Gender Talk on “The Albert Mohler Program”

Yesterday, Dr. Russell Moore hosted a discussion of biblical manhood and womanhood on “The Albert Mohler Program,” and I was pleased to be a guest along with my good friend Jim Hamilton. You can hear the show at AlbertMohler.com, at the show’s podcast, or at the player below.

[audio:http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/totl/2008/AMP_06_30_2008.mp3]

At the beginning of the program, Dr. Moore mentioned that he had been in the Dallas area to deliver some messages at Denton Bible Church. Not only that, he offered a noteworthy tribute to Tommy Nelson, the pastor of Denton Bible Church:

“I’m in Dallas right now because I was invited to preach at Denton Bible Church here in the metro-Dallas area and had a great time because the pastor there (a man by the name of Tommy Nelson, who is a kind of a hero of mine for his boldness in the pulpit), this guy has no fear.”

Dr. Moore is right. Pastor Tommy is fearless, and I am grateful to him for standing in the gap on the gender issue. Not only did Tommy himself preach an outstanding message, he invited two guests who hit the ball right out the park as well (Dr. Bruce Ware and Dr. Russell Moore). Blessings to Pastor Tommy, to Judd Rumley, to Charles Stolfus, and to all the other good folks at Denton Bible who put on this series. They all did an outstanding job putting on a timely and necessary event.

Here’s a recap of the relevant audio:

Part 1 – Tommy Nelson

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1307-061508.mp3]

Part 2 – Bruce Ware

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1308-062208.mp3]

Part 3 – Russell Moore

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1309-062908.mp3]

The Albert Mohler Program

[audio:http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/totl/2008/AMP_06_30_2008.mp3]

177 Responses to Gender Talk on “The Albert Mohler Program”

  1. Sue July 1, 2008 at 3:08 am #

    Denny,

    1. I was surprised that the only verse cited against women preaching was 1 Tim. 2:12, and yet, there is no defense for claiming that authenteo now means “to exerise authority” as in “lead in the church.” The only occurrences were in a negative or neutral context, but none are acceptable as something that a man may do over a woman, or anyone can do in church.

    We absolutely cannot say, on the basis of the evidence available to us, that a man may properly authenteo anyone.

    Do you have any plans for finding out if there is a defense for your position. Or is it just an oft repeated mantra?

    I am posing this question here because I am not able to appeal to the CBMW. They had some influence on my former church, where they used to have women, retired single women missionaries and leaders, in the pulpit. But no more. Now women have to speak somewhere else because they are not allowed in the pulpit. This does not come across as increasing the respect shown to women.

    As lesser issues,

    2. What was meant by this line?

    “All kinds of roles, functions and missions given through the holy spirit specifically to woman ”

    3. At the end Moore said that a father was a protector and provider, and a mother nurturer and childbearer.

    In my Bible, Paul compares himself to a nurturer. Christ says that a shepherd will feed the flock. God compares his love to mother love. Mary, Joanna, Phoebe, Lydia and other women were protectors and providers.

  2. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 7:24 am #

    Sue,

    1. I don’t think we are going to solve the authenteo dispute on this blog. As I said before, Baldwin’s study taken together with Kostenberger’s are very compelling to me. I know that they aren’t compelling to you, but everyone reading this needs to know that I am not the only one who finds them compelling. Kostenberger’s article in particular has been widely received by scholarship, even by those who hold a feminist position (they accept the complementarian understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12, they just disagree with Paul!). If people’s only exposure to this debate are reading your comments on this blog, then they likely don’t know just how highly respected these pieces of work are among NT specialists. So let me encourage readers once again to read the Baldwin study and the Kostenberger study. They are serious pieces of NT scholarship, and many within the guild consider them to be the settled results of biblical criticism.

    2. God gifts us in ways that are specific to our gender. Christian women, for instance, are peculiarly gifted to minister to and to disciple other women. There are some things that a woman can do that a man can’t (like starting an effective discipleship ministry among junior high girls).

    3. I think you are missing the overall thematic emphasis in scripture on what a pastor does. He leads, provides, and protects the flock. That’s the point Moore was making.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  3. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 8:13 am #

    Thank you, Denny, for standing firm. Churches need to encouraged to stand firm. I left a church that was beginning to cave on everything (and from reading the upcoming agenda for synod) continue to drift.

  4. Truth Unites... and Divides July 1, 2008 at 8:23 am #

    A hearty, hearty AMEN to Denny’s comment in #2!!!

    Tommy Nelson: “Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible. He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    Russell Moore: “… because the pastor there (a man by the name of Tommy Nelson, who is a kind of a hero of mine for his boldness in the pulpit), this guy has no fear.”

    Denny Burk: “Dr. Moore is right. Pastor Tommy is fearless, and I am grateful to him for standing in the gap on the gender issue. Not only did Tommy himself preach an outstanding message, he invited two guests who hit the ball right out the park as well (Dr. Bruce Ware and Dr. Russell Moore).”

    I, along with Drs. Moore and Burk, praise Pastor Tommy Nelson for his fearlessness and boldness in preaching biblical truth. God bless all complementarians, all faithful, biblical patriarchalists who stand in the gap against radical feminism and the perversion of linguistic revisionism through exegetical fallacies.

  5. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers July 1, 2008 at 9:08 am #

    Dear All,

    My final comment for awhile. Oh, the temptation to comment, but . . .

    I leave you with the words of the late, great Mark Heard (if you are unfamiliar with him, I encourage you to take some time to discover his take on life through his songs).

    Blessings,

    David Rogers

    Everybody Loves a Holy War

    Some say that God has approved of their mob
    Esteeming their purposes alone
    Choosing sides with a definite pride
    And taking their cause for His own

    Everybody loves a holy war
    Draw the line and claim divine assistance
    Slay the ones who show the most resistance
    Everybody loves a holy war

    Many’s the man with the iron hand
    Supposing his own thoughts to be Divine
    He will break any bond –
    ’cause the other man’s always wrong
    It’s a handy excuse for his crimes

    Everybody loves a holy war
    Draw the line and claim divine protection
    Kill the ones who show the most objection
    Everybody loves a holy war

    Dissident cries are met with cold eyes
    And treatment the devil would get
    Righteousness and truth
    can be weapons in the hands of fools
    While innocents go to their deaths

    Everybody loves a holy war
    Draw the line and claim divine assistance
    Slay the ones who show the most resistance
    Everybody loves a holy war

    Written by Mark Heard
    © 1982 Bug ‘n Bear Music ASCAP

  6. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    Thanks for your comment Denny, I appreciate the tone in which you present it. TUAD, you could learn a lot from it.

  7. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 11:16 am #

    12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”

    (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)

    I praise God for pastor Tommy Nelson’s tone and rhetoric for he recognizes the sweet deceit of those who transform themselves into false angels of light and who said “that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

  8. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 11:39 am #

    Are you serious TUAD??

    There is no need for that. Your arrogance is astounding and it saddens me that you would speak like that.

  9. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm #

    Denny,

    I am saddened to learn that there is no desire to further this dialogue. Kostenberger’s study quotes the Philodemus fragment as one of the two pieces of evidence. Since this fragment is absolutely not credible evidence, his study no longer has credibility. I am quite sure that he is aware of this.

    The fact that liberal theologians have swallowed the authenteo study whole does not impress me. Do I present as a liberal theologian?

    Frankly, NT specialists are not the final arbiters of a point about the Greek language as a whole.

    These are my credentials. I was raised a Plymouth Brethren. I studied Greek 5 days a week from the age of 14 to 21. I did not study Greek to prove a point or reinforce my presuppositions about gender. I remained in a complementarian environment for the next 30 years.

    I studied Greek from Homer to koine and LXX. I Studied Latin, French, German, and Hebrew. I can absolutely guarantee that the authenteo study is not reliable and does not represent the historical interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12.

    I would be happy to run through the evidence with you one more time.

    As another, complementarian blogger said, “Oh that we all would weep.”

    That is what we are doing on the other post. We are protestng.

    You are dismissing women as being not worthy of your time. You and your colleagues preach to restrict women and do not want to study the issue and find out the truth.

    Ask Dr. Kostenberger about the Philodemus fragment. Find out the provenance of the expression “to exercise authority.” I have done this. I have traced the translation of this verse over 2000 years.

    And you say that a woman can lead a group for teen girls. I know a group of teen girls and I am here taking on the CBMW for a group of teen girls, some of whom have appealed to me. have since left that church because I could not agree. But they appeal to me still.

    They do not want a marriage relationship a la Bruce Ware, where the man represents Godlike authority, and the woman represents Godlike submission.

    This is profoundly damaging teaching for marriage and for both men and women.

    I am incredibly disturbed – to the point of tears.

    On a further note, I was asked by my complementarian (former) pastor if the statement of concern against the TNIV could be taken down.

    I regret if my tone is not the best but I weep for men and women influenced by the notion of men having Godlike authority in the home over their wives and children. Is this what you teach?

  10. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm #

    I have been moderated out. Okay, you do not want the truth.

  11. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm #

    Sorry, just testing. It appears that I lost my long comment somehow.

    I can’t rewrite it now. However, Kostenberger’s study relied on two pieces of evidence, BGU 1208 and Philodemus. The Philodemus fragment has been proven unreliable, so 50% reduction in reliability for the study overall.

    This affects women for every part of their lives and you and your colleagues will not revisit it. Are the causes of women not worth your time.

  12. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm #

    Praise God for Dr. Russell Moore. He speaks truth-in-love with direct simplicity and accuracy.

    Russell Moore: Gender identity and complementarianism… I hate ….the word ‘complementarian’, I prefer the word ‘patriarchy’…

    Mark Dever: So then, why is it you don’t like the word complementarianism?

    Russell Moore: Because complemnetarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles? So an egalitarian would say, “Yeah, I’m a complementarian too, it’s on the basis of gifts.” I think we need to say instead, “No you have headship that’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…”

    From: Russell Moore: “I hate the term ‘complementarian’…”

  13. Scott July 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm #

    Ferg,

    TUAD has serious issues. It’s best if you just let him go. He refuses to address the issues and resorts to merely quoting old and outdated posts. Additionally, he quotes from old threads in which the offensive terminology has been discussed ad nauseum. He continues to liken the idea of egalitarianism to cancer and those who espouse the view to tools of Satan. Apparently, in keeping with the politics of this board, he is a one issue believer. I think most of us would be more (and are) charitable in handling in-house disagreements. Unfortunately TUAD thinks those of the egalitarian stripe do not belong at the same table. I think if he’s going to level such charges he needs to be prepared to defend them with solid lexical, theological, and historical support. TUAD will not do this. Instead he resorts to petty and immature quotes, quotes in which bold-type is used to highlight the more offensive and divisive language. It’s beyond reproach, old, and irresponsible.

    TUAD,

    If you’re going to charge me with being a tool of Satan have the courage to step up and directly interact with the evidence. Don’t quote pastors of your own liking. Don’t play a theologian as a trump card on linguistic arguments. And, don’t resort to unbiblical “proof-texting”in the hopes of unnerving your opponents. It does not work. I don’t find it contributes, and, if anything, it brings into question your understanding of the original text.

  14. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    I would never go to a medical doctor who has this much interest in reliability. How much more important are spiritual truths.

    A group of teenabe girls have appealed to me. But I felt that I had to leave the church as I could not agree with the pastor.

    This is not only a matter for NT specialists. You need someone with classical Greek training.

    Girls do not want a marriage a la Bruce Ware, where men have Godlike authority and women have Godlike submission. Do you teach this?

    Thanks for keeping this open. I appreciate your southern hospitality.

  15. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm #

    Sue,

    I was wondering what happened to you. You haven’t been moderated out. Let me check my SPAM folder. Sometimes things end up there inexplicably.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  16. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    A group of teen girls have in fact appealed to me. They do not want a marriage a la Bruce Ware, where men have Godlike authority and women have Godlike submission.

    A complementarian pastor appealed to me to have the statement of concern against the TNIV taken down.

    I represent a lot of people who have issues with the CBMW and they will not dialogue with me. They refuse to put evidence on the table to defend various statements about Greek.

    Thanks for keeping this dialogue open here.

  17. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm #

    Thanks for addressing me Scott. I appreciate it. You’re right in what you say. I just find it difficult to comprehend how people can have so little regard for others and so little humility.

  18. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm #

    Denny,

    I’ll count it a fluke at my end. Email Dr. Kostenberger and ask him about the Philodemus fragment.

    I know its out as evidence. Please don’t quote liberal theologians as evidence. I do know the syntactic argument but it depends on establishing a possible positive value for authenteo.

    Considering the importance of the issue, I would hope for more from you. How can women be restricted by a verse which is so obscure?

  19. Scott July 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm #

    Denny,

    Thanks for your patience on this issue! I’ve been encouraged by your willingness to host and interact with issues you obviously do not agree with on a personal level. This one can get heated and I applaud your humility and gentleness.

  20. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    Sue,

    The verse is not obscure. I would hardly characterize my interpretation of it as obscure. I know that you will disagree with them, but just take a look at the major bible translations on this verse. Except for the TNIV, they overwhelmingly favor the Kostenberger/Baldwin rendering! (see below)

    I think that it is your view that is out of the mainstream of NT scholarship, not mine.

    Thanks,
    Denny

    ————————

    NAS 1 Timothy 2:12 aBut I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,

    ESV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;

    NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;

    CSB 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;

    NLT 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.

    NKJ 1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,

    RSV 1 Timothy 2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men;

    NRSV 1 Timothy 2:12 I permit no woman1 to teach or to have authority over a man;

    NET 1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

    NJB 1 Timothy 2:12 I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

    NAB 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

  21. Scott July 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    Denny,

    Please accept this as an honest response (not at all intended as a flame!!!).

    I’ve seen the argument that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an addition to the original text (as I’m sure you have). The same people will argue that 1 Tim is deutero-Pauline. On that basis it’s then argued that we have a clear trajectory (I hesitate even typing the phrase given the hostility some have) in the undisputed Pauline text. The language of 1 Tim 2:12 is then viewed as a cultural accommodation to the times, places, and sensitivities of the audience.

    I’m just throwing this out there for honest and genuine feedback.

  22. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm #

    Thanks, Scott (#19). I am a pretty gentle guy.

    As to your issues in comment #21:

    1 Corinthians 14:24-25 – This argument comes from from the text critic Gordon Fee. Many people find it compelling but I do not. These verses are present in every single extant Greek manuscript that we have of 1 Corinthians. Several late witnesses have the verses appearing later in the text, but they’re still in the text! This is hardly a basis for arguing that they don’t belong in the text. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is certainly Pauline.

    2. Trajectory hermeneutics is a dangerous way to read the bible because it undermines the authority of scripture. Paul doesn’t think of his command as a “cultural accomodation.” On the contrary, his instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 is rooted in the pre-fall order of creation (1 Tim 2:13). That makes this one transcultural. As for the text being deutero-Pauline, that’s a whole other discussion. If someone has a problem with the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, then they have a problem with inerrancy since the text clear identifies Paul as the author (1 Tim 1:1). Not that it’s an unimportant question, it’s just that I think we are all agreeing that the text is inerrant. Right?

    Thanks,
    Denny

  23. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm #

    For anyone who’s interested,

    Please do look at this thread where Sue commits the root fallacy” in her lexical research.

    Here’s are excerpts:

    “Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,” an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.”
    For an explanation of the root fallacy, click here . Also on this page is an explanation of an error dubbed “the overload fallacy.” It looks very much like what D. A. Carson has styled “the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy,” and Sue’s comments might well be an example of this interpretive fallacy as well.”

    “Sue,
    There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy” is one of the more common of these.”

    From: Egalitarian Flummery No. 2

    I greatly applaud Pastor Mouser for exposing Sue’s fallacies. Furthermore, I find it particularly revealing that the blog conversation did not continue. I’m fairly sure that Pastor Mouser would continue to discuss the matter of Egalitarian Flummery.

  24. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm #

    Sue said…
    “Girls do not want a marriage a la Bruce Ware, where men have Godlike authority and women have Godlike submission. Do you teach this?”

    I don’t believe I have “Godlike authority” over my wife. Neither does Bruce Ware. Sue, these caricatures aren’t helpful to anyone. Since you say you’re concerned with addressing the issues, then let’s do that and not put words in our opponents’ mouths, please.

  25. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    Denny,

    Thanks. Let’s add up the centuries.

    Vulgate dominare

    KJV – usurp authority

    Calvin’s Bible 1560 – assume authority

    Luther – herr sein

    Elberfelder – herrschen

    It was only with Erasmus’ Latin translation, 1516, that the notion of authority was attributed to that verse.

    Erasmus wrote “authoritatem usurpare” and this was then translated into English by Tyndale as “have auctoricie”

    The translators of the KJV read this as “usurp authority” and considered a “usurper” to be a criminal worthy of death. Read the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes on this.

    The notion that authenteo meant “to have authority” rests on Tyndales translation of Erasmus Latin translation.

    This verse needs to be revisited.

  26. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    If someone has a problem with the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, then they have a problem with inerrancy since the text clear identifies Paul as the author (1 Tim 1:1).

    I’m sorry, Denny, but do you have any idea how funny that is! Think about it.

  27. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    TUAD,

    I hate to be painfully blunt, brother, but you’re coming off like a broken record by repeating the same post over and over and casting a negative shadow on your beliefs by your (intended or not) lack of charity. Please reconsider your approach, brother.

  28. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:50 pm #

    Denny,

    Women need someone to care enough to actually check out the truth on authenteo. It just seems like nobody cares.

  29. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm #

    Sue, honest question: I’ve heard you go on and on about the mistranslation of “exercise authority,” but I don’t think you’ve touched the other thing Paul prohibits in that verse: a woman “teaching” a man. What do you think he’s saying here?

  30. John July 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    Scott says about TUAD:

    “TUAD will not do this. Instead he resorts to petty and immature quotes, quotes in which bold-type is used to highlight the more offensive and divisive language. It’s beyond reproach, old, and irresponsible.”

    Amen Scott. I agree with you about TUAD and praise God for you speaking and boldly proclaiming the TRUTH about TUAD.

  31. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 12:56 pm #

    Sue,

    I wasn’t trying to be funny. Why is that funny?

    Denny

  32. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    Here is Kostenberger,

    Complementing the lexical analysis was the syntactical study of the phrase “not . . . to teach or have authority,” which yielded the unequivocal conclusion that both terms, “teach” and “have authority,” carry the same force, whether positive or negative, when joined by the coordinating conjunction “or” (Grk. oude). This was demonstrated by a plethora of examples both from the NT and extrabiblical Greek literature.

    Kostenberger’s thesis depends on being able to prove that it is possible to establish a possible positive value for authenteo. I argue that you cannot, and that it had a negative value in translation up until Tyndale.

    I have no idea why Tyndale mistranslated it as he did. However, since then some other translations have depended on his analysis since the word is relatively rare.

    Just because Denny can quote a list of modern English translations that agree, this does not demonstrate anything.

  33. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm #

    If someone has a problem with the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, then they have a problem with inerrancy since the text clear identifies Paul as the author (1 Tim 1:1).

    It is circular reasoning. “We know it is an authentic document because it claims to be an authentic document.”

    Do you mean that because 1 Tim. says that it is written by Paul that is has to be written by Paul? What about other pseudigraphia? How do we know which ones are really by the authors identified in the text and which ones are not?

  34. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:10 pm #

    DJ,

    I am not being very clear. However, Kostenberger argues that either

    a) didaskein and authentein both have a negative value

    or

    b) they both have a positive value.

    I argue that you cannot find authentein used with a positive value. It can’t be done. So, they both have a negative value. Just as men are not to fight, women are not to teach and dominate.

    Perhaps the author of 1 Tim. did not allow women to teach. But the context was clearly because some women, or one woman was dominating. We don’t know the details. But it was dependent on a certain situation.

    Everything that is written about women, marriage, childbearing, etc. in 1 Tim. counters what is said on this topic in 1 Cor. 7.

  35. Quixote July 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm #

    David NAS Rogers,

    Kudos for quoting Mark Heard. I was just listening to him this week. In fact, he’s rather stuck in my head at this juncture:
    Ohhh, I worry too much
    Ohhh, I worry too much

    She don’t have a clue
    She don’t have a clue
    But she’s mine

    So we nod over coffee and say goodbye
    Do whatever has to be done again today…

    Yes, the curse of the secondhand!

    Thanks for the comment, brother!

  36. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 1:13 pm #

    Sue (in #33),

    Evangelicals have always pointed to scripture’s self-attestation in order to understand the nature of inspiration. Do you believe in inerrancy?

    As to your argument that English translations have been uncritically dependent upon Tyndale: I think you have misrepresented how translators do their work. The translators of the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, etc. are not simply copying previous translations. The translators (usually committees of Bible scholars) are looking at and giving their own translations of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Certainly, they know the Tyndale tradition of translation, but their judgments are built in part upon centuries of scholarship that came after Tyndale. It just won’t do to argue that somehow Tyndale poisoned the stream and scholars have not been critical of his work. That’s just not the case.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  37. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:28 pm #

    Denny,

    I have huge questions about self-attestation. I remember reading Stott on inerrancy but self-attestation does not stick in my memory. It is not a core argument of mine that Paul did not write 1 Tim. so we could discuss this but it does not affect my argument.

    I do know something about how translators work. Just a little too much for comfort.

    Erasmus published the TR with a parallel Latin translation on the same page. All European translations into the vernacular owe something to Erasmus.

    The Latin English dictionaries have an entry for usurpare which ranges from:

    “have, use, get,” to “seize, grasp, take over,” etc, etc.

    So, Tyndale could legitimately chose one of those options. Once he had done so, the possible meaning of “have authority” now appeared as an entry for authenteo in Greek English lexicons, based on Tyndale’s translation.

    Greek-Latin lexicons continued to say “authoritatem usurpo.”

    The only way to find out the truth is to go back to the evidence, which includes BGU 1208, and does not include Philodemus.

  38. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm #

    I am not claiming a deliberately poisoned stream. I am claiming that the evidence for authenteo is the only three quotes we have discussed.

  39. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 1:30 pm #

    Sue said…
    “However, Kostenberger argues that either

    a) didaskein and authentein both have a negative value

    or

    b) they both have a positive value.

    I argue that you cannot find authentein used with a positive value. It can’t be done. So, they both have a negative value.”

    I’m confused, because just a while ago you said…

    “Kostenberger’s study quotes the Philodemus fragment as one of the two pieces of evidence. Since this fragment is absolutely not credible evidence, his study no longer has credibility.”

    First Kostenberger has no credibility, but then when his work is useful in establishing a negative meaning for didaskein he’s suddenly quoted as authoritative?

    Sue said…
    “Perhaps the author of 1 Tim. did not allow women to teach. But the context was clearly because some women, or one woman was dominating.”

    I’m confused again, because immedately after you say that the context was “clearly” about some bad women dominating, you admit that…

    “We don’t know the details.”

    Which is it? Do we have a clear-cut knowledge of the situation being addressed or do we not really know at all?

    “Everything that is written about women, marriage, childbearing, etc. in 1 Tim. counters what is said on this topic in 1 Cor. 7.”

    Could you please explain how? This complementarian doesn’t see any confict at all between those two wonderful passages. They seem to be addressing two completely different issues.

  40. MatthewS July 1, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    TUAD,

    I agree with those who ask you to consider modifying your approach. My personal reaction to your posts is that they seem like a child who decides that negative attention is better than no attention at all and resorts to misbehavior in order to get negative attention. Either that, or you are actually an indefatigable egalitarian troll!

    It seems you are a tireless blogger. Perhaps God has given you the ability to shepherd others online.

    I recently read that people usually don’t ask, “Can you convince me I am wrong?” They usually ask, “Do I want to be like you?”

  41. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    I respect Kostenberger’s syntactic argument, but I have ascertained that the evidence he quotes does not exist.

    I don’t claim to know all the details. I know facts, I do not know what can be read into the text. These things do not interest me.

  42. John July 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    Sue,
    As I read through the comments and saw that you had almost half of the comments I understand why Paul said, “Let a woman learn quietly…” 🙂

  43. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    I want to be like Pastor Tommy Nelson. He spoke the truth-in-love.

    As Denny said, “Pastor Tommy is fearless, and I am grateful to him for standing in the gap on the gender issue. Not only did Tommy himself preach an outstanding message,….”

    Pastor Tommy Nelson: “egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible. He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

  44. Sue July 1, 2008 at 2:03 pm #

    John,

    There are still a couple of commenters who feel that I did not respond to their questions. I regret that. I can’t remember the questions.

    I did learn quietly. From the age of 14 to 21 I studied Greek 5 days a week. I also studied many other languages. After many years of being quiet, I was asked by a complementarian pastor to request the CBMW to remove their statement of concern against the TNIV. I then learned that I was not going to be allowed to present my request to them.

  45. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    I support and affirm the gentle, irenic, loving statements of biblical truth written in the Danvers Statement. Excerpts:

    “We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

    3. the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives;

    8. the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts;

    2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

    3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

    10. We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.

    Read it all at Core Beliefs: The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

    Amen!

  46. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    Let’s look at the other Christian leaders who also affirm the gentle, irenic, loving statements of biblical truth written in the Danvers Statement:

    Gleason Archer, Ph.D.
    Professor of Old Testament
    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    John M. Frame, M.Phil.
    Professor of Systematic Theology
    Westminster Theological Seminary

    Wayne A. Grudem, Ph.D.*
    Assoc. Prof. of Systematic Theology
    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    R. Kent Hughes, D.Min.*
    Senior Pastor
    College Church in Wheaton (Illinois)

    Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D.
    Chairman, Dept. of New Testament
    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Ph.D.
    Asst. Prof. of Old Testament
    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    John Piper, Dr. Theol.*
    Senior Pastor
    Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)

    Harold O. J. Brown
    D. A. Carson
    Carl F. H. Henry
    D. James Kennedy
    Gordon R. Lewis
    Erwin Lutzer
    John MacArthur, Jr.
    J. I. Packer
    Paige and Dorothy Patterson
    R. C. Sproul
    Joseph M. Stowell, III
    John F. Walvoord

  47. Brian (Another) July 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm #

    Wouldn’t it seem that if Paul were addressing the fact that Timothy had written about a woman tyrannically demanding power that Paul would have approached the subject in the same manner he did the men teaching genealogies? As in his charge would have been more along the lines of “now concerning the women of Ephesus usurping power (authentein…….I don’t have a cool Greek font)” or, rather, wouldn’t the issue have been in the beginning of the letter where it more properly flows? He mentions the other two men (Hym., Alex.) earlier in the letter who were specifically doing evil to the church and then moved into several sets of instruction. The argument seems and abrupt way of addressing his flock. Of course he didn’t have the benefit of the backspace key, but it would stand a bit at odds to me.

    Also, given that the instruction was given for women to not usurp, does it then follow that it is OK for men to usurp (tyrannically demanding power) in church? That doesn’t seem right either.

    Just questions, I suppose, to understand someone (people, not just one) who disagrees with me.

  48. Sue July 1, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    No, it is not alright for men to usurp and it is not alright for women to fight. (But I sure feel like it when I see something wrong.) 🙂

  49. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 3:46 pm #

    Denny did a great job as a guest on the Albert Mohler show. Paraphrasing, Denny said, “Has Paul interpreted the OT correctly, and if so, then that is binding revelation upon us.”

    Complementarians would all answer in the affirmative.

    Denny then goes on to say (again roughly paraphrasing): “This doctrinal issue clarifies which Christians are following the culture and which Christians are following the Bible.”

    This gentle, loving, irenic truth-in-love by Denny is to be praised. Quite obviously, he is saying that Complementarians are following the Bible.

    Amen Denny.

  50. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    Dear TUAD,

    Thanks for the kind words. It was not me, however, who said those words. Those particular lines came from Jim Hamilton!

    Thanks,
    Denny

  51. Sue July 1, 2008 at 4:25 pm #

    Denny,

    You need to be aware every time you quote 1 Tim. 2:12 to exclude women from doing morally blameless things that men do, that the evidence is not on your side.

    You have not presented a defense, but you happily interpret the word of God for others without due regard for facts. I am extremely sorry that these teachings touched and influenced by former church.

    I am extremely sorry that some teachers do not feel that they need to be personally responsible for verifying the truth of what they teach.

  52. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    As Bart Simpson says, “D’oh!”

    Dear Denny,

    My bad! Thanks for the correction. Jim Hamilton deserves the praise for what he has said.

    So I went back and listened again, and I reiterate my statements that you did a great job! Paraphrasing, “So-called evangelicals are divided on this issue. Two important things are at stake here. First, the proper ordering of male headship in the home and the church. Dot, dot, dot. Secondly, the Bible speaks so clearly to this issue. [Some] Evangelicals are inventing new ways to do an end run around what the Bible says. They are setting aside what the Bible has said in order to capitulate to the culture.”

    Amen Denny. Thank you for upholding Scripture and for noting what others are doing. In fact, your statements remind me of something that Soren Kierkegaard once wrote:

    “The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

    Let me modify what Kiekegaard has written and update it for the current presenting issue.

    “”The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Egalitarians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Egalitarian scholarship. Egalitarian scholarship is the Evangelical Feminist Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we egalitarians can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

    Denny, more than 100 years later: “[Some] Evangelicals are inventing new ways to do an end run around what the Bible says. They are setting aside what the Bible has said in order to capitulate to the culture.”

  53. Scott July 1, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    Denny,

    Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my previous questions. Do you regard pseudepigraphic writings to be a threat to inerrancy? I don’t see it as incompatible.

  54. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 4:55 pm #

    Psst…folks…are we all sure that TUAD is a “brother”?

  55. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm #

    I guess TUAD only responds directly to Denny and no one else. Interesting.

  56. a preacher's wife July 1, 2008 at 4:59 pm #

    Denny,

    You interact with TUAD when he adamantly praises you, yet you remain silent when he adamantly insults and verbally antagonizes/abuses others. Is he a student of yours?

  57. John July 1, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    Alright everybody, we’ve found common ground!!! Both sides of this issue agree that TUAD is being immature, hateful, and acting like a child!!!

    However guys and gals, the problem with TUAD is he thinks us trying to correct him is “persecution for the sake of truth” on his part.

    Ironic?

    Check box “YES!”

    Do people confront him on these issues on the other 100 blogs he posts on? Anybody know?

  58. Benjamin A July 1, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    All,

    Anyone familiar with Douglass Moo’s study on authenteo? This is from a footnote-

    Deals with Patristic Greek (something I’ll do more research into as time allows) and also mentions Sue’s pal Chrysostom:)!!

    See particularly George W. Knight III, “Authenteoeo in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 143-157, and Leland Edward Wilshire, “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to Authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 120-134. Despite the different methodological presuppositions—Knight includes only the verb, Wilshire all words from the authen root—and consequent broader scope of Wilshire’s work, Wilshire comes to essentially the same conclusion as Knight: that the verb, during the New Testament period, was coming to mean “exercise authority/power/rights.”
    Payne’s attempt to dispute these findings (particularly in the case of the first-century B.C. papyrus BGU 1208) is unconvincing (“Surrejoinder,” pp. 108-110). Particularly, he fails to come to grips with the fact that the verb is overwhelmingly used in Patristic Greek to mean “have authority,” “exercise authority” (see G. W. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968], p. 262). And while Payne notes one occurrence of the verb in Chrysostom in the sense “domineer,” he fails to note Chrysostom’s other uses of the word, some of them with the neutral meaning of “have authority” (see Wilshire, “1 Timothy 2:12,” pp. 131-132).

  59. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Question: would you all label a person immature and acting like a child if they happened to be a woman?

    (not that I’m defending or condemning, just a question on which sex is more likely to get scolded for immaturity)

  60. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    Scott,

    Yes, I do regard pseudepigraphal interpretations of canonical books as a threat to inerrancy. It is true that in the first century or two, churches read some pseudepigraphal books. But I think they only did so when they were unaware that they were pseudepigraphal. That is why Serapion of Antioch (c. 190) rejected the Gospel of Peter which was in use in some places, “we receive both Peter and the other Apostles of Christ; but as experienced men we reject the writings falsely inscribed with their names, since we know that we did not receive such from our fathers.”

    So I think the views of Richard Bauckham (and others) that books look 1 and 2 Peter were “transparent fictions” is not born out in the early church. In fact, one of the tests of canonicity in the early church was whether or not a given text was apostolic (either written by an apostle or one put forth by an apostle). Pseudepigraphy doesn’t fit the apostolic test.

    All of that means that the pseudepigraphal genre was not accepted in the church. That means that authors who wrote with false names were intentionally trying to deceive (for whatever reason, good or ill).

    If you take any of the NT letters as pseudepigraphal, it has massive implications not only for inerrancy but also for inspiration itself.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  61. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 1, 2008 at 6:03 pm #

    Sue to Denny: “Do you have any plans for finding out if there is a defense for your position [on 1 Tim 2:12]. Or is it just an oft repeated mantra?

    You are dismissing women as being not worthy of your time. You and your colleagues preach to restrict women and do not want to study the issue and find out the truth.

    This affects women for every part of their lives and you and your colleagues will not revisit it. Are the causes of women not worth your time[?].

    Denny, You need to be aware every time you quote 1 Tim. 2:12 to exclude women from doing morally blameless things that men do, that the evidence is not on your side.

    You have not presented a defense, but you happily interpret the word of God for others without due regard for facts.

    I am extremely sorry that some teachers do not feel that they need to be personally responsible for verifying the truth of what they teach.”

    Dear Denny, you interact with Sue when she insults you, which is to your immense credit, yet you remain silent when she attacks Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Bruce Ware, Dr. Russell Moore, and even Dennis Rainey. I’d like to think that silence in the face of such Egalitarian abuse is the mark of a Godly Complementarian.

    If so, thank you very much. And may God bless you, your male headship, and your family abundantly.

  62. Ali July 1, 2008 at 6:08 pm #

    TUAD,

    (#52)
    Sorry to tell you this, but it is Homer Simpson who says, “D’oh!”

    Not your day, huh?

  63. Sue July 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    that the verb, during the New Testament period, was coming to mean “exercise authority/power/rights.”

    which is totally amazing since there was only and exactly one recorded occurrence of the verb prior to the NT period and the scholars seem to agree that it means “compel,” and everyone agrees that authentein has at least one occurrence as “domineer” or “act the tyrant” in the 4th century. So where exactly does one get the sense that it was “coming to mean “exercise authority/power/rights.”

    Where is there any demonstration of this?

    Maybe someone should look at Chrysostom’s other uses of the word. But Denny says no, don’t do that. Chrysostom is too late to be allowed as evidence.

    Do you have any idea the injustice to women on account of not wanting to research the facts!

    On pseudigraphia, my only comment was that Denny mentioned “self-attestation” as a proof, rather than the many other “proofs” that were available. I thought he was tickling my funny bone.

  64. Sue July 1, 2008 at 6:35 pm #

    typo – pseudographia otherwise known as pseudepigrapha

  65. John July 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm #

    Ali,

    Good one! Maybe TUAD should go and bury his head in the sand today or something.

  66. The Hoodlum July 1, 2008 at 8:18 pm #

    How come Jim Hamilton’s still got “washboard abs” and weighs as much as he did in high school, while Denny’s belly is like a huge soft pillow?

  67. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    Hoodlum. Two words explain it all. Metabolism.

  68. Sue July 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm #

    Denny,

    Will CBMW hold women hostage to what some men think that 1 Tim. 2:12 means?

  69. The Hoodlum July 1, 2008 at 9:17 pm #

    What’s the other word? BananaPudding or RiceKrispieTreat?

  70. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 10:06 pm #

    Sue,

    No. We don’t believe in coercing women (or anyone else for that matter) to do or not do anything.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  71. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:09 pm #

    So you are not going to tell women that they are disobeying God’s word if they have a leadership position in the church.

  72. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 10:24 pm #

    Sue if a person (male or female) thinks that merely being told that they are wrong = coercion, that person most likely does not have the PTF (guts) to be in leadership anyway.

  73. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    Ellen,

    Check the last thread. Hebrews 13:17 says,

    Have confidence in those who guide you and submit to them.

    No obey, no authority and a dfferent word for submit.

  74. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 10:27 pm #

    Sue,

    That depends upon whether they are leading men or not.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  75. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm #

    Ellen,

    If you tell someone that the word of God days that they are in sin if they do something then it is coercion.

    I come from a background where people were shunned, excommunicated, and told that they would go to hell if they did not obey the word.

    Some people are sensitive to these things, some not so much.

  76. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:29 pm #

    If you tell someone that the word of God says that they are in sin if they do something then it is coercion.

    Ha. What a hurry. Too many typos. Have a good trip, Ellen.

  77. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:32 pm #

    Yes, Denny, would you tell a woman that the Bible says that a woman may not lead a man and teach him the things that are in the Bible, on the basis of your unresearched thoughts about 1 Tim. 2:12.

    OR would you say that you do not think that a woman should not teach a man?

  78. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:33 pm #

    OR would you say that you think that a woman should not teach a man?

    Had to get rid of the double negative. That’s better.

  79. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:39 pm #

    Okay,

    This is off topic, but Hebrews 13:17 says

    Trust your leaders and yield to them.

    It does not mention obey, or authority. Off topic. for Ellen just to show that the scriptures never talk about church leaders having authority over anyone. I thought that Luther cleared that up.

  80. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 10:47 pm #

    Ummm…ok.

  81. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:47 pm #

    I apologize profusely for the mess, but it is vitally important to see that Hebrews 13:17 does not mention the word authority in connection with church leadership, so this cannot be connected to 1 Tim. 2:12.

    I want to know whether women will be told that

    a) the Bible tells them that they may not lead in a mixed setting as a certainty, or

    b) it will be openly admitted that this is only one possible interpretation of the text.

    (I personally don’t think it is a possible interpretation, but I would be happy to see dialogue on this point.)

  82. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 10:54 pm #

    Does anybody find it ironic that TUAD is mocked and Sue gets to say things like:

    on the basis of your unresearched thoughts about 1 Tim. 2:12.

    OR would you say that you do not think that a woman should not teach a man?

    Notice please the outright accusation that Denny has not researched 1 Tim 2 or that the church would make a judgment based on mere thoughts. The allusion to “oft repeated mantra.

    Is that “gender-think” in action? (BTW are we sure that TUAD is a male?) Would it make a difference?

    Why does Sue get to mock and TUAD does not?

  83. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:55 pm #

    bye bye for now have a good camping trip, take care, Ellen

  84. Sue July 1, 2008 at 10:55 pm #

    ps That is completely sincere and she knows that.

  85. Ellen July 1, 2008 at 11:16 pm #

    I know that and if I had your address I’d send you a postcard (or three) 😉

  86. Sue July 1, 2008 at 11:23 pm #

    Some day we will meet but we can’t talk about guys LOL.

  87. Sue July 1, 2008 at 11:46 pm #

    Notice please the outright accusation that Denny has not researched 1 Tim 2 or that the church would make a judgment based on mere thoughts.

    Yes, that is what I believe to be true unless someone demonstrates otherwise.

  88. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 12:43 am #

    Why does Sue get to mock and TUAD does not?

    Dear Ellen,

    Much, much thanks for your insightful observation (which I find as supportive encouragement). Yet if shining an expressive light on Sue’s behavior, her statements, and her fallacies is now defined as “mocking”, then a mocker I am.

    Pastor Tommy Nelson has said, “that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.” Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    Let us then obtain empirical data to suppport Pastor Nelson’s diagnosis:

    “It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches( Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like) accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it’s more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

    It doesn’t help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark (“The Rise of Christianity”) and historian Philip Jenkins (“The Next Christendom”) contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents’ commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women’s ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.”

    Read it all at Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

  89. David Hamilton July 2, 2008 at 12:54 am #

    Denny,

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but were the “two words” that you had in mind “metabo” and “lism”?

    (I know that the “?” is supposed to be inside the “”‘s, but I think that looks silly. We don’t affirm the inerrancy of the rules of English grammar, do we?)

  90. David Hamilton July 2, 2008 at 12:56 am #

    …oh, and is it bad that I was holding my breath while listening to the program yesterday, hoping that Sue would call in?

    Too bad they only took four calls, cause I bet she was next!

  91. Sue July 2, 2008 at 12:59 am #

    Has the exclusion of women from the pulpit in the SBC caused growth or decline in the church?

  92. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 1:08 am #

    Pastor Tommy Nelson has said, “that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.” Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    The Early Church Fathers look to be in solid agreement with Pastor Tommy Nelson:

    Tertullian, in The Prescription of Heretics 41, says: “How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize.” In his work On veiling virgins 9. 1:”It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest.”

    St. Irenaeus, Against Haereses 1. 31. 2 “After this he gave women mixed chalices and told them to give thanks in his presence. Then he took another chalice much larger than that on which the deceived woman gave thanks, and, pouring from the smaller… to the much later. . the larger chalice was filled from the smaller chalice and overflowed.”

    Firmilian, in Epistle 75. 1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who went into an ecstasy and came out a prophetess. “That woman who first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the faithful, among other things… she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord.”

    Origen, in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not speak in the Churches. We do not find that in the Acts of the Apostles… . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.”

    St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: “If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary… . She was not even entrusted with baptizing… Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman’s insanity?” In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white.”Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference’ For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, ” [Gal. 3:”28]

    St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.”

    St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. “They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood.”

    From: Church Fathers Against Women’s Ordination

  93. Ali July 2, 2008 at 5:21 am #

    John #65, I wasn’t wanting TUAD to go and bury his head in the sand. I just thought it was funny. I’ve done similar things before as well.

    TUAD, hope you didn’t take my comment as a snarky criticism.

  94. D.J. Williams July 2, 2008 at 7:40 am #

    Ellen said…
    “Why does Sue get to mock and TUAD does not?

    She doesn’t. I’ve tried to point out areas where she is grossly misrepresenting those she’s argued against. The comments you pointed out are another example of her poor argumentation of late. Though I disagree with her position, when she first showed up here I respected her well thought out and intelligently presented comments. That respect has since largely faded.

    Honestly, though, I’ve been more blunt with TUAD because I agree with his theological position, which I hoped would give my concerns some added credibility.

  95. Ellen July 2, 2008 at 9:05 am #

    D.J., I realize that you do not…however, other commenters do.

    It is better to state bluntly exactly what is wrong with the tone that one is writing it (which, by the way is difficult on the best of days) than it is to point out that they confuse two cartoon characters or hint that they should go stick their head in the sand.

    Just my opinion, of course. I also recognize that I many times I fail myself, but tend to appreciate it more than resent it when somebody brings me back to the task at hand.

  96. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 9:29 am #

    Denny on the Albert Mohler radio show (paraphrasing): “Secondly, the Bible speaks so clearly to this issue. [Some] Evangelicals are inventing new ways to do an end run around what the Bible says. They are setting aside what the Bible has said in order to capitulate to the culture.”

    Denny is right. The New Testament is absolutely clear in its repeated, consistent declarations on headship and submission.

    · “wives, be submissive to your own husbands”

    · “the holy women…used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands”

    · “live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker” (1 Peter 3:1, 5, 7)

    · “wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord”

    · “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church”

    · “as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything”

    · “husbands, love your wives” (Eph. 5:22-25)

    · “wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”

    · “husbands, love your wives” (Col. 3:18, 19)

    · “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness”

    · “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:11, 12)

    · “encourage the young women…[to be] subject to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5)

    · “the man is the head of a woman”

    · “he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:3, 7)

    · “The women are to…subject themselves” (1 Cor. 14:34)

  97. Sue July 2, 2008 at 11:15 am #

    DJ,

    though I disagree with her position, when she first showed up here I respected her well thought out and intelligently presented comments.

    I am sorry to hear that. The problem, as see it, is that I have presented technical arguments regarding authenteo that have gone unanswered and did not want to proceed further.

    I would like to press for an answer. There is an effort to influence churches that used to have women in leadership, to remove those women from leadership. This seems to me to be a sign of disrespect.

    I understand from the Al Mohler show that this is being done on the basis of certain understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12.

    This understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12 is not supported by the evidence. Would you like me to recap the evidence? I would be glad to do so. It is responded to in the post “Authenteo: Let’s get technical.”

    I would like to point out gently and respectfully that my thesis, that authenteo (prior to the 4th century) occurs only in contexts which are highly inappropriate for church leadership. This was not refuted in Denny’s post. I am still pressing for an answer but I find it difficult to present adequately the urgency that this question has for women.

    In addition to this, we never see the word “authority” used for NT leadership. I have the impression that Paul, as a Jew, at that time, would have put authority on the written word.

    It is important to see that what is written to the woman/women in 1 Tim. is that they are not to do something that is an unacceptable thing to do. Men are not to authenteo either. But, in the situation in 1 Tim. men were fighting among themselves, and so they received the instruction not to fight.

    Women may not be the master of man, perhaps a woman was setting herself above men, perhaps a woman was taking on men as private students without co-teaching with a man. These things are wrong.

    However, nowhere in the NT does it say for church leaders to “have authority over other Christians.” To submit, is an action urged on ALL Christians “submit to your leaders” Heb. 13:17. So when Dr. Ware implies that men and women are in the image of God, in that men have authority and women submission, he counters the express word of God, that all submit, that Christians submit to leaders and to each other. It does not say that women submit to men.

    The women in the scriptures act without a husband, and are not in submission to men, but in the normal way of all Christians submit to leaders, and are leaders.

    Phoebe was a prostatis – either “benefactor” or “leader,” one of those, Junia was notable among the apostles, Prisca, with her husband taught, Anna and Philip’s daughters prophesied, Mary proclaimed the risen Christ. Where are the women in our churches today who have such roles?

    I also have to admit that I experienced some of the remarks in my direction yesterday as quite hurtful, although they may not have been intended that way. I do attempt to turn the other cheek as much as possible, and not make personal remarks about others.

    I respectfully await further discussion on the matter of authenteo in 1 Tim. 2:12.

  98. Sue July 2, 2008 at 11:36 am #

    Sorry for the bad grammar. I wince to read it. I always find it tough to edit on screen.

  99. tiro3 July 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    “I praise God for pastor Tommy Nelson’s tone and rhetoric for he recognizes the sweet deceit of those who transform themselves into false angels of light and who said “that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    The above is a profoundly disturbing statement. It is amazing that any Christian could proudly call fellow Christians beliefs a ‘deadly cancer’ or ‘Satans new ploy’. Unfortunately, history tells us that prideful religious wars have always been a problem among religious people.

  100. tiro3 July 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    “I weep for men and women influenced by the notion of men having Godlike authority in the home over their wives and children. Is this what you teach?”

    Thank God for such posters honest concern for the souls of fellow Christians.

  101. Benjamin A July 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm #

    Sue,

    You said, “I have presented technical arguments regarding authenteo that have gone unanswered and did not want to proceed further.”

    I believe I responded to you point by point on authenteo. If the meaning indeed was something akin to ‘compel’, I tried to demonstrate that that word was morally neutral and is dependent on context for positive or negative meaning.

    Having looked at you technical evidencde that you provided, I have concurred that Grudem’s statement is correct, “no clear evidence that authenteo MUST be understood negatively” (going off memory there but I believe that was the essence of his point).

    As I stated, you have not proved anything regarding authenteo except your personal bias as to the desired use of the word. Your continued reliance on pre 1516 authenteo research is clearly for self serving purposes only. The more modern translations have access to research that prior scholars didn’t have. Denny’s post showing how most of the modern translations have translated authenteo as ‘exercise authority’ or something equivalent is very telling. You want us to believe they all simply threw their hands in the air, said something like, “well, here’s authenteo, I guess we better just use Tyndale’s mis-use of the word- gotta keep those women down you know.” I, nore anyone else reading here believe any such thing. Multiple teams of Greek scholars all agree on the meaning of authenteo, yet you continue to believe your use of Crysotome’s use of authenteo, or Jerome’s translation of authenteo is able to blunt a load of current modern research that clearly has led multiple translation teams (multiple Greek Scholars: all of whom you want us to believe just don’t see the evidence clearly: PLEASE, give it a break) to give a meaning of authenteo that indicated a meaning of “to have authority”.

    I applaud your effort and tenacity. I just don’t believe you are correct.

  102. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 2, 2008 at 2:56 pm #

    ah, ah, aaaah…hemmmm. (Throat-clearing noise).

    Ummmm… DJ Williams,

    It’s a bit discouraging for me to see that someone who’s judging me, and thus upholding himself as a model for gentle, irenic, loving discourse has caused another commenter to react in the following way:

    Paula : “Come on, DJ, it’s your type of innuendo and personal attack that has us in a Hatfields and McCoy’s feud.

    What you did to Sue was nothing less than a virtual battering and you need to repent publicly.

    DeeJay, DeeJay, DeeJay…. not good.

  103. D.J. Williams July 2, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    TUAD,

    Do you agree with her critique? Do you feel I’ve been uncharitable in my argumentation? If so, I’ll gladly discuss it with you. As it stands now, I’m discussing it with her and trying to find out exactly which of my words were so offensive so I can evaluate myself.

    My concern with your argumentation still stands – I feel you’ve come across as arrogant. If I’ve done the same, I’d hope someone would bring it to my attention as we are commanded by Scripture to do.

  104. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 2, 2008 at 4:34 pm #

    DJ,

    I think I said this on another thread somewhere, but the general gist of it is this:

    Those who are in error, and who pridefully won’t admit to their error, or who aren’t teachably humble in conceding that their argument cannot prevail will claim that those who hold the truth are arrogant. It’s one of the ways that they can get in a cheap shot because they don’t have anything substantive to offer. So they sidetrack to emphasizing tonal issues. It’s a non-sequitur derailer and very effective at masking the fact that the one in error won’t admit error.

    The truth is that Jesus is the risen Living God. An atheist will call me arrogant for proclaiming that truth since s/he can’t establish that there is no God. Then the weak-minded gullible hears that Christians are arrogant and sides with the atheist. What matters to the weak-minded gullible are tonal issues and not weightier matters of truth.

    Same thing with the Comp-Egal debate. Egals call Comps arrogant for stating and upholding the Biblical truths of role differentiation in the church and home for men and women. The weak-minded gullible fall for the egal claim that comps are arrogant. Comps are just telling the truth-in-love. If Comps are attacked or called names by Egals, then that’s the price to be paid. And I’m willing to pay the price. And Denny Burk, Dr. Grudem, Dr. Ware, Dr. Russell Moore, Dennis Rainey, Pastor Tommy Nelson, et al are all paying the price too.

    Get over it. Don’t be a wuss, DJ.

  105. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 2, 2008 at 4:51 pm #

    J.K. Gayle: “Second, I also read what D.J. writes as an effort to silence Sue (by discrediting her personally).”

    Can you handle it, DJ?

  106. Ferg July 2, 2008 at 5:31 pm #

    DJ, I love your honestly and humility. It’s refreshing.

  107. Ferg July 2, 2008 at 5:33 pm #

    It also makes me genuinely value your opinion. Whereas unfortunately TUAD makes me not want to read any of his posts as they appear to have no love whatsoever behind them. He will say (i say he, because there is no point in saying you, as TUAD has never responded personally to me) he is speaking in love as he speaks the truth, but love without humility isn’t love to me, especially as we are all meant to be a community of believers.

  108. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 2, 2008 at 5:45 pm #

    Tommy Nelson: “Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible. He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    There is so much loving truth in Pastor Nelson’s diagnosis. No wonder God has blessed Pastor Nelson and his male headship in the home and in the church. His family and his church has grown and flourished and has been blessed, in part, because of Pastor Nelson’s faithful, biblical patriarchy. I love Pastor Nelson speaking Biblical truth in loving boldness.

  109. JNG July 2, 2008 at 5:47 pm #

    I keep seeing posters respond to TUAD. Are you guys really still reading his posts?

  110. Ferg July 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    you’re right JNG. It’s hard to ignore sometimes, but you’re right.

  111. John July 2, 2008 at 6:27 pm #

    I just think it’s sad that those who are of his same theological persuasion are even rebuking him, and then he posts something like #104 and thinks he’s actually speaking the truth in love and doing his Christian duty by continuing to post and bold highlight the destructive words of Tommy Nelson.

    Poor poor TUAD. I highly doubt he is like this face to face. It’s easy to be a hateful and mean sitting behind a computer screen.

    Suffice it to say, I’m glad there is only one of him.

    Poor poor poor TUAD

  112. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 2, 2008 at 6:40 pm #

    God, who is over all, represents himself by masculine names and titles, not feminine ones. He identifies himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, not Parent, Child, and Spirit, nor Mother, Daughter, and Spirit. Jesus taught his church to address God as “Father” (Luke 11:2) and to baptize disciples “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). God’s titles are King, not Queen; Lord, not Lady. God, not mortals, has the right to name himself. It is inexcusable hubris and idolatry on the part of mortals to change the images by which the eternal God chooses to represent himself. We cannot change God’s names, titles, or metaphors without committing idolatry, for we will have reimagined him in a way other than the metaphors and the incarnation by which he revealed himself. His representations and incarnation are inseparable from his being.

    From Quote – Inexcusable Hubris

  113. Sue July 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm #

    Benjamin,

    I believe I responded to you point by point on authenteo. If the meaning indeed was something akin to ‘compel’, I tried to demonstrate that that word was morally neutral and is dependent on context for positive or negative meaning.

    One needs to demonstrate that authenteo was morally neutral not that “compel” is.

    According to Denny’s post Baldwin writes,

    “In BGU 1208 the influence the writer exercises is based on his authority over his own funds and property. He is seeking to get what he considers an honest payment made to a boatman for services rendered in transferring his sheep across the Nile.”

    However, on page 680 Ev. Fem and Bib Truth, Grudem quotes P.B. Payne, 1986, ETS Mtg, as saying,

    “This passage is about a hostile relationship; his action is called insolence in the text.”

    Grudem makes no argument against this and does not defend the use of this citation as an example of “to have authority” but concedes that it means “compel.”

    I argue that authenteo has the meaning,

    – compel
    – rule absolutely
    – take over someone else’s power

    and so on.

    I argue that this word is used for the rule of God, Christ, Holy Spirit, planet or a master over a slave, and later of the pope.

    I argue that it is improper for people to authenteo each other, for a woman to authenteo a man, or a man to authenteo a woman.

    I argue that it was cruel although legal for a master to authenteo a slave, and that it is clearly wrong for a woman to do this to a man, and clearly wrong for a man to do this to a woman.

    I argue that it is right and proper for God, in any of his persons, to authenteo.

    This is based on the evidence in the Baldwin study.

    The fact that a large group of Bible translations of the last century use “to have authority” or a related expression, is of no significance in this debate.

    I present the information regarding Erasmus, which is widely known, as an explanation for how the word authenteo gained the meaning “to exercise authority.” The translators of the KJV did not agree.

    More in a bit.

    From the evidence we see that several scholars conceded that in BGU 1208, authenteo meant “compel” with the added information that it was a hostile confrontation and an act of insolence.

  114. Sue July 2, 2008 at 7:55 pm #

    The fact that a large group of Bible translations of the last century use “to have authority” or a related expression, is of no significance in this debate.

    I want to pick up this thought. Translations tend to agree as a group on one alternative, in a case like this, because they all depend on the same base of lexicons.

    So, the question would be, “How did ‘to have authority’ become a meaning for authenteo in the lexicons?”

    First, the Vulgate had dominare and Erasmus had authoritatem usurpare.

    We know that the second meaning got into the Greek-Latin lexicons of the 16th century. We can also deduce that translations subsequent to this got their meaning for the word from these lexicons.

    The Latin usurpare gave the opportunity to tranlate either “usurp” or “have/exercise” in English. Therefore, any translations dependent on these lexicons could have either interpretation.

    We can see also in the case of Junia, that the Latin had Junia (Juniam), female, and the KJV also female. However, Luther translated this as Junias, male. There was no mention of a possible masculine interpretation for this name until the late middle ages, but Luther was familiar with this one mention.

    It was not until the 20th century we see that most English Bibles translated the name Junia as Junias, masculine, although most Greek scholars agreed that it was a feminine name and was not attested to as a masculine name in Greek literature.

    The reason for the interpretation as masculine is that the UBS critical text decided to accent Junia as if it were a masculine name, although there were no actual manuscripts which ever accented Junia as masculine. Of course, all the early manuscripts are unaccented.

    However, on the basis of no evidence at all, the UBS critical Greek text established that the person in question was a male and not a female. There are many women of the name Junia in Greek and Latin, but there are no men with the name Junias. With this knowledge most translations now have Junia, feminine. This story is ongoing.

    Whether Junia is Junia, a woman, or whether there is a new discussion of Junias, a man, I do not know. However, we see that the translations tend to clump together, to demonstrate a bias against women, during the 20th century, without evidence.

    We also know that some of the very early manuscripts were altered to give the impression that Nympha was a male, and Prisca, so we do know that bias against women has occurred at the level of the manuscripts, the translations, the critical text and in the lexicons on and off. Maybe not much, but at least some for certain.

    This is only a rough approximation of the debate. If you want to know more I will write more in a bit.

  115. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 8:10 pm #

    Benjamin A, et al,

    It may be of interest to you to look at this thread (here are some excerpts):

    Green Baggins, #25: “Sue, a couple of thoughts here. Firstly, the range of authenteo is by no means limited to negative “domineering.” That is one possibility, but by no means the only possibility. Even Baldwin, in his monumental, exhaustive study of the word did not conlude that domineer is an impossibility. See pages 49-51 of the second edition of _Women in the Church_. Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage. Add to that Kostenberger’s unshaken (and basically unchallenged) study of the syntax of “neither this nor that” such that both activities are viewed either positively or both negatively (and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively, since negative teaching has another word for it), then authenteo is viewed positively as simply having authority. That is then negatived such that women are not to have authority over men in the church.”

    Sue, #96: “This is the first time I have posted on a site where people don’t read Greek. I am not used to working from commentaries. I really don’t know what else to say. I can’t show you how it works if you don’t read Greek.”

    Green Baggins, #97: “I have had 7 years of Greek, Sue, including 3 years of classical Greek at St. Olaf College, and 4 years of NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary. What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek?”

    Green Baggins, #100: “Fancy that, Sue. Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means. I don’t think it is the first time. …

    You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger. His argument does not depend on the meaning of authenteo. In fact, his argument heavily influences how we should read the verb.”

    Green Baggins, #101: “Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.

    Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble? I have tried exceedingly hard not only to listen to your arguments, but to all the egalitarian arguments. I have tried to answer your arguments. As sad as your experience with men in the past has been, it in no way constitutes any reason why I should be convinced by your arguments. This is not to downplay what you have experienced. The interpretation of passages of Scripture cannot be based on our experience. Rather, Scripture judges our experience.”

    Green Baggins, #104: “No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid.

    Contrary to your assertion, Sue, I am not side-stepping your arguments. Rather, you are side-stepping mine.”

    From Galatians 3:28 and Feminism

  116. Sue July 2, 2008 at 8:20 pm #

    Funny thing that you leave out my comments. I wonder what that is all about TUAD.

  117. Matt Svoboda July 2, 2008 at 8:23 pm #

    Sue,

    Get over yourself. TUAD can only answer so many people and so many comments!

    Matt

  118. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm #

    Please read the whole threads of both to see Sue interact with Pastor Lane Keister and Pastor Bill Mouser:

    Galatians 3:28 and Feminism

    and

    Egalitarian Flummery No. 2

  119. Sue July 2, 2008 at 8:37 pm #

    That thread was garbled by the fact that Lane brought up Aristonicus and then proceeded to discuss Andronicus for the next few comments. For this reason and others I thought that he had not studied Greek.

    Eventually I explained to Lane that I had posted the Philodemus fragment on my blog, and I invited him to read it and see if he could made sense out of it. I have also invited Denny to do this. Lane and Denny have both declined.

    Since this is the only occurrence of authenteo which was supposed to mean “to have authority” within a century of the epistle, its loss as evidence is significant.

    I have since ascertained that most people no longer claim that the Philodemus citation is evidence.

    Lane and I parted amicably.

    TUAD,

    Would you like me to review the analysis of the Philodemus fragment for you? You can read about it on my blog.

  120. D.J. Williams July 2, 2008 at 8:39 pm #

    TUAD,

    Just know that this person who believes you come across as arrogant is not an athiest or an Egal, but one who actually agrees with you theologically. I feel we should be ready to give an answer, but “always with gentleness and respect.” If you feel you’ve done that, then there’s nothing I can say. If that makes me a wuss, then so be it. Grace and peace.

  121. Sue July 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm #

    Matt S,

    You have seriously misunderstood my remark to TUAD. I noted that in copying comments from Green Baggins, TUAD left out my comments which intervened. Maybe to the good. I just wondered why – but no problem.

    You don’t know me, Matt, so why do you say such rude things to me? If someone does not answer me I do not remark on it. Nor do I mind in the least whether TUAD answers me or not.

    Nor, and please note this, do I say any unkind things to TUAD. Please accept me for who I am.

  122. Sue July 2, 2008 at 10:03 pm #

    TUAD,

    I want to thank you for the many articles and citations that you bring to your posts. Some may be a distraction, but I do wish to respond to #112.

    Bruce Waltke, whom you quote, is a friendly acquaintance of mine. In fact, my very first interest in the oddities of Bible translation arose from personal conversations with Gordon Fee and Bruce Waltke regarding the statement of concern against the TNIV on the CBMW website.

    I was deeply dismayed by the attack on the TNIV. Some people improperly understood that it was an egalitarian Bible. By no means. It was a joint effort and an attempt to bring gender accuracy to the text which Dr. Waltke is fully in favour of. This does not in any way impact on the names of God.

    Many Bibles are now gender accurate (or gender neutral for people, where gender neutrality is intended), for example, the NET, NLT, CEV, TEV, etc. These Bibles are not driven by egalitarianism, as anyone who is familiar with them will concur.

    So, I have asked myself for several years why the TNIV is still so fiercely attacked by the CBMW, when someone like Waltke is one of the translators.

    Finally, about a year and a half ago, I read this statement by Wayne Grudem about the TNIV.

    To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”.

    If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women’s roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.”

    Then in the footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV also introduces so many alternative translations that the verse will just seem confusing and impossible to understand. So it is no surprise that egalitarian churches are eager to adopt the TNIV.

    I was very surprised but was unable at that time to pose questions of Dr. Grudem.

    This was, and still is, my reasoning. Authenteo has been translated as “dominare” for 15 centuries, as “usurp authority” for 4 more, why is “assume authority” a highly novel and suspect translation.

    In fact, there exists today a “Calvin” English Bible translated from, I think, the Olivétan Bible, dated 1560. In this Bible the verse goes,

    “But I suffer not the woman to teach, nor to assume authority over the man, but to be silent.”

    and the TNIV,

    12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; [a][b] she must be quiet.”

    Footnotes:

    1. 1 Timothy 2:12 Or teach a man in a domineering way; or teach or to exercise (or have) authority over a man
    2. 1 Timothy 2:12 Â Or over her husband

    I understand that Dr. Grudem would not agree with the footnotes. However, in labeling “assume authority” as a highly suspect and novel translation, he was in fact sharing with a great many people information that is not strictly speaking accurate.

    I now believe that this is why Dr. Grudem has said that the TNIV is not a trustworthy Bible. Dr. Waltke has asked me to do what I can to move forward on this and ask the CBMW to end their campaign against the TNIV. Dr. Waltke is a complementarian but he does not feel that that should give anyone reason to take anything but an open and scholarly approach to Bible translation. He stands by the TNIV completely.

    I appeal to Denny to advise me on whether there is any way to appeal to the CBMW on this issue.

    I also await further discussion of the meaning of authenteo.

  123. Sue July 2, 2008 at 10:10 pm #

    TUAD,

    I am quite sure you can find me critiquing DR. Grudem. However, I have already supplied a link to my website. Anyone can read it. I was so astounded by his attack on the TNIV, I tackled the whole gender question outright.

  124. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 11:35 pm #

    “I am quite sure you can find me critiquing DR. Grudem.”

    You did not “critique” Dr. Grudem. You totally misrepresented and distorted Dr. Grudem. You wrote: “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.”

  125. Sue July 2, 2008 at 11:57 pm #

    Grudem wrote,

    “In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or our modern day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.”

    I don’t want to misquote him.

  126. Ali July 3, 2008 at 2:32 am #

    Let me put my oar in here, Sue.

    The egalitarian position that you represent does not allow for nuance, which is why you feel that you can accuse Grudem of subordinating God to humans in an heretical way by using his quote in #124. What you have in fact done is highlight the real disagreement between egalitarians and complementarians i.e. whether a person’s subordination is linked to their worth.

    But you should know that. No egalitarian who has discussed gender with complementarians for as many years as you have can fail to understand Grudem’s point, even if they disagree with it.

    Now that you have reconfirmed your accusation against Grudem here, it is clear that you are not interested in actual discussion but rather point scoring. Such an attitude (from either side) is extremely disappointing and unhelpful.

    By the way, Tiro3 in #100, is that you TL?

  127. Sue July 3, 2008 at 3:21 am #

    I am sorry Ali that you feel that. In fact, I put forth this quote in response to Tuad’s accusation that egalitarian beliefs were “virtually pagan” in a thread some time back and TUAD has been copying my remark ever since. But I actually echoed Tuad’s accusation against egalitarians. I was just using this as an example to TUAD, yes scoring points if you like. Not good.

    However, I would like to point out that, in fact, I sincerely believe that Dr. Grudem is in the wrong here. If you look at Stephen Clark’s discussion of ezer here, also complementarian, which TUAD provided, it is much better.

    “The word is often used of God as a help for human beings and in such a situation does not by any means imply that God is subordinate to human beings. The word is, in short, similar to the English word “help” which also does not necessarily imply any subordination. The psalms speak of God as our “help” in English as well as in Hebrew. But the observation about the word ezer is only a first step in looking at the phrase in which it occurs. Indeed, to focus on the word by itself, without considering its context in the phrase and in the passage, is not very helpful. The actual phrase says that God created woman to be a help for man; that is, the purpose of her creation was to be a help to the man. Taken in its context, there is clearly some sort of subordination indicated by the phrase as a whole.”

    This discussion of ezer is much better IMO than Dr. Grudem’s although I still disagree that it proves the subordination of woman.

    However, these are just parts of the fairly constructive byplay in the conversation that is happening between TUAD and myself. I read his comments and sometimes have answered him flippantly, (I regret to admit) but always having read what he contributes to the conversation.

    I’ll say it right out, no, I don’t think that the Systematic Theology is pagan, I was trying to prove to TUAD that egalitarians are not pagan either.

    I do insist, however, that Dr. Grudem is wrong in subordinating God to humans and in saying that God is in an inferior position to humans when He helps them. I think Dr. Grudem is way off here.

    Mostly, this is because ezer is the kind of help you need when you are in danger or cannot do something yourself. You really do not want someone in an inferior position reaching down to help you.

    Respectfully, I think that Clark’s explanation is much more respectful of God and useful to complementarians.

    I don’t think this is the main point but I have let TUAD draw me into this discussion.

    I had respectfully already told him in a previous thread that I appreciated his bringing Clark’s explanation to my attention. Does that help?

  128. Sue July 3, 2008 at 3:38 am #

    One of the reasons that I took so long with the discussion of authenteo this evening, several comments, is that I knew that Benjamin felt that I had not answered something in the past.

    He has asked me about Chrysostom, but I can only say that Chrysostom has written an awful lot on various subjects that interest me, and he does use the word authenteo more than any other writer, I believe, so inevitably I did quote him several times.

    I am sorry if all this sounds like overkill but I have tried to engage with someone at CBMW before regarding the TNIV. I also most sincerely believe that the evidence for authenteo is very much on the side of its having a negative meaning.

  129. Sue July 4, 2008 at 12:16 am #

    To further the discussion, I have posted some resources regarding authenteo, including the full Greek text of Philodemus and BGU 1208. Unfortunately, no English translations are available, although there is a short summary for Philodemus. I have linked to a discussion of these texts by Linda Belleville and Ben Witherington.

    I will add complementarian resources as I find time.

    This is regarding the argument about whether authenteo has the lexical range which includes “authority over” someone else in a positive way, appropriate of church leadership, at the time of the epistle to Timothy.

  130. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 10:25 am #

    Paraphrasing Denny on the Alber Mohler show: “So-called evangelicals are divided on this issue. Two important things are at stake here. First, the proper ordering of male headship in the home and the church.

    Marilyn, #1186 on the Bruce Ware thread: “I believe that complementarity implies hierarchy.”

    Here’s a posting about hierarchy that may be of interest:

    “A blogger … took issue with the idea that some hierarchies are natural and ought to be respected. “We have matured beyond thinking hierarchically,” she said.

    She might as well have said, “We have matured beyond thinking,” because it is absolutely impossible to reason without ordering principles, and ordering principles imply hierarchy. … Had she said, “We have matured beyond drawing conclusions,” she’d have been not a whit less absurd. Her statement implies hierarchical order, of a confused and inverted sort. She believes that mankind evidently is “maturing,” meaning that it is advancing towards a more finished or fulfilled intellectual state, for which the past, at best, was prologue. She believes that to believe in hierarchy is inferior to the vast intellectual and social leveling which she believes she favors.

    But reasoning is in itself the discovery of order, and order in nature as in abstract thought is inconceivable without rule or law or principle. Ockham’s famous razor — useful in a limited way, but dangerous for the childish and the silly to handle — is a principle to order principles that order. Of two explanations — that is to say, of two sets of ordering principles set forth to define what you are talking about or explain its operation — that one is to be favored, is superior, which avoids multiplying assumptions. Or take mathematics. When my homeschooled daughter and I went over the first couple of books of Euclid some years ago, I saw for the first time the deep identity of simple algebra and simple geometry; we saw it, because it all flows from a few fundamental definitions, whose implications are drawn out as the ramifications of trunk and branches and leaves from the acorn.

    “Perhaps,” you will say, “she was thinking about social hierarchies and not intellectual structures.” If so, the more fool she. First, it is simply impossible to get anything done without hierarchy. Teaching, for instance — implies that there is a thing to be learned, that learning is good and ignorance bad, that there is somebody called a teacher who knows the thing, and somebody called a student who doesn’t. Even moral and epistemological relativists, those nihilists in sheepish clothing, demand hierarchy in the classroom. “All definitions of good and evil are socially constructed,” says the professor, and “All definitions of good and evil are socially constructed” write the students, and God help them if they don’t remember it for the exam. Can you fight a war without hierarchy? You can’t even lay a sewer pipe without it.

    But hierarchy is not only, in its place, a good thing. It is an inevitable thing, and that is something we’d better attend to. Consider the case of a judiciary deciding for us all what kind of society we are going to have — because that’s what it has done, in seizing for itself the supposed authority to determine what shall count as a marriage. That is supposed to be an example of the leveling of hierarchy? Really? A handful of overschooled well-to-do smooth-handed secularist snobs, looking down upon the traditional beliefs of a large majority of their countrymen, looking down upon what everybody has said about marriage from the ancient Romans to the current Pope, looking down even upon those limping and halting sociological studies that get around to discovering that the sun rises in the east and that children really do need mother and father, decide that we are past all that now, and we will have what the court determines, and will eat our peas, too. Yes, master, yes, missus. To hear is to obey.

    You obey, or you obey. On earth there is no third choice. The only question, ultimately, is whom. Christians are called to obey the God whose very commands set us free. The alternative is to heed somebody else, enjoy a petty and temporary license, and clap yourself in irons.

    Read it all at Between Obedience and Obedience

  131. John July 4, 2008 at 11:41 am #

    Oh wow TUAD, you’ve convinced us all here of the truth. We feel so embarassed

    (sarcasm)

  132. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    Sue, #1197 in Bruce Ware thread (excerpt, but read it all): “When are people going to understand that the greatest danger to women in America and all over the world is their own husband. Ask any emergency ward.

    This is what women need protection from.”

    To see such rancid bitterness manifest itself ….

    Ai-yi-yi-yi-yi. Not good.

  133. Sue July 4, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    Sadly, this is a fact. I wish it weren’t this way. Naturally AIDS is factored in to this equation for Africa.

  134. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Sue, #1210 on Bruce Ware thread: “The highest cause of mortality to a pregnant woman in America is homicide by the father of the baby. I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.

    The highest cause of mortality to unborn babies in America is the decision by the mother of the baby to abort the baby. 1.3 million abortions per year in America. (2005 data). I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.

  135. Sue July 4, 2008 at 2:18 pm #

    Yes, TUAD,

    and that is why I agree with so much of what you write.

    I am profoundly against abortion and any alienation of the rights of fatherhood.

    I am profoundly against male authority over women.

    I see these two statements as compatible and just.

    In ancient Greece it was commonly the demand of a father looking out for the financial health of his estate who forcibly to have an abortion performed on a wife. In some countries is is the state.

    No matter who decides on the abortion it is the same on a moral plane. I nowhere disagree with this. However, the rights of males are not higher, above or over the rights of females.

  136. Sue July 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    Should be –

    In ancient Greece it was commonly the demand of a father looking out for the financial health of his estate to forcibly have an abortion performed on a wife. In some countries is is the state.

  137. Sue July 4, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    I would like to draw this discussion back to a focus on 1 Tim. 2:12, the verse which Dr. Moore chose as his text for this sermon.

    Here are the only two pieces of evidence presented here by Dr. Kostenberger for authenteo.

    Philodemus

    BGU 1208

    I would like to make a few comments.

    1. The Philodemus fragment does not have a translation but a brief summary. There is no connection between the occurrence of authenteo in the Greek text and “those in authority” in the summary. The former is in the opening lines of the test, and the latter is in the closing lines of the summary.

    2. There is only a 50% probability that authenteo, the verb, is present in this fragment, since letters within the word are missing. While it may be true that some people think that the verb authenteo is in the word, this can never be proved.

    3. BGU 1208 is also a fragment and has no English translation. It is informal Greek, a personal letter, and contains many contructs that are not in a standard Greek lexicon.

    4. The use of authenteo is distinctive here since it is used with the pronoun προς. This has lead most scholars to agree that it reflects a hostile encounter. It cannot be translated “having authorized him” but must be to “use _____________ against or towards him.” There is also mention of a dispute and insolence. There is no information that the person who is the subject of the verb has any legal authority over the person who is the object of προς. This does not fit the context.

    These facts need to be attended to. There is no evidence so far, that authenteo is something that any NT writer would have condoned for anyone but God, in his three persons. God alone is Lord.

    I have taken some time to present this discussion here also.

  138. Sue July 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    I would like to draw this discussion back to a focus on 1 Tim. 2:12, the verse which Dr. Moore chose as his text for this sermon.

    Here are the only two pieces of evidence presented here by Dr. Kostenberger for authenteo.

    Philodemus

    BGU 1208

    I would like to make a few comments.

    1. The Philodemus fragment does not have a translation but a brief summary. There is no connection between the occurrence of authenteo in the Greek text and “those in authority” in the summary. The former is in the opening lines of the test, and the latter is in the closing lines of the summary.

    2. There is only a 50% probability that authenteo, the verb, is present in this fragment, since letters within the word are missing. While it may be true that some people think that the verb authenteo is in the word, this can never be proved.

    3. BGU 1208 is also a fragment and has no English translation. It is informal Greek, a personal letter, and contains many contructs that are not in a standard Greek lexicon.

    4. The use of authenteo is distinctive here since it is used with the pronoun προς. This has lead most scholars to agree that it reflects a hostile encounter. It cannot be translated “having authorized him” but must be to “use _____________ against or towards him.” There is also mention of a dispute and insolence. There is no information that the person who is the subject of the verb has any legal authority over the person who is the object of προς. This does not fit the context.

    These facts need to be attended to. There is no evidence so far, that authenteo is something that any NT writer would have condoned for anyone but God, in his three persons.

    Maybe it is the number of links. That must be it. Here is one link.

  139. Sue July 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm #

    I had supplied several links previously and was spammed out. Links to the documents themselves are found in the post which I have linked to.

  140. David Hamilton July 4, 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    Part 1
    http://betweenthetimes.com/2008/07/03/when-christ-is-lord-of-your-home-part-1/

    and Part 2
    http://betweenthetimes.com/2008/07/04/when-christ-is-lord-of-your-home-part-2/

    of Dr. Danny Akin and his wife Charlotte’s thoughts on complementarian marriage and parenting.

  141. David Hamilton July 4, 2008 at 7:49 pm #

    “I believe Danny is really good at being a man, husband, father and leader. That is the way God planned it. I also believe I am really good at being a woman, wife, mother and helper. This is also the way God planned it, and when we follow his plan the family works well.” -Charlotte Akin (in Part 1, linked above)

  142. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 10:09 pm #

    “Do you believe in inerrancy?”

    I do! I do!

    Just not the inerrancy of translators. :o)

  143. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 10:12 pm #

    “Read it all at Core Beliefs: The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ”

    Oh my word. If you all have not read Bob McGregor Wright’s response to the Danvers statement, you really should. He, a scholar, eats it for lunch. And rightly so.

  144. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 10:13 pm #

    TUAD, A serious question.

    At what age does a boy become a man that a woman should not have authority over him by teaching him?

    Is it 13? 18? 21?

  145. Denny Burk July 4, 2008 at 10:36 pm #

    Sue,

    You never answered my question. Do you believe in inerrancy? Lydia said she does.

    Denny

  146. Sue July 4, 2008 at 11:07 pm #

    Denny,

    I understood that your question was directed to someone else. Yes, how else could I devote so much time to finding out the meaning of the original.

  147. Sue July 5, 2008 at 1:34 am #

    Denny,

    I also have a question. What is the positive context for authenteo? I note that didasko is used in both a positive and negative context in the pastoral epistles.

  148. Denny Burk July 5, 2008 at 10:18 am #

    Sue,

    In what verses is DIDASKW used negatively?

    Denny

  149. Lydia July 5, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    “You never answered my question. Do you believe in inerrancy? Lydia said she does.”

    Denny, Authenteo is one example of why I believe in the inerrancy of the Word but NOT the inerrancy of ‘translators’.

    I think it is incumbant on us to question why the Holy Spirit inspired such a rarely used word and not a word that would communicate clearly ‘authority over’. There are plenty of Greek words to choose from that would have done the job.

    It is the translators I do not trust. I completely trust the Holy Spirit and the Insprired Word! Praise God!

    I certainly do not think it is wise to silence 50% of all true believers based on the questionable translation of one word. Not when we actually have instances of women prophesying in the Body!

    Blessings to you! I still think you are a prince for allowing this discussion even if you are wrong. :o)

  150. Sue July 5, 2008 at 11:54 am #

    In what verses is DIDASKW used negatively?

    “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.” Titus 1:11

    Clearly it is possible to demonstrate a negative context for didasko within the pastoral epistles.

    So far, I have not seen authenteo used in a positive context, for a human being, anywhere in Greek literature.

  151. Sue July 5, 2008 at 11:56 am #

    Denny,

    I also want to second what Lydia says. I really appreciate you keeping this forum open for discussion.

    Sue

  152. Denny Burk July 5, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    Lydia,

    I don’t know anyone who believes in the inerrancy of the translations. Such a belief would be a distortion of the doctrine of inerrancy. Do you think a belief in the inerrancy of the translations is a widespread problem? I’m not seeing it.

    Denny

  153. tiro3 July 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    Denny says #2, “2. God gifts us in ways that are specific to our gender. Christian women, for instance, are peculiarly gifted to minister to and to disciple other women. There are some things that a woman can do that a man can’t (like starting an effective discipleship ministry among junior high girls).”
    Could you please show where Scripture says that the Holy Spirit’s gifts are gender specific. There are some other problems with this statement also.
    1. a gift of teaching is always simply a spiritual gift of the ability to teach. It is never an ability to only teach certain groups of people.
    2. The HS gifts are not given according to what a person can or cannot do, but according to what God can and chooses to do through that person. It is God’s abilities that count.
    3. It is unfortunate that some leaders are choosing to add things to Scriptural lists of spiritual gifts that are sometimes not even spiritual in nature.

  154. Lydia July 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm #

    “I don’t know anyone who believes in the inerrancy of the translations. Such a belief would be a distortion of the doctrine of inerrancy. Do you think a belief in the inerrancy of the translations is a widespread problem? I’m not seeing it.”

    Even the ESV? :o)

  155. tiro3 July 5, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    #150, Denny.

    With the advent of paraphrases, I think it is very important to teach Christians that Bible translations are NOT inerrant. Too many are reading Bibles that are primarily human interpretation thinking they are accurately expressing the original languages. And yes, its a big problem, right along with the fact that most Christians haven’t a clue how to study the Scriptures properly.

  156. Sue July 5, 2008 at 3:50 pm #

    It is important to realize that the accord of a conglomerate of translators does not make something true either.

  157. Truth Unites... and Divides July 5, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    “Here is yet another little quote drawn from that great big book I’ve been reading. In his Old Testament Theology, Bruce Waltke is careful to prove that gender roles and differences are rooted not in society and culture but in creation. He shows that, though men and women have been created equal, man was to take the leadership role in family and in the church. This is not a result of the fall into sin but a part of the created order. This brief quote stood out to me as an example of godly submission and one that is, of course, exceedingly counter-cultural. Here we see submission not as suffering but as a glorious and meaningful expression of faith.

    “Mary’s response to the angel’s announcement that she would be with child, “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said,” models for Christian women an obedience she offers out of her freedom, her independence, and her thoughtful commitment so that her submission is meaningful and glorious, not a passive resignation to her fate.”

    May we all learn from Mary’s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.”

    From: Quote – Glorious Submission

  158. John July 5, 2008 at 5:57 pm #

    Immature, old, boring, worn out, childish…any other adjectives?

  159. Sue July 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm #

    Here we see submission not as suffering but as a glorious and meaningful expression of faith.

    I had a discussion with Dr. Waltke on this and in reality, he does agree that sometimes submission is suffering after all. However, the book had already gone to press.

  160. Lydia July 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm #

    TUAD, Don has a wonderful insight to this on another thread where you posted this same thing. It is sad that Dr. Moore misses the fact that Joseph was not approached first. Or that Mary submitted to God before asking her betrothed.

  161. Truth Unites... and Divides July 5, 2008 at 11:15 pm #

    Sue: “Denny,

    You need to be aware every time you quote 1 Tim. 2:12 to exclude women from doing morally blameless things that men do, that the evidence is not on your side.

    You have not presented a defense, but you happily interpret the word of God for others without due regard for facts.”

    Sue: “Denny,

    Will CBMW hold women hostage to what some men think that 1 Tim. 2:12 means?”

    Sue: “Yes, Denny, would you tell a woman that the Bible says that a woman may not lead a man and teach him the things that are in the Bible, on the basis of your unresearched thoughts about 1 Tim. 2:12.”

    Sue: “I also await further discussion of the meaning of authenteo.”

    John: “Immature, old, boring, worn out, childish…any other adjectives?”

    ‘Nuff said. 😉

  162. Sue July 6, 2008 at 2:06 am #

    Once again, thank you TUAD.

  163. John July 6, 2008 at 10:20 am #

    Oh TUAD, you really got me there man. I just feel so embarrassed by your wit. (sarcasm)

    Once again TUAD, thanks for proving those adjectives true of you for all to see.

  164. Truth Unites... and Divides July 7, 2008 at 12:44 am #

    Sue: “I would like to draw this discussion back to a focus on 1 Tim. 2:12, the verse which Dr. Moore chose as his text for this sermon.

    Tim Bayly offers an opinion on Sue and her egalitarian approach:

    “”Sue” claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up “Sue’s” own scholarship: “From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that “Sue” should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.” The evidence support[ing] this statement is insurmountable.

    But then “Sue” added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.

    Of course, I was not exasperated because “Sue” talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because “Sue” used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.

    So what to do?

    I’m not going to allow “Sue’s” attacks upon the plain meaning of Scripture to permanently stand here on our blog. They dishonor Christ and His Word and David and I have no obligation to provide them a public home. Yes, they’ll still be able to be accessed through Google’s caches, but that’s not something David and I are responsible for.

    Some may disagree saying that it’s unfair to allow someone to post comments spending tons of time on those comments, and then pull them off the blog. I agree that this seems unfair, but I can’t see my way clear to do anything else.

    So, I’m pulling all of the parts of “Sue’s” comments that lead readers astray concerning the Word of God, its translation and meaning. But I’m leaving up those parts of her comments where she reports being abused with the hope that she’ll hear the ministry being offered her by our readers in these other areas.

    If you think I’m wrong in my decision, God bless you. I have no doubt I’ve handled this badly, but I’m responsible for what lives on permanently on this blog, and I cannot reconcile my own conscience to “Sue’s” idosyncratic attacks upon God’s Word to have a permanent home here on the Baylyblog.

    Would you please pray for David and me, that God will give us wisdom and grace in our stewardship of this publication? Would you also please pray for “Sue,” that God will heal her heart and lead her into His Truth concerning sexuality? Thank you.]”

  165. John July 7, 2008 at 1:22 am #

    Slander, insulting, judgmental, mean-spirited…are these attributes a Christian is supposed to possess?

  166. Molly July 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm #

    Wow.

    (Re. comment #164).
    That is stunning. Stunningly arrogant. This is shameful behavior. I cannot believe it is being done in God’s name.

  167. Scott July 7, 2008 at 9:18 pm #

    Did TUAD just quote from a quote of a quote? Seriously. If you’re going to be that mean-spirited, stubborn, and spiteful, man-up and make your own comments. Grow up and stand on your own words or stay silent. It’s really that simple for a “man” of God.

  168. Scott July 7, 2008 at 9:26 pm #

    The misguided and broken words of the Bayly boys do far more to distort the Word of God than anything Sue has said on this blog or that one.

  169. Truth Unites... and Divides July 7, 2008 at 11:58 pm #

    Russell Moore: “… because the pastor there (a man by the name of Tommy Nelson, who is a kind of a hero of mine for his boldness in the pulpit), this guy has no fear.”

    Denny Burk: “Dr. Moore is right. Pastor Tommy is fearless, and I am grateful to him for standing in the gap on the gender issue. Not only did Tommy himself preach an outstanding message, he invited two guests who hit the ball right out the park as well (Dr. Bruce Ware and Dr. Russell Moore).”

    Pastor Tommy Nelson: “Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible. He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    One for all! And all for one!

  170. John July 8, 2008 at 12:06 am #

    Immature, childish, mean-spirited, pedantic, hateful…oh, who would have thought, that’s TUAD’s post!!!

  171. Truth Unites... and Divides July 8, 2008 at 8:20 am #

    “Christina is American by birth, but a member of our General Synod, and chairwoman of Women and the Church (Watch), which struggles to free the Church of England from patriarchal prejudice.

    “I had scrambled peacock eggs for breakfast,” said Christina, over her shoulder, as she stepped inside. “I need all the primal peacock energy I can get, to do battle with the bishops!”

    And within an hour, turbo-charged by egg power, she’d explained the Anglican Communion to me, unravelled all its competing theologies, and made it appear suddenly quite clear that despite his recent nod in the direction of the conservatives, the Archbishop of Canterbury will eventually have to go with the liberal flow, to follow in the wake of America and embrace not just women bishops, but actively gay clergy as well.

    Christina knew better. She picked up a cat from between her sandals, and said: “You want to know what the headlines will be on July 10?” Yes please. “They’ll all say the same thing: ‘C of E votes for women bishops!’ So hooray! It’ll be a wonderful day and a step towards redressing the great mistakes that were made in the first few centuries of the Christian Church.

    What mistakes? Christina looked surprised. “The suppression of women, of course. The early Christians were so keen to separate themselves from Goddess worship that they began to treat women as inferior. It was something Jesus himself never, ever intended.” So Jesus would have wanted women bishops? “Absolutely.” And actively gay bishops like Gene Robinson, would he have minded them? “No, not if they were in a faithful relationship, of course not.

    For Christina Rees and Bishop Jefferts Schori, perhaps for Rowan Williams, the ordination of women into the episcopacy and the ordination of gay priests are connected in a very basic way. At the heart of the matter is the liberal Anglican idea of who God is and what He wants from us.

    “Come on! God is Spirit! So how do we know how He wants to be worshipped? We don’t.”

    It is true that in my part of London, a nice lady priest and her girlfriend run their parish side by side, and in the next-door church, a gay priest and his partner do the same.”

    Excerpted from: Coming very soon… women bishops

    Egalitarian feminists are joyfully celebrating.

    I, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, and Pastor Tommy Nelson will observe from afar and affirm Tommy when he preached: “the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church and that egalitarianism is Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

  172. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 8, 2008 at 12:21 pm #

    From Complementarians Tim Challies and Bruce Waltke:

    “Satan is a theologian who despises God with every bit of his being. When he turns to Eve and says, “Did God really say…?” he brings Eve into a dialogue that opens her mind to a new realm of possibility, one she would not have thought of on her own.

    Satan takes the command of God and rephrases it as a question. “Did God really say?” What was a clear statement suddenly becomes hazy. Posing as a theologian he asks, “Are you sure about this, or is this only Adam’s testimony as to what God said? Are you sure? How do you know? Is this really a command? Can we discuss this a little bit? Is it possible that you misinterpreted what God said? Is it possible that there is some context here we’ve ignored?” Waltke says, “Within the framework of faith, these questions are proper and necessary, but when they are designed to lead us away from the simplicity of childlike obedience, they are wrong.” And so we see Satan raising questions of interpretation and authority necessarily designed to create doubt and confusion and to lead away from the simplicity of a childlike obedience.

    Satan carefully and deliberately distorts, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden” into “You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?” He overlooks the great freedom God gave Adam and Eve and instead overstates the one prohibition. He gets Eve to focus on the prohibition rather than the gift and the freedom. Instead of focusing on the Tree of Life, from which she was free to eat, and on the millions of other trees available to her, Satan got her to focus her heart on that one tree from which she was not allowed to eat. And Eve began to focus not on what she had been given, but on what had been forbidden. And suddenly nothing but what was forbidden could satisfy her.

    He convinces Eve that God is limiting her, that He is not giving her the full measure of humanity. He is holding back, reserving for Himself things that she deserves to know and to experience.

    In the final step, Satan flatly denies what is true. “You will not surely die.” The fruit of all of the doubt and the resentment is unbelief. If God’s words happen to hinder us from becoming what we want to be or from doing what we want to do, Satan convinces us that we can safely ignore them.

    In the face of such temptation, the woman yields to Satan’s denials and half-truths. “Having stripped Eve of her spiritual defenses, Satan’s work is done.”

    And Eve is only the first to be drawn in and to succumb to the temptation. Every one of us has fallen for the same old trap.”

    Excerpted from (but please read it all): The Shape of Temptation

    “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:14)

  173. John July 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    Weight TUAD’s ridiculous posts hold = 0.0 lbs

  174. Lydia July 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm #

    I am just curious. Did Phoebe represent biblical ‘womanhood’? Did Mary Magdalene?

  175. Don Johnson July 11, 2008 at 7:59 pm #

    They all represented faithful persons.

  176. Truth Unites... and Divides July 22, 2008 at 7:12 pm #

    “I mentioned in passing that egalitarianism involves anthropological modalism. A friend wrote for clarification, asking me, “What is anthropological modalism and how is it related to the Egalitarian heresy?” This, for any who may have the same question, was my reply:

    I am drawing an analogy here. A theological modalist effaces the critical distinctions between members of the Godhead by reducing the Persons to functions or modes of existence of a single member. Classically, under the influence of strict monotheism, the existence of a Son and Spirit were admitted, but they could only be “modes” of the existence of the one God–not the discrete personal existences (hypostases) recognized by Christian theology.

    An egalitarian is an anthropological modalist who effaces the critical distinctions between man and woman by making the sexes into functions or modes of existence of the “human.” The idea of humanness is thus made to serve a scheme in which the differences between the man and the woman, which include the priority that orthodox anthropology recognizes in the man, are subject to egalitarian reduction.

    Because of the relation of God and man in Christ, any anthropological heresy also inescapably infects theology and becomes a theological heresy as well–although some egalitarians with more conservative instincts do not understand this or will not admit it. A Christ who is Human in the egalitarian sense cannot be Man in the orthodox sense, but is merely the apotheosis of the egalitarian ideal. He cannot be the head of the man as the man is the head of the woman as God is his own head; the ordinal relations of which the Apostle spoke, and in which the Church believes, are utterly broken on the egalitarian wheel. That is why egalitarianism is a heresy and no orthodox Christian can be an egalitarian.

    From Note on “Anthropological Modalism”

  177. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 4, 2008 at 6:01 pm #

    Continuing the theme from #130:

    “I’d be as dead set against hierarchy as any egalitarian, if I thought it meant the mere exercise of power. But power and hierarchy are very different things.

    Despite the protestations of Rousseau, hierarchy does not create power inequalities. Such inequalities exist in nature, arising from all the natural differences between people. Hierarchy rather responds to this preexisting state of affairs. It is an ordering of power within a system of responsibility. That is, it consists of obligations owed by the members of the hierarchy to one another.

    When we think of hierarchies, we often dwell on the obligations that the lower members owe to the higher ones. So we think of the taxes a medieval peasant owes to his lord, or the obedience an army private owes to his sergeant.

    But these are not the most important elements of a hierarchical relationship. Indeed, in the absence of hierarchy, the stronger member would be able to simply compel such things from the lower by dint of superior strength. The lord, due to his riches and military power, could do whatever he wished to the poor farmers who worked on his land, anything from treating them as slaves to annihilating them down to the last babe, if he did not recognize them as belonging to the same system of relation as himself.

    What hierarchy recognizes is that the stronger members also owe obligations to the weaker. So the lord owes his peasants defense from the predations of bandits and invaders. His own extractions from the peasants are also limited to the agreed upon taxation rates, rather than leaving him free to bleed them dry at his whim. Because he is related to his subjects in an ordered system, the lord is compelled to recognize that in order to be a good man, he must be a good lord to his peasants.

    In the same way, inequality of power between the sexes is a fact of nature. On the simple physical level, men possess greater strength than women. History is also filled with evidence that the masculine temperament, unrestrained, is easily capable of exploiting the feminine in the worst ways. There is no way to escape this fact, though we’ve certainly taken every technological step to try.

    Of course, this is commonly taken as evidence of the evils of sexual hierarchy, usually pejoratively called “patriarchy,” a term I happily embrace. But true patriarchy is actually the restraint of this power to dominate, the replacement of the simple capacity to exploit with an obligation to lead.

    This is precisely what Jesus and Sts. Paul and Peter are talking about in all their discourses on the proper relationship between men and women: he who would lead must become the servant.

    But this is impossible when the very idea of leadership is dismissed. I don’t think the enemies of patriarchy realize how dangerous their position is. For as the reflective Christian knows, when the idea of leadership goes, so too goes the idea of servanthood. The absence of hierarchy is not equality. The absence of hierarchy is tyranny.

    From Ethan C. at Sanctified Incoherence: The AEF Call Revisted

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes