my, will my feet hurt in Heaven) ???

    In Heaven, will women be in the presence of God, too….. singing and praising Jesus, with loved ones…… or will we be segregated in a separate, cloistered community, away from all of the joy.
    In short, will Heaven be a place of eternal joy for me, or will it be an eternal prison sentence?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  36. Grudem could have done us all a favor by figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; or, if that was too difficult, answering the theological conundrum: Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

    These lists are beyond ridiculous (even as the two examples above).
    ESS is heresy, plain and simple.
    What does that make one who espouses said heresy…?!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  37. I just wish Grudem, MacArthur, Piper, etc. would just drop the pretense and admit that they HATE women. They should just admit that they see us as nothing more than sanctified Stepford Wives whose only purpose is to breed and keep house. I would rather be single the rest of my days than settle for a guy like Gaston (Beauty and the Beast), even if the guy is a churchgoer. No, thank you!!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  42. Pastors’ wives can be signed up to undergo ‘Nouthetic counseling’ at the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting in Dallas:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/noutheticcounseling/posts/1831536394371883/

    https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/counseling-for-ministers-wives-offered-at-annual-meeting/

    “90-minute sessions are being offered free of charge to ministers’ wives Monday, June 9, and Tuesday, June 10, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Victory Park 2 Boardroom of the Omni Hotel.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  44. Muff Potter: I think they are too.
    What gets me annoyed is when they try to justify it with Scripture.

    Yes, they have justified it AND twisted Scripture into a pretzel to do so. In its wake, they have done more damage to women than they will ever know. I learned the hard way that churches are not necessarily safe places for women, and the male “leaders” continue to push this garbage and keep everything status quo. It’s infuriating!!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  45. Gus: Most of the good ones apply to men and women

    In discussions about “masculine virtue,” I have sometimes asked, “What qualities are virtuous in a man that are not also virtuous in a woman? What qualities are virtuous in a woman that are not also virtuous in a man?” And the reverse, “If something is wrong (or suboptimal) for one sex, is it not also wrong for the other?”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  48. To answer the implied question in the title of the post: in my observation, there are two general meanings of the adjective “biblical.” One is pretty neutral, meaning of or related to the text known as the Bible: biblical scholarship, biblical times, etc. The second is harder to pin down, but I think it describes something that aligns with an interpretation of the Bible, and maybe even shares some of the properties attributed to the Bible: biblical teaching, biblical worldview, biblical manhood and womanhood.

    IMO the second usage has so many problems that it is at best a yellow flag. It so easily becomes shorthand for “this idea is correct and you’d better not ask questions about it” that whenever I hear it I start to look for manipulation.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  49. Jeffrey Chalmers: If we all focused more on how Christ suggests we act

    Paul shows zero direct knowledge of the earthly deeds, teachings, and actual words of a recently deceased miracle-working (super) human teacher.

    Instead, Paul claims knowledge through dreams, revelation, and scripture. He pointedly denies having learned anything from the other apostles — and anyone who actually met Jesus prior to crucifixion—taking pride in his own direct channels.

    Interestingly per our recent discussions, Paul conveyed zero “gossip” about the most interesting person who ever lived.

    I take Paul with a grain of salt, and an aspirin.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  51. Jeffrey Chalmers: If we all focused more on how Christ suggests we act, how different would we be

    Unfortunately, that attitude among 21st century churchgoers is uncommon. Christlikeness, holiness, godliness do not appear to be the pursuit of believers in the third millennium. With each passing century, the organized church gets farther off track. Christ looked down the corridor of time and asked “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:7-9).

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  52. Jerome: Pastors’ wives can be signed up to undergo ‘Nouthetic counseling’ at the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting in Dallas

    The dudebros are determined to whip their wimmenfolk into line one way or the other! This time, they will hit them over the head with a big EVS Bible in Dallas. With the “beauty of complementarity” sweeping through SBC ranks, I figure there are a lot of Southern Baptist wives who feel like a coyote in a trap, ready to chew their leg off to escape!

    (thanks Jerome for continuing to feed us such snapshots of the SBC mess … those poor women)

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  53. Sandy: CMT: IMO the second usage has so many problems that it is at best a yellow flag.

    Just so we can all be aligned around a common color code, I advocate for making this a red flag, perhaps with an orange triangle on both sides.

    Also in favour of orange. This is rarely used in a context where questions are welcomed. E.g. ‘We will handle this in accordance with the biblical process’, i.e. ‘We are not about to take questions from the likes of you’.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  58. Muff Potter: But in some Christian circles, Paul is everything.
    They are, in a bizarre metaphorical sort of way, like the ultra-orthodox Jews at the wailing wall in Jerusalem bobbing their heads to Torah.

    “Oh, the more it changes
    The more it stays the same;
    And the Hand just rearranges
    The players in the Game…’
    – Al Stewart, “Nostradamus”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  60. Gus: In my time “in-country” (as HUG says), I found that there were enough people who got a lot of mileage out of insisting they were the “weaker brother”…

    And everyone else had to tiptoe on eggs 24/7 or “YOU’re Making Me Stumble!”

    It’s called “Tyranny of the Weaker Brethren”.
    The CHRISTIAN version of “Tyranny of the Most Easily Offended”.

    AKA “Whoever can throw the loudest, longest, and most destructive Temper Tantrum (and outlast everybody else) WINS.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  61. Max: Unfortunately, that attitude among 21st century churchgoers is uncommon. Christlikeness, holiness, godliness do not appear to be the pursuit of believers in the third millennium.

    Oh, but they ARE pursuing Holiness and Godliness.
    Look how Holy and Godly they are!
    (And are always reminding all us Lukewarm Apostates of that FACT!)

    They aim straight at Holiness and Godliness, but maybe Holiness and Godliness come only as a side effect of something else (like Christlikeness?)

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  62. Sandy,

    “CMT: IMO the second usage has so many problems that it is at best a yellow flag.

    Just so we can all be aligned around a common color code, I advocate for making this a red flag, perhaps with an orange triangle on both sides.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    yeah. and a squid.

    (in the absence of an irony emoji, it’s my personal favorite)

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  63. Christie24,

    I think it’s probably worse than yellow too, but I want to be considerate of people who are just using the language that they know, in good faith.

    This is something I have been grappling with, actually. Like so many other concepts and terms within evangelicalism, my second definition of “biblical” can and does function as a tool of control. But not everyone who uses it knows or intends that. So does that mean it’s not always problematic? Does it mean I’m “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” if I say that term gives me the heebie-jeebies and I am instinctively suspicious when people use it? I genuinely don’t know.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  64. CMT,

    I can relate to this. In itself the term should be fine, but my distrust has come from ongoing experience. I guess it probably depends on context & power. Like if a leader or organisation may be trying to promote a particular theological view or hide something they don’t want to deal with transparently. I do think it’s sad that this word can be a warning sign in any way.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  69. Christie24: I do think it’s sad that this word can be a warning sign in any way.

    Yeah, in a way, but what if the fact that we turned “biblical” into a word that is supposed to automatically mean “good” or “trustworthy” is part of the problem? After all, there’s a whole lot of irrelevant, weird, disturbing, and flat out evil stuff in the Bible.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  70. CMT,

    “…my second definition of “biblical” can and does function as a tool of control. But not everyone who uses it knows or intends that. So does that mean it’s not always problematic? Does it mean I’m “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” if I say that term gives me the heebie-jeebies and I am instinctively suspicious when people use it? I genuinely don’t know.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    yes, a tool of control. a trump card, to silence opposition, to get one’s way, to ridicule and insult anyone, to divide and conquer, i always win, i’m always right.

    the stupidest thing is ‘biblical’ is a logical impossibility. too many christians haven’t thought any of this through. very problematic.

    i just give my ironic-face-squid response, feeling some mixture of irritation, disappointment, and disgust when i hear it.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  71. CMT: After all, there’s a whole lot of irrelevant, weird, disturbing, and flat out evil stuff in the Bible.

    To me this is exactly the problem. We think of biblical as reflecting God’s revelation about who he is & how he wants us to live. But many behaviours occur in the Bible that don’t fulfil Jesus’ command to love God and neighbour. People who overuse ‘biblical’ often prefer to avoid explaining the difference.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  75. Muff Potter,

    It’s weird, because you have accepted the same paradigm as the gruesome ones.

    CMT,

    As cautionary tales – only the gruesome ones don’t want you to know that.

    This is why I keep explaining, in my comments, that I discovered or rather invented a completely new framework for examining Scripture, seemingly out of thin air, which has cost me a lot of cold sweats at night.

    If I can do it so can any of you.

    When I try to negotiate Associate Membership of churches on the basis that I hold to all of the meanings (in the meaningful meaning of meaning) of all of Holy Scriptures, I get looked at as if I was an alien from another planet.

    All the trendy New Reformed churches rushed after their god Packer (a reductionist Stott clone) with his re-tampered and re-re-tampered with downloads. Having prematurely given away my New Jerusalem I am content with my (genuine) RSV printed 1971 and my Amplified. My NKJ which is pocket sized suffices to take to a Bible study (if someone remembers to hold one).

    A doubly weird effect at Bible studies which are controlled by a controller is that I get interrupted every two seconds if I join in. And, everyone else (who are half my age) has that as well but they seem to enjoy it. As if there is no need for a meeting of minds. We are literally, officially not allowed to have minds (and I don’t think the minister approves of it – he was brave to move his children 50 miles to battle with this).

    It’s not just that I belong to an unheard of generation. Because at other New Reformed churches, even the 80 pluses (superannuated teenagers) were into doctrinaire dumbing down like the 30 pluses.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  76. It’s appears that this new regime of gender theology might soon expect that only women do all the ‘foot washing’. Then again some might suggest that’s always been the case anyway.

    Over the years have heard numerous arguments and opinions related to gender status and purpose in relation to the mission & ministry of the church and noticed headship and complementary often getting a run.
    Not a theological or historical scholar, but thus far have concluded that the only things that prevent a person from undertaking mission and pastoral ministry are, no or dubious faith in Christ and the gospel, and no or minimal desire to develop as a disciple of Christ. Gender, skills, giftedness, personality all secondary.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  78. Sunlight Disinfectant:

    I just wish Grudem, MacArthur, Piper, etc. would just drop the pretense and admit that they HATE …

    … Paul. It would help the likes of Muff and Sandy. I’m on the point of giving up in despair when regulars here, who claim to complain about bad churches, obediently discredit whom Packer, Piper et al wanted to induce (and succeeded in inducing) them to discredit.

    What Packer and Piper told you is Paul (and so you say that is Paul), isn’t Paul if you stop kow towing to Packer, Piper, the ditherer Clements, Dever . . .

    “We don’t want to be preachers so we’ll make sure you will hate to be christians”. (Why I don’t call myself one.) Whether the heavy going “relationships” in Newfrontiers, or the family obsessions of the Ortbergs / Longs, it’s a wonder you haven’t sniffed out this codependency for what it is.

    That bunch don’t often explain what God thought of the high profile flash-in-the-pan Josiah Revival. Or laws about collecting plenty for someone who has none. Or anything from James. Nor do they acknowledge normal principles of anthropology and history. Or why not to await permission to intercede.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  80. Unfortunately i married a man who agreed with Grudem. The rule of our marriage was SUBMIT in EVERY area from the brand of cat litter to my schedule to his being free of ALL housework for 27 years. This “submission” was enforced with physical threats. I am now divorced and free. And i credit the Lord and His grace for my new life of freedom and joy and service to others.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  82. Troy,

    Arlo,

    Lowlandseer,

    May I attempt to help you three along. God willed that all (of the many different) individuals of all (of the many different) types of calvinists should be predestined to be saved if they buy into the deal.

    The predestining is the “cast ironness” of the deal. The predestining is also that Holy Spirit comes looking for each without fear or favour. And hasn’t left off yet (though religion authorities who blaspheme Him have grieved and quenched Him): if we continue believing in Him we’ll continue in the life not of this world and able to profitably share meaningful meanings with each other (Jn 3:16, parables of pearls).

    The quality of salvation of each is how well we helped others escape codependency (which is entering into the sin system of others: Genesis and the Psalms are about this).

    Who will turn out saved in another world is the contingent result, not the cause. Hegelian (materialist mechanist – magic) thinking invaded the churches especially since cryptodispensationism became standard (they don’t have traction against the wishy washiness of Darwin because they are too similar).

    “Come all calvinists that will!” If christians don’t know how to do honest logic, is it a wonder the seculars got in a muddle by following a deficient example? My Bible says “Come REASON with Me”. I would love it if you three could give me your reactions to any of this.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  84. Lowlandseer: All = all types not everyone

    Arlo,

    Oh brother!

    Even AI gets that one right:

    “In 1 Timothy 2:4, the Greek word for “all” is pantas. It is an adjective meaning “all, any, every, the whole”.

    The Greek phrase in the verse is παντας ανθρωπους (pantas anthrōpous), which translates to “all people”. It refers to mankind in general, including both men and women.”

    Yep, “all” means “all”, y’all.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  86. Max: Yep, “all” means “all”, y’all.

    There is no contradiction, although I think AI hasn’t yet accessed all the lexicons and grammars and it has been over fifty years since I studied Hebrew and Greek, so I might be a bit rusty.

    “ Interpreters debate whether the term πᾶς G4246 (“all, everyone”) should be taken in an abs. and inclusive sense. As in Eng. (e.g., “Everyone in town showed up for the meeting”), the term can be used in an inexact or hyperbolic fashion (e.g., Matt 3:5–6 [“all Judea” went out to John and were baptized]; 4:23; Acts 2:5; Eph 1:8) or with a sense such as “all kinds of” (Matt 23:27; Rom 1:29; 7:8; Eph 1:3). On this view, Paul is saying that he does not exclude any class of people—even pagan rulers, whom some Christians might deem to be beyond the pale—from salvation and thus from the sphere of intercessory prayer (1 Tim 2:1–4). The question may be asked whether the use of the word here in the context of the Gentile mission significantly extends that of the πολλοί (“many”; see πολύς G4498) in Mark 10:45, which occurs in a Jewish Palestinian setting. To be sure, πολλοί can have a more inclusive sense and be roughly equivalent to “all,” but the Qumran background suggests that this term may refer to the elect eschat. community. What is clear in 1 Tim 2:6 is that Paul extends the “many” of the Gospels to include not only the Gentiles who have actually responded to the gospel but also pagan rulers who at the time might even be hostile.

    Silva, Moisés, ed. 2014. In New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, Second Edition, 3:184–85. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.”

    Feel free to face-palm again. Lol

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  87. Lowlandseer,

    And for the way the Greek influences theology, you have this from Turretin –

    “ XXX. Although God is said to will the salvation of all (1 Tim. 2:4) and not to
    n of all (1 Tim. 2:4) and not t
    delight in the death of the sinner (Ezk. 18:23), it does not on that account follow that he has reprobated no one because the same Scripture elsewhere testifies that God does not have mercy upon some and ordains them to condemnation. It is one thing, therefore, to will the salvation of men by the will earestias (i.e., to be pleased with it); another to will it by the will eudokias (i.e., to intend it). One thing to will the salvation of all indiscriminately; another to will the salvation of all and everyone universally. The latter is incompatible (asystaton) with reprobation, but not the former.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  90. Arlo,
    Troy,

    It’s impossible to reason with a hyper-Calvinist … their minds have been seared with a hot iron … they have been indoctrinated with gotcha debate points filtered through a reformed playbook … it’s an endless cycle trying to get through to them … move on in Jesus’ name, believing that “all” are within reach of salvation.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  91. Susan: n? I get why they might want to distance themselves from ESS. But theodudes li

    Which is why they can’t. Because their view of individuals always gives the game away re. the dim view of human beings that was inculcated into them especially as regards them themselves.

    Nancy2(aka Kevlar): o women truly have souls

    What the gruesome ones haven’t (according to them), they won’t allow to anyone – not their boys and menfolk either.

    elastigirl: the stupidest thing is ‘biblical’ is a logical impossibility. too many christians haven’t thought any of this through.

    Exactly! The only truthful way to apply that word is in relation to spiritual meanings beyond such leaders (blind guides) or a text to be honoured for what it is as text. The combined effect of Roman and Jewish mores and the personal circumstances of individuals being written about means that the meaning is often that temporary sociological and individual factors are the crucial intervening ones.

    The real Bible doesn’t nix normal principles of anthropology and history.

    Lowlandseer,

    You’ve said big parts of it yourself, drawing on those sources, at 12:53 and 1:13. But your earlier comment didn’t reflect these realities near well enough, hence the two rather
    brief reactions to it, which I sensed were “more right”, though their reasons weren’t spelled out.

    I’m probably often getting more out of most of your quotes than you sometimes do. God’s reprobation is against those who stood in the way of our adding to our peers’ integrity by trading gifts with them unvetoed.

    elastigirl,

    I have given Bible references on purpose anyway. Those don’t trigger me in the direction I was “supposed” to be triggered. Because my broad religion take from infancy made me always look for my own conclusions. That still didn’t stop me being strung along.

    You’ve often read our peers here commenting on magic thinking. Authorities in all walks – with religion in the forefront about 200 years ago – fell to adopting a fatalistic attitude, holding to dumbed-down attitudes to words, and crude monism (that we are not distinct persons).

    Contingent = what might happen, not to be regarded as categorically inevitable.

    Sufficient = what brings about a situation.

    Lack of in depth understanding of anything much led some of the more recent “evangelicals” to relegate eschatology, ecclesiology and pneumatology as inessentials and a nuisance (mealy mouthed top down false ecumenism) leaving vacuums in these areas, which get filled with the styles of lunacy which I and HUG suffered, as well as the latest sinister things. During my lifetime the New Evangelicals have had dominant influence though they complain they haven’t.

    I increasingly sense many religion leaders were somewhat conned into the role themselves on non-rational grounds (bad boundaries, like Ravi Z at age 17) and project their discomfort outwards as contradictions. Some of their followers in turn, who are too inured (after all, we were told not to use our minds) are not quick to notice the mismatches and would prefer formulae and regulations be enforced more strictly rather than applied more imaginatively.

    In my reading, St Paul stands for the light and imaginative touch but that’s because I read him – along with the whole Bible – through a very unusual lens, sadly.

    Disagreeing with bad bosses (honest agnosticism) has to involve rejecting their lens (paradigm, template or set of preconditions), not re-embracing it. They actually want to trash the Bible, which is why it’s important we don’t let them induce us. It was commented recently somewhere, they ought to admit straight out they hate women, boys (as they were hated), Holy Scripture, Holy Spirit.

    “We want your boys” = codependency campaign, the very thing Salvation is from (and Dee’s Square One).

    What you are told is the Bible, is what you are being taught, not the actual one which isn’t under their control (in my life, it’s under mine, helped by Holy Spirit).

    How about if we launch a rival Jesus, “Another Jesus”, whose kingdom is not of this world – the bad religion bosses have never heard of that idea.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  94. Max:
    Arlo,
    Troy,

    It’s impossible to reason with a hyper-Calvinist … their minds have been seared with a hot iron … they have been indoctrinated with gotcha debate points filtered through a reformed playbook … it’s an endless cycle trying to get through to them … move on in Jesus’ name, believing that “all” are within reach of salvation.

    I’m all too familiar with this, unfortunately

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  97. Arlo: Isn’t Sola Scriptura supposed to mean just that? Reliance on God’s Word and only that?

    Hi Arlo. If I may, what you are referring to is solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. There is a difference. Sola Scriptura means that while the ultimate source of truth is God’s infallible, inerrant word, other things such as tradition, creeds, confessions, etc., are good insofar as they agree with and are viewed subservient to the Bible. This helps place guardrails on orthodoxy and ensures the basic Christian teachings are passed down, consistent with what was taught by the apostles.

    Solo Scriptura, the cry of the Anabaptist, is best expressed in the phrase: no creed by the Bible. It sounds good, but is actually a conduit for abuse and heresy. How? Who determines what interpretation of Scripture is correct? It is subject to each persons biases. Which is a fast lane to error.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  101. Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

    It’s so hard to write a parody of these guys’ teachings because they provide so much material, and they use language in such a confusing way.

    In this case, there’s what Grudem says here, what he says elsewhere, how his famous buddies have applied it in their own churches, and how overzealous young pastors might use it as just a starting point. Then there’s what he implies without saying directly, and principles of interpretation and judgment he seems to use. Like gender hierarchy is eternal, it may be better to be more restrictive vs less, it’s important to avoid compromising masculinity, etc.

    In answer to your question, the Holy Priesthood would probably affirm that of course women do have souls, in fact they are equal but…and then provide 20+ pages of material qualifying this statement (maybe even adding a few extra lists for the sake of ‘clarity’).

    IMO Grudem’s lists are actually a form of theological slide rule. That explains why every item needed a unique number. This way, the busy pastor/elder can simply pick any point in the list, and see at a glance, the relative masculinity/femininity of an item with respect to the rest of the list. This saves time and energy, which they can spend on writing sermons, attending conferences, enacting church discipline, etc.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  102. Burwell Stark: ultimate source of truth is God’s infallible, inerrant word

    In my view, these three words are near the root of authoritarianism, as both the source and the means.
    As well as being empirically erroneous with respect to anything in the natural or supernatural worlds.

    Ultimate.
    Infallible.
    Inerrant.
    Where do they even come from?

    The Greeks I believe— who were speculating, not revealing.
    One is hard pressed to obtain them even from the Bible itself. They seem to emanate from the endless human yearning for truth — wishful thinking, supplicant prayer, fear of the world, proffered remedies —rather than from any perfect source.

    Their brightness and certainty gives us much-needed comfort. They help us sleep.
    But in the spiritual and material worlds I am familiar with, they have been roundly disproved.

    If anyone claims that their beliefs and their sources are inerrant—they are not. (Looking at you, Luther, Calvin, Paul).

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  104. I am way too familiar w reformed theology. Grew up in it but left when a young adult. A way to make a hyper-calvinist THINK is to ask 2 questions….then walk away. 1st….which NT author taught about election the MOST?? 2nd question….which NT author was the greatest evangelist?? Answer to both….Paul. Calvinists hyperventilate about who is elect…and believe God gives them a pass whrn it comes to telling others about Christ. Another thing you will notice….Calvinists talk a LOT about GOD….but seldom mention JESUS. Trust me Ive been in this battle for years…both in my culture and in my own family.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  105. Abigail: A way to make a hyper-calvinist THINK is to ask 2 questions….then walk away. 1st….which NT author taught about election the MOST?? 2nd question….which NT author was the greatest evangelist?? Answer to both….Paul.

    Oh, but they are evangelists, you know! Evangelism, to a hyper-Calvinist, is harvesting the elect. They have an argument for everything.

    But, in their heart of hearts, hyper-Calvinists do not really believe that evangelism or mission are necessary pursuits for Christians. Predestination has already addressed everything.

    It’s such a sad little religion. Those who hold to Calvinism represent less than 10% of Christendom worldwide. It’s doctrine-this, doctrine-that, grace this, grace-that. No one would accuse them of being a loving bunch.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  108. Michael in UK,

    “In my reading, St Paul stands for the light and imaginative touch but that’s because I read him – along with the whole Bible – through a very unusual lens, sadly.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    i read Paul as saying “well, you could try it this way”.

    he’s giving his thoughts on cooking techniques, appealing to science when it helps (like in baking, and what heat and cold and force do).

    in the end, it’s simply what works best with the ingredients, utensils, time, equipment and personal preferences we’re working with.

    turning it into rules or else…. ironic squids galore, and very amusing.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  109. Sandy,

    Thank you. I appreciate your comment and know that you are not alone in your beliefs about Scripture, certainty, empirical data etc. I am a poor apologist and do not have the skills needed to address your statements, and even if I did, I am not certain that anything I wrote would make much difference. I do know that arguing – in the dialectic sense – does allow both parties to state their positions, but I believe we already have done so.

    You said:

    In my view, these three words are near the root of authoritarianism, as both the source and the means.

    In my opinion, there is a difference between authority and authoritarian. The Bible is the final authority on knowing God, understanding mankind’s condition, and the rule of faith. Authoritarianism, while not within the exclusive jurisdiction of bad Christian leaders, should not be a reflection the contents of Scripture any more than Charles Cullen is a blanket representative of the nursing profession.

    Arlo,

    I do not doubt this to be the case. A Swiss friend of mine once said that many American Reformed/Presbyterian Christians are not comfortable in their own skin. That struck me as incredibly accurate and has stuck with me over the years. I would add to that the lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura. The Calvinists you describe would likely bristle like a cornered porcupine if they were compared to Anabaptists and IFBs, but if the proverbial shoe fits…

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  111. Abigail,

    “Calvinists talk a LOT about GOD….but seldom mention JESUS”
    +++++++++++++++

    in my view, Jesus is too problematic. too free-wheelin, divesting of power & wealth in favor of ‘the least of these’, not enough rules and structure, abstract as opposed to concrete…

    and for some reason, i think Jesus of Nazareth is a threat to some men – either a competitive threat, or it’s simply weird for a man to worship another man. to sing to another man about that other man (!)…

    Even if one believes that Jesus is deity, he’s still just as much a human man.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  115. Max: It’s doctrine-this, doctrine-that, grace this, grace-that. No one would accuse them of being a loving bunch.

    Remember the one about the Fred Phelps relative/minion being interviewed?
    When asked “What do you believe?” she literally SPAT out “We Believe in the Doctrines of Grace.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  117. Max: It’s impossible to reason with a hyper-Calvinist … their minds have been seared with a hot iron … they have been indoctrinated with gotcha debate points filtered through a reformed playbook … it’s an endless cycle trying to get through to them …

    Just like Conspiracy Crackheads:
    “THE DWARFS ARE FOR THE DWARFS! WE WON’T BE TAKEN IN!”
    — Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle

    ‘Don’t bother trying to reason with them; they’re Born Again.’
    — 1980 SF novel World Enough, and Time by James Kahn

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  118. linda: Sigh. What if the message had remained peace on earth goodwill toward man(kind) instead of good news–most of you are going to burn in hell!

    What if we echoed the angels with fear not instead of trying to create absolute terror in the hearts of people?

    Linda, the Bible does not wear rose-tinted glasses and everything in Scripture is not rainbows and unicorns. Jesus’ first sermon was “Repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 3:2). Articulating the reality of sin and judgment, the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ is the most biblical sermon that can be proclaimed. To do anything less is an act of callousness that borders on hatred for your fellow human.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  121. Burwell–and you miss the gospel with your reasoning!!!! A God Who is angry and all about making sure we keep the rules BUT DOES NOT LOVE US is a monster.

    A God Who loves us enough for the incarnation, and Who dies for us, is a God worth our following.

    You don’t change people by beating them up. You change them by winning their love, their trust, and having them want to obey.

    I am an adoptive parent. Some enter that, especially with older kids, with the sort of whip and chair attitude that the new parents are going to MAKE the kid obey. NEVER WORKS.

    Others work very hard at earning the love and trust of the kids, getting them to bond with them. Once the child has given his or her heart to the parents, they will do anything to please and honor the parent. So the bad behaviors tend to just disappear over time.

    God DOES love humankind. God IS reconciled to us. God DOES NOT engage in transactional relationships.

    If we trust Him, He need not thunder “repent” because it comes naturally to us.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  122. Michael in UK: your reactions

    I’m not addressed in this item, but I think I’m not alone in my sense that “there is something that may be helpful here, but I don’t understand it clearly enough to be sure.”

    Some counsel — use less of your own jargon. Jargon can be helpful as a means of saying more with fewer words when the meaning is shared, but I get the impression that your jargon is not understood by readers, so instead of promoting understanding, it hinders.

    Some examples of your characteristic jargon that may not convey meaning to readers:

    “trading in the gifts” — I think that by this you are referring to what I have called “ministry one to another”, which is a strong emphasis in Paul. I intuit that in this phrase you are bringing together Paul’s “spirit gift” language with Jesus’ “stewardship” parables. I think that’s a legitimate interpretive move, but compressing it into novel jargon may confuse readers.

    “gifts unvetoed” — I am less sure about this, but I suspect that it is an objection (one that is widely shared among TWW readers, I think) to the collapsing of church ministry to a focus on pastoral preaching and a correlated devaluing of the many forms of “one another” ministry that are repeatedly mentioned in Paul’s letters. But again, I think that the employment of a phrase that is not widely employed hinders reader understanding.

    ——

    It’s plain that there is a lot that you want to communicate to us. I think that you are not consistently getting through to us (certainly not to me), and I’m not confident that the communication problem is entirely at the receiving end.

    —

    I also think that you are too confident in your interpretation of your interlocutors. You have charged me, IIRC, with fundamentalism, which suggests to me that either we have very different understandings of the meaning of the term “fundamentalism”, or that you do not understand my thinking very well, or both. I’m not offended — more bemused, and a little saddened. It’s better to ask questions (and ask in language that one questioned clearly understands) to bring out into plain view what you think you see implied in the thinking of the people you engage. That promotes self-understanding in the hearer. Simply charging people with the errors that you think you see in them, and doing so in language that they may not understand, is IMO a self-defeating form of interaction.

    —

    Thanks for the suggestion (I think this is the intended meaning) that there is a kind of “divide and conquer” strategy at work in the setting of “male and female in the churches” into a fundamentally adversarial framework. This is a new thought for me, and I think it’s plausible. I hesitate to believe that this is intentional on the part of the people who do this, but it might be an expression of unarticulated (and even unrecognized) but widely shared agendas among authorities within the churches.

    Examples of

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  124. Samuel Conner,

    You have inferred correctly in every instance you’ve cited, as I was confident. The adversarial scenario has hardened in the last couple of years in my neighbourhood (but isn’t coming from my usual minister).

    As vocabulary has been stolen, I try by fresh phrases not to divert readers into usual grooves.

    Samuel Conner: You have charged me, IIRC, with fundamentalism

    Very bad phrasing by me (especially of pronouns). Unreserved apology.

    To summarise my reading matter and personal witness, there were decisions some years ago to try to combat dispensationism ineffectively. In the resultant vacuum the Joyners and Feuchts of this world are (likely knowingly) discrediting the gift in the orphans and widows in the eyes of unwary christians and agnostics who don’t reject their pre-assumptions (just like in Dee’s thread title).

    Holy Scripture says bear one another’s burdens not organisational baggage.

    elastigirl,

    Excellent way of putting it (as usual), thank you for it !!!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  126. Samuel Conner,

    “trading” is in the parables of the talents. This is the providential means by which the saints have persevered.

    “unvetoed” means the same as don’t quench, don’t grieve, don’t lord it (not only those loosely “NAR” * but also high handed religion bosses of other styles heavily imply, or state outright, that ordinary people don’t have gifts, or don’t have them without their prior and selective permission).

    When “senior elders” sabotage our mutual ministering by their neurotic manoeuvring, both informal and formal, in order to try to keep us codependent on them (the very thing Christ’s salvation is intended against) all these different ways of wording it are applicable to the situation, and I have rotated all those.

    Early Fathers pointed out Pentecost as an epiphany or official birthday of the church, with a prominent role for apostles. But the real filling and ministry of the 150 (plus) started as they came down from the mountain of Ascension: our main work, the destination of our gifts and source of our fruits, is our supplicating and interceding, frequently keeping each other company, whatever our circumstances. It was you Samuel that showed me this. (Around the same time some Baptists helped me compare three interactions of Jesus and Holy Spirit with three interactions of us and Holy Spirit.)

    * My senior elder explained frequently in detail his ties using the explicit term “new apostolic restoration”. His mentors and their mentors have published much about it (and one of their group I consider of partly good calibre). I treasured the gifts in my peers and feel grief that because of their unconsidered attachment I have lost any chance of mutual connotations in vocabulary to help them continue as I thought they wanted. (Large numbers left that church in irritation round about the period of the neurotic manoeuvres, though apparently not understanding the situation in depth, whilst I think the very same goes for the remainers also.)

    It’s the bulk of the people not considering that destroys relationships, otherwise I have been surviving foibles for over two thirds of a century. (Faithful members of my birth denomination were unashamed to say think things about our leaders of the time – who were less in our faces through media then – so I had good models once.)

    This is how patronising Grudem-lookalikes pretend not to hate Scripture meanings and girls and boys but by trickery induce us to do so while they evade blame, to the extent of our not unpacking their template / paradigm / grid. Passivity arises from not managing to eradicate dispensationism effectively.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

Leave a comment - Click here for our commenting rules

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *