Hell and the Religious Right

Lisa Miller at Newsweek magazine has this to say about the beliefs of Sarah Palin’s pastor:

“The senior pastor of that church, in sermons that circulated online before they were taken down last week, preaches hell for anyone who isn’t saved by Jesus. America does not know enough yet about what Palin personally believes, but her church background—she now worships at a nondenominational Bible church—puts her squarely in the tradition of the old-school religious right.”

What is fascinating here is that Miller treats this as a newsworthy item—that Christians believe that there is such thing as hell. It says a lot about where we are as a nation that such a thing would even be considered “news.” In any case, Albert Mohler has some commentary on Miller’s piece that is worth reading. He concludes:

“What this article in Newsweek represents is the absolute confidence that discovering people who believe that those who do not believe in Christ will go to hell is supposed to be shocking.

“So we find in Sarah Palin’s pastor an evangelical who believes in hell and preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means of escaping hell.  In other words, he is an evangelical preaching like an evangelical.  Alert the media.”

Here’s the rest:

“Alert the Media — A Pastor Believes in Hell” – by Albert Mohler (AlbertMohler.com)

149 Responses to Hell and the Religious Right

  1. Paul September 10, 2008 at 8:27 am #

    I don’t know if this is more funny or sad.

  2. Lance September 10, 2008 at 8:40 am #

    Interestingly enough, today’s “Quote of the Day” at Dallas Morning News Religion Blog is:

    “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”
    -Charles Darwin

  3. Daniel Davis September 10, 2008 at 9:16 am #

    is this meant to be the equivalent of “jeremiah wright” coverage for a republican candidate?

  4. Paul September 10, 2008 at 10:06 am #

    Daniel,

    you know how you can never underestimate the stupidity of the American public?

    This is another example of that.

    Remember, for all of the clamoring about the idea that 80% of Americans believe in “God,” only 30% of those people actually get to church for anything more than the holidays. And only 30% of THOSE people are really involved Christians. You know, the ones that actually read their Bibles instead of checking out beliefnet.com a couple of times per week because they’re “spiritual.”

    So, a remark like, “Oh my gosh! Her pastor believes in HELL for people other than Hitler and the writers of Happy Days!” actually WILL resonate with way more voters than you think.

    Personally, I think it’s always wise to remind people that get offended by things like this that EVERY major religion has a claim of exclusivity. If you don’t submit to Christ, you go to hell. If you don’t submit to God and live by his laws, you go to hell. If you don’t submit to Allah, you go to hell. If you don’t live a righteous life according to the tenants of Hinduism or Buddhism, you’re reincarnated as TUAD. The list goes on and on. And, whenever I’ve used that line of attack on an atheist complaining about the exclusivity factor, they tend to either say that everyone should be a Unitarian/Universalist (argument lost) or they concede the point.

    While I’m no fan of Palin or McCain, I certainly hope that they will address these attacks on her church(es). Stick to the issues, on both sides, folks. Seriously.

  5. Lucas Knisely September 10, 2008 at 10:15 am #

    Everyone is stretching so hard to sling mud at Palin that they end up slinging dust bunnies.

  6. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 10:51 am #

    This is even sadder because many people in our churches may not even be saved but think they are because they ‘go to church’.

  7. Paul September 10, 2008 at 11:09 am #

    Lydia,

    what else are they to think when they go to Episcopalian churches that don’t even mention the gospel in their sermons, or places like Willow Creek that water down the message so much that it loses all of its meaning?

    I’m not a big fan of the SBC’s mingling of one brand of politics with the church message, and I’m really, really not a fan of the way that believers that stray from the political aspect of that message are labeled bedwetters, “evangelicals” and much worse, but at least you get a clear picture of what The Bible has to say about everything from them.

  8. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 11:47 am #

    “I’m not a big fan of the SBC’s mingling of one brand of politics with the church message, and I’m really, really not a fan of the way that believers that stray from the political aspect of that message are labeled bedwetters, “evangelicals” and much worse, but at least you get a clear picture of what The Bible has to say about everything from them.”

    I am afraid I have to disagree with you here. Way too many churches are preaching cultural war sermons. People may think they are saved because they vote republican, hate abortion, love hierarchies or play their ‘role’ well. We all know those things do not save us but it is the focus with way too many churches today. (Just check out sermon audio to see what I mean)

    The unregenerate may look saved but many do not really know Christ and He does not know them. (Matt 7)

  9. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    Please forgive me for sounding judgmental, I certainly do not mean to. I weep over what some think is the Body of Christ today.

    We have lost our first Love.

  10. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    Lydia said…
    “We all know those things do not save us but it is the focus with way too many churches today. (Just check out sermon audio to see what I mean)”

    Could you provide some examples for us to check out? I agree with you that many churches have lost the gospel for politics and culture wars, but I’m curious to hear what you think that sounds like.

  11. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm #

    “Could you provide some examples for us to check out? I agree with you that many churches have lost the gospel for politics and culture wars, but I’m curious to hear what you think that sounds like.”

    It is on all sides, really. Watered down seeker topical sermons on happy marriage, debt, raising kids, having great sex, etc. These are the norm sermons in seeker venues.

    Then we have the reformed side where they focus on roles, hierarchies, etc. The beautiful doctrine of our Lord is turned into a club for power, lording it over others and position when servanthood is the real message of Christ.

    Both sides war against the culture. “WE” are not like them ‘out there’ and we feel so good about that when we are actually worse because we do not really love and we claim His Name. And people in our churches believe that seeking to make a more ‘moral Rome’ is what following Christ is all about in America.

    It is very hard to explain in a short comment. It is something I have been seeing for many many years…and the Lord has shown me that we have lost our first Love. Him. That would include me, of course.

  12. Brian (Another) September 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm #

    Paul: First country music, now happy Days? Sigh. I guess you and I don’t agree on everything…er anything….er…some things……..

    This is quite comical (the original story). Excellent point, Paul (in #4), about the 30% of 30%. But the whole comment made me chuckle (TUAD, please don’t rant or rail too hard on him for that, it was funny and not serious…I assume.).

    Lydia is right that too many preach liberation theology. Liberation from poverty, liberation from roles, liberation from bad sex, etc. I think if you just poke around the large churches in your area you’ll hear that. If you don’t then poke around Dallas’ (just to pick on my home state) and you’ll hear it.

  13. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm #

    The absence of God would be hellish.

    The Democrat Party oftentimes welcomes those who deny the presence or existence of God. Interestingly, these atheists sometimes note the incoherence of Democrat Party dogma. To wit:

    “The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes.

    It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

    But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.”

    Excerpted from here.

  14. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm #

    “Lydia is right that too many preach liberation theology. Liberation from poverty, liberation from roles, liberation from bad sex, etc. I think if you just poke around the large churches in your area you’ll hear that. If you don’t then poke around Dallas’ (just to pick on my home state) and you’ll hear it.”

    I do believe that Christians should be concerned for justice so please do not put words in my mouth. We should help those who are poor, sick, etc. even if they are not saved. But we know the Body of Christ did this first for other believers in Acts 4.

  15. Darius September 10, 2008 at 1:37 pm #

    The difference is, Lydia, that churches aren’t just teaching that we should fight for “social justice” (a misnomer if there ever was one), but that that is the true gospel. People like Shane Claiborne are out there telling people that Jesus came to save people from their PHYSICAL poverty, rather than their SPIRITUAL poverty. It’s not the gospel once delivered. I’m all for PROPERLY fighting TRUE poverty and societal ills, but as a outworking of our faith, not as the message of the cross. That’s what Donald Miller suggested in his DNC prayer a few weeks ago, that Jesus died to fight injustice. WRONG.

  16. Paul September 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    Darius,

    While we agree that Jesus most certainly came here to battle SPIRITUAL poverty and call out those whose spiritual lives were like whitewashed tombs, Jesus also fed the masses. Let us not forget that. And, as Lydia mentioned, when there was no question that the church was spirit filled in its earliest days, they fed the poor, healed the sick and did exactly those things which we would today put under the umbrella of that dreaded social justice.

    Now, I understand if you’re saying that we shouldn’t be expecting the government to foot the bill for that social justice. But to mock the idea of social justice, or the churches that are calling for it (and let’s face it, many churches, including the Bretheren and the Mennonites are out in the trenches DOING it, not just asking the government to do it for them) to me, seems absurd.

  17. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    Lydia said…
    “Then we have the reformed side where they focus on roles, hierarchies, etc. The beautiful doctrine of our Lord is turned into a club for power, lording it over others and position when servanthood is the real message of Christ.”

    As a reformed Baptist minister, I’m curious to know what you think this practically looks like. Your generalization certainly doesn’t characterize the reformed Christians I know. You said in your original comment “Just check out sermon audio to see what I mean.” So please, give me the sermon MP3s from reformed pastors that have you so troubled. If your critiques are correct, I want to hear them for myself.

  18. Darius September 10, 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    Paul, you don’t appear to have read my comment. I never mocked the idea of fighting against societal ills. What I detest and do disdain is the idea that “social justice” is the gospel. People need repentance and salvation for their souls first. Today’s church, especially the Emergent church, preaches that people need physical liberation and salvation, but not so much spiritual liberation. The Bible is quite clear that it is first and foremost the latter for which Jesus came. Out of that gospel springs physical healing and liberation.

  19. Brian (Another) September 10, 2008 at 2:09 pm #

    Lydia:

    Don’t know how I was putting words in your mouth (but I definitely was not intending that). I think you mean my statement of “liberation from poverty”. Perhaps it would have been more apt (at extending your statement) to say liberation from struggles? I merely was intending to say that preachers will make the connection that if you believe in Christ, you won’t have to struggle against just making ends meet (i.e. you will be liberated from poverty). Too often messages are used as springboards to concentrate on something other than the gospel (you name it, there’s someone out there saying it). That said, you are spot on that we are to care for others, in particular their spiritual needs (they need God first), but also their physical needs. We should reach out to everyone, unsaved and saved alike. I ran across this link recently. I thought it was a good list (and people do love lists).

  20. Paul September 10, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    Darius,

    Okay. But why keep putting social justice in quotes, as if it’s some sort of misnomer?

    I see what you’re saying. And, insofar as people needing to hear the gospel first goes, I would agree with you 90% of the time. Especially in America, where yes, our poor are richer than many in the middle class of India or China.

    But, even Jesus understood the Hierarchy of Needs well enough to know that sometimes, you need to do the healing first. Sometimes, you need to do the feeding first. Sometimes, you need to show someone what Christ’s love looks like before they have any idea what they’re accepting when they accept Christ’s gift of forgiveness.

    I think the problem is that, yes, Darius, there are plenty of churches that have made the social gospel their only gospel. And that’s a problem. A church that doesn’t preach Christ resurrected is a church that’s about as useful as, err, makeup on a pig.

    But, there are plenty of churches that preach Christ resurrected, and feel that the best way for the church to live out Christ’s message is to go out into the world and not just share the words of the gospel, but also the loaves and fishes.

    Is that such a bad thing?

  21. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 2:56 pm #

    “As a reformed Baptist minister, I’m curious to know what you think this practically looks like. Your generalization certainly doesn’t characterize the reformed Christians I know. You said in your original comment “Just check out sermon audio to see what I mean.” So please, give me the sermon MP3s from reformed pastors that have you so troubled. If your critiques are correct, I want to hear them for myself.”

    Well, that is a bit tricky on this blog considering where Mr. Burke works. I was using sermon audio as an example to go and see what types of sermons are out there and what they are focused upon. (There are excellent sermons there, too) My contention is that many people in the pews do not really know Christ. And a focus on what salvation really entails is sorely needed.

    While reformed (I am probably more in that camp because I believe in election but do not worship Calvin as many seem to do) I do see a mantra of ‘correct doctrine’ coming from the reformed camp which is taken out of context from it’s REAL meaning. Correct doctrine is sold out to Christ which requires true repentance, LOVE for God and one another, first and foremost. Not rules and ‘roles’ and war-ing against the culture as CBMW does. (If we lived in Pakistan we would have no time for this sort of thing :o)

    It has become almost impossible to have civil conversations about interpretation differences without an accusation of ‘not believing the scripture’ or ‘not liking what it says’. This is simply ridiculous. There are translation issues that are real and are also on secondary doctrines, so to suggest that some are not real Christians because they believe in servanthood, women proclaiming Christ to anyone regardless of gender and mutual submission of all believers is extremely grievous coming from one who professes to love the Lord as I do.

    My big pet peeve with the reformed movement (small r) is that, based upon my experience, they seem to talk more of Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Augustine, etc than they do of Christ. I fear a trend and tradition of following men instead of Christ.

    To give you an idea of sermons I like, I am partial to Paul Washer. :o) And yes, I disagree with him about women but find he really does focus on the basic gospel truth of REAL salvation more than anything and for this I am grateful. I am concerned for him as he gets more and more famous. It can be a snare not only in position but in affiliations.

  22. Darius September 10, 2008 at 2:56 pm #

    Paul, we’re talking two different things here. I’m all for every church that seeks to care for the believers and unbelievers by meeting their physical needs. This is what we are called to do as Christians. What I am discussing, however, are not those churches. What I’m discussing are the Shane Claibornes of the world who make the physical needs the actual gospel. Yes, sometimes meeting the person’s physical need is what needs to happen prior to addressing their spiritual need. We see this borne out in Scripture all the time. Jesus sometimes healed people prior to them coming to a full saving faith. But He NEVER stopped at just healing people physically. That was a way to show His love and to free them from Satan’s physical burdens. But it was our spiritual health that he was/is primarily concerned with. “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”… “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?”

    The liberation from your ills theology or the related liberation of others’ ills theology is very dangerous, and is sucking many in the Western church toward the flames.

    The reason I put social justice in quotations is that usually, justice has nothing to do with the term as it is understood by the vast majority of those who use it so frequently. How is it “just” to forcibly redistribute wealth? Plus, the term implies that unless everyone has the exact same circumstances in life, justice is not being done. There is such a thing as divine will, poor choices, and just plain bad “luck.”

  23. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm #

    “Too often messages are used as springboards to concentrate on something other than the gospel (you name it, there’s someone out there saying it).”

    Brian, I agree here. And sorry for misunderstanding you. I think, perhaps, that we (The Body of Christ) are guilty of not dealing with injustice enough within the body. There is a balance to this.

    OTOH: Obama heard a form of Marxist Liberation theology for 20 years under the teaching of Rev Wright. That is a slavery of sorts to hate and bitterness.

  24. Ferg September 10, 2008 at 3:39 pm #

    There is such a thing as divine will, poor choices, and just plain bad “luck.”

    It still boggles my mind that one could think that people stuck in the gutter are there because God wants them there.

    This isn’t a discussion about that though.
    One thing I think a lot of Christians forget is that our faith is NOT about escaping from hell, it is about being welcomed into the family of God. God the Father loves us as much as he loves his son and wants us to come to him. It’s not a case of Jesus saying to his dad “I know you’d love to send them to hell but it’s alright they’re with me”, it’s so much bigger and incredible than that. God chases after us and if he uses us to sow a seed by feeding a homeless guy because he’s hungry without telling him he’s a sinner, I’ll do it.

  25. Darius September 10, 2008 at 3:45 pm #

    Ferg, so you believe that everyone should be rich because that’s what God wants??

  26. Paul September 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    Ferg got to it before I did.

    I don’t think that either of us thinks that anyone should be rich just because, or that God even wants us all to be rich.

    There’s a vast difference between “everyone should be able to eat” or “everyone should have a shirt on their backs” and “everyone should be able to eat steak” or “everyone should be able to wear Brooks Bros. apparel all of the time.”

  27. Ferg September 10, 2008 at 3:58 pm #

    I never said that. I believe that Satan is active and can lead people into addiction and downward spirals etc. I also believe in plain bad choices and so on. However, I do not believe that God in his divine plan likes to make people drug addicts or prostitutes or likes people to starve to death and so on.

    This does not in turn mean that I believe everyone should be rich. But I do think if God’s will was being done on earth, all things would be relatively equal, not that we would all be rich. It’s not about money it’s about a way of life and each looking after the other in mutual submission and love, much like the early church.

  28. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm #

    Lydia said…
    “Well, that is a bit tricky on this blog considering where Mr. Burke works.”

    I didn’t know Boyce prohibited its dean from allowing links to reformed sermons on his blog.

    Your critiques of the reformed movement just seem silly to me, since I have a lot of reformed friends and just don’t see the stuff you’re talking about. If you’re going to make those charges, you’re going to have to offer specific evidence if you want me to take them seriously. Generalizations (reformed people worship Calvin and love doctrine more than God) help absolutely no one and only serve to enforce stereotypes.

    I don’t think its helpful or right to make critiques, say “You can just check the sermon audio to see what I mean,” and then not provide any specific examples of the problematic sermon audio.

  29. Jason September 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm #

    Paul said: “even Jesus understood the Hierarchy of Needs well enough to know that sometimes, you need to do the healing first. Sometimes, you need to do the feeding first.”

    First, if that is not an example of reading your culture and beliefs back into the text, I don’t know what is.

    Second, do you really think that was the point of the miracles?

  30. Paul September 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm #

    Jason,

    should I only speak in Aramaic when talking about Jesus then?

    Seriously, what a non-issue! Even Darius didn’t try to argue that point with me, and we’d probably get into a battle to the death over what kind of pizza to order if we were in the same room (sausage and mushroom, by the way).

  31. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm #

    “I didn’t know Boyce prohibited its dean from allowing links to reformed sermons on his blog.”

    I do think SBTS would prohibit public disagreement on specific doctrines by their employees. Perhaps not publicly but life could get very uncomfortable for those that do.

    “Your critiques of the reformed movement just seem silly to me, since I have a lot of reformed friends and just don’t see the stuff you’re talking about.”

    That is fine. No problem. I have friends that are reformed who agree with me and are concerned with the vitriol and lack of humility coming from that movement. :o)

    ” If you’re going to make those charges, you’re going to have to offer specific evidence if you want me to take them seriously. Generalizations (reformed people worship Calvin and love doctrine more than God) help absolutely no one and only serve to enforce stereotypes.”

    Well, I have not scored each time they say or write ‘Calvin’ but I know from being around the movement, old dead guys are very important. :o) I enjoy reading Spurgeon, too, but I am concerned when their teaching is the focus.

    It is ok if we disagree and I probably deserve your rebuke for even bringing it up. This is something that is my personal experience based upon reading and listening. Perhaps others would see it differently.

  32. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 6:15 pm #

    “even Jesus understood the Hierarchy of Needs well enough to know that sometimes, you need to do the healing first. Sometimes, you need to do the feeding first.”

    First, if that is not an example of reading your culture and beliefs back into the text, I don’t know what is.

    Second, do you really think that was the point of the miracles?”

    No the purpose of miracles was to show WHO HE WAS.

    However, I do not think wrong thinking on this point is “reading your culture and beliefs back into the text,…”

    I think it is this type of response that keeps us from really listening and driving each other to scripture and prayer to understand. How many times have I heard a preacher say that ‘Jesus spoke in parables because people learn more from a story and it helps them understand’. NO! It is just the opposite! But trying to convince folks of that is impossible unless we show them Jesus teaching this very thing in scripture. Even then, they don’t want to believe it.

    This is not about our culture. This is human nature and has been this way even in Victorian times when everyone knew their ‘role’. )Except those in the poorhouse. :o)

    This is what I mean by war-ing with the culture. We do not need to blame it on ‘culture’…people have always made Jesus into Who they want Him to be. Even Calvin did that when he burned Servetus and baptized babies. He thought he was following Christ.

  33. Jason September 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm #

    Paul said:

    “Should I only speak in Aramaic when talking about Jesus then?

    Seriously, what a non-issue! Even Darius didn’t try to argue that point with me, and we’d probably get into a battle to the death over what kind of pizza to order if we were in the same room (sausage and mushroom, by the way).”

    Actually, I think it is a very important issue.

    Theologically, it is a crucial question to ask WHY Jesus did miracles. If you think it is to “meet people’s needs” as if he had Maslow in mind you’re kidding yourself. He definitely didn’t butter people up by healing them in order to give them the Gospel. To then translate that to us as our driving passion for social ministry is missing the point.

    I agree we need to do social ministry, but not as if it IS sharing the Gospel. We do it because we believe the Gospel and we have been changed by Christ. The Gospel is NOT social ministry. That is horribly inconsistent with the text. However we feed the hungry and poor in light of what Christ has done for us.

    BTW, Paul, I’m not so sure we’d argue if we were in the same room….I love sausage and mushroom pizza! 🙂

  34. Paul September 10, 2008 at 7:07 pm #

    Jason,

    The why, as Lydia said, was to show who He was.

    However, sometimes, for people to see what is standing in front of them, first they need to have other needs met.

    Surely, how many people came to believe when he fed the five thousand?

    How much more did the lame or the blind understand what Jesus truly offered when they were no longer blind?

    I don’t for a second think that this was an issue of “buttering people up.”

    However, as we go out into the world, if we see someone hungry, and we try to feed them a chick tract, have we really shown them the love of Christ? No, we haven’t. However, if we give them nourishment of the body, how much easier is it then for them to understand nourishment of the soul?

    If that’s a sin in some way, then fine, I’ll ask for forgiveness. But I WILL feed the hungry guy and THEN share the gospel with him. Sorry.

  35. Jason September 10, 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not in any way suggesting we should ignore people’s physical needs. In fact, that is the responsibility of the church (and not the government, which is why I am against state sponsored welfare). I wish the church would do its job. I wish people would stop giving tracts as if that is all people need.

    However, I am seeking to be theologically accurate here with what the Gospel is.

    Feeding people is not the Gospel. It is the outgrowth of the work of Christ in our lives. The Gospel is Jesus. The Gospel is His work on the cross. It is not some sort of subjective thing. It is objective truth that must be shared and believed.

    Our feeding of people (clothing them or whatever) is as people who have been changed by the truth of the Gospel.

    That is why I want to be sure that we do not misunderstand Jesus’ works as somehow an attempt to meet physical needs before spiritual needs. I think that is missing the point…by a wide margin.

    I am worried that we live in an age (within the church) that people are trying to remove the truth claims of Christianity, especially with regard to the gospel. That is why guys like Claiborne are so dangerous. I am grateful that he has a heart for the poor and homeless. But to confuse the Gospel with the effects of the Gospel is quite dangerous.

  36. Darius September 10, 2008 at 8:55 pm #

    Jason and Paul,

    I do believe you two are agreeing, but because you’re so used to being in disagreement, you don’t quite see it.

    “I am worried that we live in an age (within the church) that people are trying to remove the truth claims of Christianity, especially with regard to the gospel. That is why guys like Claiborne are so dangerous. I am grateful that he has a heart for the poor and homeless. But to confuse the Gospel with the effects of the Gospel is quite dangerous.”

    Great comment. The dangerous part about Claiborne is he actually lives a servant mentality. So showing his theology to be a fraud is that much more difficult. I actually recommend his Jesus for President book if one can take just the good parts and leave the rest. Christians who are founded strongly on their faith should read it, non-Christians or spiritually-young Christians should not read it.

  37. Jason September 10, 2008 at 9:41 pm #

    I think we agree that one must live out a life transformed.

    I don’t know if we agree on whether or not the Gospel includes helping the poor/needy. I think there is a necessary distinction between the truths of the Gospel that must be proclaimed and a life that has been changed by the Gospel living in a way that actually does care for the poor/needy. I don’t think that is splitting hairs, I think that is an important distinction.

    I am pretty sure we disagree that Christ was even considering at all people’s felt needs or Maslow’s Heirarchy when he did miracles. That’s not what the miracles were about.

    I KNOW we agree that sausage and mushroom pizza is awesome…and I would hope that even brothers who disagree on politics and theology could share pizza and discuss their disagreements in a thoughtful and helpful manner.

  38. Darius September 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm #

    Sausage and mushrooms are the ONLY way a pizza should be made… well, besides a proper Hawaiian pizza.

  39. Jason September 11, 2008 at 1:47 am #

    Hawaiian? Heretic.

    🙂

  40. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 7:52 am #

    Mushrooms are gross. They’re fungi, for crying out loud. Eat onions instead like a good follower of Christ.

  41. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 7:58 am #

    Lydia,

    Thanks for your charitability in discussion. Are there instances of poor behavior by reformed folks? Of course there is. We’re human, and we’re all hypocrites of one degree or another as we’re constantly being conformed to the image of Christ. My concern though, as a reformed person, is what exactly concerns you. I can’t evaluate my walk with Christ based on broadstroked criticism.

    Don’t you think it should be a little troubling that you say “This is something that is my personal experience based upon reading and listening,” but you can’t produce one specific example of what you’ve read or listened to that troubles you? What if, hypothetically, I were to say “I feel, based on what I’ve seen, that egalitarians are dishonest people.” Then, when pressed, I can’t provide a single example of an egalitarian being dishonest. Given this example, do you see why I find this line of reasoning so troubling?

  42. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 10:41 am #

    “Then, when pressed, I can’t provide a single example of an egalitarian being dishonest. Given this example, do you see why I find this line of reasoning so troubling?”

    Did I describe them as being ‘dishonest’? I don’t think so. I think my concern was for some who seem to lack love and compassion in their teaching on a consistent basis. Driscoll would be an example of this. Moore and Ware come off that way to me, too.

    Love and compassion are not wimpy characteristics.

  43. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    There are other concerns:

    I was also very concerned about Piper and Mahaney and their teaching that what Jesus said on the cross was the ‘Scream of the damned’.

    Was Jesus damned on the Cross? Did they change the meaning of damned to cursed? Do most people understand that?

    Is this shock jock preaching?

  44. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 10:49 am #

    Lydia said…
    “Did I describe them as being ‘dishonest’? I don’t think so.”

    Of course you didn’t. I was making an analogy, and I made that abundantly clear. You are, however, making accusations against people’s character and offering no specific instances whatsoever. That is a problem.

    Since you’re naming names now, show me one specific instance where Driscoll, Moore, or Ware “lack love and compassion.” Then we can actually have a fruitful discussion of your concerns.

  45. Jason September 11, 2008 at 11:14 am #

    One could make the argument that when someone generalizes an entire group as lacking love and compassion (especially with no real or objective examples) that the charge itself is a lack of love and compassion.

    I know that is not your intent, Lydia. But I want you to be careful because that type of charge is usual fraught with hypocrisy, unintentionally. Please don’t take this as an accusation, but more of a warning.

    I am curious, though, what you mean by “lacking love and compassion”.

  46. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 11:42 am #

    Lydia,

    What is your problem with that statement? We all are deserving of damnation (being accursed/cut off by God) for our sin. Christ took that penalty on himself and was thus damned in our place.

  47. Jason September 11, 2008 at 11:50 am #

    I believe she understands “love and compassion” in a subjective way, since she says Moore and Ware “come off” that way.

    Of course, if you had ever met Dr. Ware you would know that you had never met someone who MORE exemplifies “love and compassion” than him. He is one of the kindest and godliest men I have ever been around.

    That’s the problem with vague accusations.

    I usually try and ignore those kind of comments, but since I know and have good relationships with the people mentioned it makes the comments even more absurd and worthy of refutation or at least a call to clarify specifics.

  48. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    “Lydia said…
    “Did I describe them as being ‘dishonest’? I don’t think so.”

    Of course you didn’t. I was making an analogy, and I made that abundantly clear.”

    Even about using the word ‘dishonest’ when I never used that? I certainly hope you were not ‘planting seeds’ of poison. You could have used the same wording for your analogy.

    ” You are, however, making accusations against people’s character and offering no specific instances whatsoever. That is a problem.”

    Not at all. I am referring to my view of their teaching and their behavior. It is an opinion. I was, however, a bit concerned about Driscoll’s character when he made the remark about pastors wives after the Haggard scandal. Thankfully, after the outcry became big, he apologized. I also do not think curse words are appropiate nor do I think discussing sex in detail at church in mixed company is appropriate and I do believe that speaks to character and discernment.

    I still believe him to lack love and compassion based on listening to him for a long time.

    “Since you’re naming names now, show me one specific instance where Driscoll, Moore, or Ware “lack love and compassion.” Then we can actually have a fruitful discussion of your concerns.””

    I believe it is all over their teachings. I could give a ton of examples but do not want to spend the afternoon linking examples. I will give one. Ware teaches that not only are women not made in the ‘direct’ image of God but that an unsubmissive wife triggers abuse from her husband. yes, he said abuse is wrong but he has no compassion or he would NOT DARE have said this. He could very well have blood on his hands for this teaching and not even know it until J-day.

    Moore is very vitriolic in his beliefs about women even claiming that comps are wimps and we should have more patriarchy. He was outraged that a wife told her husband to attend promise keepers for a break from the family. He said she had no business suggesting the husband do anything. (This was in an article on the henryinstitue that is no longer there)

    Look guys, I do not expect you to understand or agree. I don’t even care if you believe me or not. You are Christian ‘masculinists’ who follow the teachings of other Christian ‘masculinists’ who believe that men are always on top.

    (Shepherd steve is going to call for my ouster even though he seems to igore the word ‘feminist’ thrown around a lot by comps)

    So, go ahead and refute. This is why it is meaningless to give examples. We all know of a 1700 comment thread of people explaining that Ware did not really say what he said. Or, that he did not really mean it. I expect to get the exact same responses here. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You guys have a lot to get out of men on top. It is to your advantage. You believe that mutual submission as scripture teaches would make you less of a man. It would NOT. It would edify Christ as all believers are to submit to one another. Jesus was love and compassion to the least of society and very hard on the ‘Religious leaders’ of His day who loved to lord it over others and have all kinds of rules that were not in scripture but added to it in interpretation and application.

    You will not be less because show love and compassion. You will not be wimps. You will be like Christ.

    Blessings.

  49. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 12:50 pm #

    Lydia said…
    “You guys have a lot to get out of men on top. It is to your advantage. You believe that mutual submission as scripture teaches would make you less of a man.”

    Wow, I really need to talk to myself more. I’m painfully out of touch with me. 🙂

  50. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm #

    “What is your problem with that statement? We all are deserving of damnation (being accursed/cut off by God) for our sin. Christ took that penalty on himself and was thus damned in our place.”

    Try and take Piper and Mahaney out of it. Just pretend they are two unknowns that you do not admire.

    They called it: “The scream of the damned”. Referring to Christ. Was Christ damned? Are we now interchanging damned and cursed?

    Yes, we are all deserving of damnation. But Christ was NOT damned. He was cursed for a time.

    Is it really only a difference of semantics? No.

    Damned denotes forever, it has an ‘eternal’ componet to its definition.

    damned –adjective 1. condemned or doomed, esp. to eternal punishment: the wailing of damned souls.

    –noun 5. the damned, those condemned to suffer eternal punishment.
    –adverb

    Was Christ ‘damned’? No, that is blasphemy. Now, if they are changing the definitions of words for all of Christendom, I have a problem with that, too.

    I think they were trying to be ‘shocking’ and we see what happens when we preach ‘for’ the audience instead of for God.

  51. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm #

    Lydia said…
    Even about using the word ‘dishonest’ when I never used that? I certainly hope you were not ‘planting seeds’ of poison. You could have used the same wording for your analogy.”

    The word “hypothetically” wasn’t a sufficient clue? Or the word “example” when I was finished? Honestly, Lydia, this is why I don’t take your evaluations of other people’s words seriously – because I’ve seen the way that you mangle my words firsthand.

  52. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm #

    You most certainly have the right not to take me seriously.

    For the record, this is what you wrote:

    “Don’t you think it should be a little troubling that you say “This is something that is my personal experience based upon reading and listening,” but you can’t produce one specific example of what you’ve read or listened to that troubles you? What if, hypothetically, I were to say “I feel, based on what I’ve seen, that egalitarians are dishonest people.” Then, when pressed, I can’t provide a single example of an egalitarian being dishonest. Given this example, do you see why I find this line of reasoning so troubling?”

    Now, which part of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE do you NOT understand?

    How can MY personal experience be analogized by you as ‘dishonest’ when it is personal? Even hypothetically does not erase the implications here. That is playing dirty and you know it.

    lacking Love and compassion = dishonest?

    Have they stopped teaching logic 101? When I say ‘personal experience’ that is what it is. You don’t have to agree. You can slice it up and dice it anyway you want. It will STILL BE MY PERSONAL experience.

    Whew.

  53. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    My personal experience is that Lydia is an revisionist egalitarian agitator, much like Don and Sue and others.

  54. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm #

    Lydia,

    Yes, to say someone is “lacking love and compassion” and to say someone is dishonest are analgous – they are both indictments on someone’s moral character.

    You said “personal experience based on reading and listening.” My simple question was reading and listening to what?

    If this is fruitful dialogue, then color me mute.

  55. Darius September 11, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    Lydia, you don’t appear to be truly reading what DJ is writing. He gave a pretty clear analogy which apparently was lost on you. Now you’re debating in circles. Let me reiterate what DJ and Jason have been asking for: your personal experience has shown you that the above-mentioned people (Driscoll, Ware, et al) are “lacking love and compassion.” That’s fine to feel that way, but to make such a claim to others, you should be willing and able to give some examples of said lack of compassion. If I said (this is a HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE) that “I felt Lydia was lacking in reading comprehension abilities or intellectually dishonest,” you and others should rightly ask me where in my personal experience I have felt that and why. To which, I would HYPOTHETICALLY give examples from your comments which I believed showed these habits. That’s all DJ and Jason are looking for, some examples to indicate that Driscoll is as unloving as you claim.

  56. Paul September 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    The real question, though, is this:

    What does Lydia like on her pizza?

  57. Darius September 11, 2008 at 2:07 pm #

    She probably won’t say, since that’s part of her own personal experience. 🙂

  58. Jason September 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm #

    Lydia said: “Look guys, I do not expect you to understand or agree. I don’t even care if you believe me or not. You are Christian ‘masculinists’ who follow the teachings of other Christian ‘masculinists’ who believe that men are always on top”

    I ask, “how are the comments of those men any less compassionate than this comment?”

    Name-calling. Misrepresentation.

    Lydia, just because you do not understand what those men are saying…or because you reject what the say…or even because you have had personal experiences that you feel warrant your rejection of what many of us believe is clearly taught…does not give you the right to misrepresent people’s views or to namecall or to question their moral integrity or to somehow imply that you are more Christlike. I would say rejection of Christ’s created order in the home and church because you have a better idea or EVEN because you’ve been hurt is the exact opposite of Christlikeness.

    I know that many women have been abused by men, that does not mean that patriarchy is a sin. Just because people abuse their positions, does not make the position itself wrong. It just proves that we are sinners and that we are looking to Christ’s return when He will make all things right.

  59. Brian (Another) September 11, 2008 at 3:55 pm #

    Jason:

    Dr. Ware is a very gentle soul indeed. Except scripture. He’s quite passionate about that. It was a great blessing getting to meet and talk (briefly) with him.

    Overall, by and large, any time anyone accuses us of being wrong on something about which we are passionate, we quite often fall back on the that-person-lacks-love-and-compassion speech. I know it from personal experience (ha ha?).

    Lydia should readily volunteer her favorite pizza as it is a personal thing (ha ha…….ha…..)

  60. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm #

    Thanks Jason for saying what needed to be said in your comment on #58.

    Peace and Blessings.

  61. Paul September 11, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    more unnecessary cheerleading.

  62. Brian (Another) September 11, 2008 at 4:07 pm #

    Paul:

    I feel kind of like Fonzie but with different words.

    Paul, your rrriii…….Paul you were c-c-c-c-corrrr……….I aggggrrrr………

    Paul, you’re right. Phew, there I said it. Though, in a pitiful defense, we are to speak up and encourage one another, too!

  63. Paul September 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    Brian,

    agreed.

    However, encouragement on every post that someone makes that bumps/sets/spikes someone that TUAD doesn’t like?

    Add to that the fact that I think I’ve seen TUAD provide actual insight of HIS OWN WORDING maybe twice in the entire time I’ve seen him here?

    I’m beginning to think that he should change his name to…

    Trolling
    Unites
    Rambling
    Dittoheads

    mean? Maybe. But really, no meaner than this recent post…

    “My personal experience is that Lydia is an revisionist egalitarian agitator, much like Don and Sue and others.”

  64. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 4:30 pm #

    “I would say rejection of Christ’s created order in the home and church because you have a better idea or EVEN because you’ve been hurt is the exact opposite of Christlikeness.”

    What ‘created order’? Is there some significance about animals I should know about then? :o)

    “I know that many women have been abused by men, that does not mean that patriarchy is a sin. Just because people abuse their positions, does not make the position itself wrong. It just proves that we are sinners and that we are looking to Christ’s return when He will make all things right.”

    Patriarchy is a result of Gen 3:16. It is a consequence of sin.

  65. Paul September 11, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    I have an idea!

    Let’s have ONE topic not drift into the egal/comp debate!

    And Lydia, we still don’t know what kind of pizza you like…

  66. Jason September 11, 2008 at 4:34 pm #

    I disagree.

    Patriarchy is in creation.

    Abuse of those roles is found in the Fall (Gen 3:16).
    Imagine that, sin distorting God’s created design.

  67. Jason September 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    Paul,

    I’m liking you more and more.

    I also dig Chicago style pizza and am quite jealous of your access to it.

  68. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    “Overall, by and large, any time anyone accuses us of being wrong on something about which we are passionate, we quite often fall back on the that-person-lacks-love-and-compassion speech. I know it from personal experience (ha ha?).”

    Maybe you should listen next time. The Lord had to teach it to me the hard way because I had no compassion for those who have been hurt by errant teaching. It was very painful. And I know I do not live up to it as I should. Yet, I am grateful because He disciplines those who are His.

    And the only way I do pizza is in an outdoor brick oven. Homemade. With the works. yum.

  69. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    “Patriarchy is in creation.”

    Where? Genesis 1?

  70. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm #

    Context.

    #52, Lydia: “When I say ‘personal experience’ that is what it is. You don’t have to agree. You can slice it up and dice it anyway you want. It will STILL BE MY PERSONAL experience.”

    #53, Me: ““My personal experience is that Lydia is an revisionist egalitarian agitator, much like Don and Sue and others.”

    I hope it’s not too much to hope for that providing you this additional context will help you understand things a little bit more.

    I shouldn’t get my hopes up too high since it’s not surprising that you can’t distinguish between cheerleading and affirmation.

  71. Paul September 11, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    TUAD in #70,

    context doesn’t take away from name calling.

    Lydia, Don and Sue have just as much right to express their views of the translations from the original greek as you do.

    And especially given the blogmaster’s realm of expertise, one should expect that.

    Any time when the yes men get to control the conversation is a time when there is no longer conversation.

    If you want to get snarky about it, then I’ll just ask this: does your church require women to cover their heads?

    If not, then your church is creeping towards egalitarianism, and you’re just as “cancerous” as you claim every other egalitarian to be.

    And your affirmations look an awful lot like cheerleading to me, boss.

  72. Paul September 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm #

    Jason in #67,

    Did you know that most of the great Chicago deep dish pizzarias will mail frozen pizzas anywhere in the country?

    At which point, I would recommend the following (in this order)…

    Eduardo’s Natural Pizza
    Lou Malnati’s
    Gino’s East
    Due’s

    This was actually a consideration when my wife and I were looking at moving to Austin…ha ha ha…

  73. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm #

    They say Sarah Palin is in Obama’s head. And the wheels are coming off because of it.

    Connect the dots.

  74. Jason September 11, 2008 at 4:59 pm #

    Lydia said: ““Patriarchy is in creation.”

    Where? Genesis 1?”

    Yes. That is where the creation account is told.

    It is clear through the fact that woman is formed after man. Paul makes this point quite nicely in 1 Tim.

    But I know you reject that…but it is the clear teaching of 1 Tim. But since when does that matter?

  75. Jason September 11, 2008 at 5:03 pm #

    Paul said: “Did you know that most of the great Chicago deep dish pizzarias will mail frozen pizzas anywhere in the country?

    At which point, I would recommend the following (in this order)…

    Eduardo’s Natural Pizza
    Lou Malnati’s
    Gino’s East
    Due’s

    This was actually a consideration when my wife and I were looking at moving to Austin…ha ha ha…”

    Understandable.

    I was on a recruiting trip for Southern Seminary at all the Chicago Christian colleges back when the White Sox won the World Series.

    We tried to get tix to the game (way too much $) and we ended up going to Due’s and eating pizza and watching the game. It was a lot of fun.

  76. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 6:11 pm #

    “Yes. That is where the creation account is told.

    It is clear trough the fact that woman is formed after man. Paul makes this point quite nicely in 1 Tim.”

    Oh, I agree the woman was formed after man. I also remember to never forget Genesis 1, too. Yet, How does that make for Patriarchy? Some animals were made before Adam. Is there some significance there I should know about? Where did God make it clear in the creation account before the fall that Adam was in charge of Eve?

    “But I know you reject that…but it is the clear teaching of 1 Tim. But since when does that matter?”

    Well Patriarchy is definitely not clear in 1 Timothy as it is not clear in Gen before the Fall. Seems that God would have made something that important quite clear to Eve and us, too, in Genesis 1 or 2.

    So, by your interpretation of the 1 Timothy passage, I take it you think I am saved through childbearing? A ‘work’ of salvation for women only?

  77. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 9:35 pm #

    ‘It is clear through the fact that woman is formed after man. Paul makes this point quite nicely in 1 Tim.’

    Why is it that the first brick in comp doctrine is ONLY clear ‘through’ a thing that IS Truley/Actualy clear since it is explicitly stated? It is because of blue colored glasses?

    How do you pull out hierarchy from chronological ordering? How can chronolgy imply hierarchy? It is not logical. So you say, ‘Paul makes this point quite nicely in 1 Tim.’ Question is then, HOW does Paul do that? How does Paul get one kind of ordering out of another kind when it’s not possible, logicaly speaking? SO HOW does Paul make ‘Adam was created first then Eve’ quite nicely to MEAN ‘patriarchy in creation’?? How come he did not provide the blue lens to see through? The only way possible is through circular reasoning.

    Paul connects ‘Adam was created first’ to ‘was NOT deceived’. But does he connect Adam being created first (chronological ordering) to hierarchal ordering (Adam had headship over Eve of Eve)? Paul NEVER connects Adam’s priority of creation TO male/man/Adam having authority or rule over female/woman/Eve. So the question remains, how does one see clearly through ‘Adam was created first, then Eve’ and find ‘Adam had authority over Eve’ without a blue tint?

  78. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 9:38 pm #

    ‘Where did God make it clear in the creation account before the fall that Adam was in charge of Eve?’

    Where did God make this clear in 1 Tim 2 through Paul?

  79. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 9:47 pm #

    ‘Seems that God would have made something that important quite clear to Eve and us, too, in Genesis 1 or 2.’

    It also seems that God would NOT have waited THOUSANDS of years untel Paul to HIDE IT somewhere within Paul’s words ‘Adam was cread first then Eve’.

  80. Brian (Another) September 12, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    So just to clear up my confusion…

    Pizza is good.
    Brick oven pizza is yummy.
    We can all move to Austin since we can get deep dish delivered.
    We (my finger pointed squarely back at me!) can somehow connect a discussion of metabolic disorders found in lab mice to a complementaritan/egaligartian discussion.
    Those who don’t believe in Christ (Non-Christians) are damned to the lake of fire (or, more abrasively, going to hell).

    Does anyone have the same astonishment that the VP candidate’s church believes in eternal damnation as does Lisa Miller (Newsweek)?

    I said it before, but I thought it was an excellent observation. Paul (#4, prior to the patriarchy discussion), you were right (hey, the second time was much easier for me to say 😉 ): ”Remember, for all of the clamoring about the idea that 80% of Americans believe in ‘God,’ only 30% of those people actually get to church for anything more than the holidays. And only 30% of THOSE people are really involved Christians. You know, the ones that actually read their Bibles instead of checking out beliefnet.com a couple of times per week because they’re ‘spiritual.’”

  81. D.J. Williams September 12, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    Wait, we were talking about hell? 🙂

  82. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    Hell and the Religious Right

    Alright, let’s try to connect this with the thread hi-jack on roles of men and women. Ummmmm…. how about this?

    Religious Right = Complementarian.

    And Complementarians have to endure near-interminable suffering from revisionist Egalitarians shouting, banshee-screaming, and yelling about how terribly wrong the Complementarians are in understanding and obeying the Bible, and how terribly wrong the Church has been for many centuries by upholding the Scripture’s teaching on men and women in the home and the church.

  83. Paul September 12, 2008 at 3:22 pm #

    “And Complementarians have to endure near-interminable suffering from revisionist Egalitarians shouting, banshee-screaming, and yelling…”

    ummm, errrr, and people complain about MY attacks?

    I think we should start playing six degrees of comp/egal debate around these parts.

    “I can link a subject to the comp/egal debate in 4 steps!”

    “Yeah? Well I can do it in two!”

  84. Darius September 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    I believe every comment ties into the Egal/Comp debate – TUAD 🙂

    Just kidding, TUAD.

  85. Brian (Another) September 12, 2008 at 4:08 pm #

    All:

    Please refrain from making the first comment on Denny’s next post (Subject: The modern uses of squirrel fur at Louisiana Tech games), begin with “Egalitarians (or Complementarians) are wrong because…..”

    Along the lines of the media criticizing a religious belief, did anyone see the VMA host’s comment about The Jonas Brothers? If we can’t bring it to complementarianism, maybe we can bring it to abstinence-only vs. sex education debate (waddya say, Paul?!)? Kidding. I really don’t want to bring it there (and Paul is not against abstinence only, either), it’s just another example of the problematic and darkened culture in which we live.

    Have a superb weekend, y’all! For anyone in the Houston area, take higher ground. And for land sakes, protect Shiner!

  86. Lydia September 12, 2008 at 4:20 pm #

    TUAD, You were born in the wrong time. You would have been great during the Crusades. :o)

  87. Brittany September 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm #

    I agree that it is absurd to claim that a belief in hell makes you a conservative fundamentalist by default. It certainly hasn’t made me a conservative fundamentalist.

  88. Lydia September 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm #

    “Please refrain from making the first comment on Denny’s next post (Subject: The modern uses of squirrel fur at Louisiana Tech games), begin with “Egalitarians (or Complementarians) are wrong because…..””

    LOL! I think his next post should be on Todd Palin and his ‘role’. :o) He could start with how to skin a caribou in 20 minutes.

    Thanks, Denny for letting us ‘talk’.

  89. Jason September 13, 2008 at 12:24 am #

    Kathy quoted someone: “‘Seems that God would have made something that important quite clear to Eve and us, too, in Genesis 1 or 2.’”

    Maybe he did and your biases simply won’t let you see it.

    There are multiple reasons throughout Genesis 2 to see this.
    Now, I know you reject that…but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    Kathy said: “It also seems that God would NOT have waited THOUSANDS of years untel Paul to HIDE IT somewhere within Paul’s words ‘Adam was cread first then Eve’.”

    First, it is evidenced as the understanding throughout the Scripture. When something is accepted it doesn’t need to be reiterated explicitly all along the way. Yet, implicitly we see it demonstarted and reinforced all along the way.

    Second, it is through Paul that God’s created order is pointed to within the Christian command for wives to submit to their husbands and for men to be the teachers/elders in the church.

    It isn’t hidden at all…he comes right out and says it. Only linguistic hopscotch avoids it. The created order is the ground for his statement of male authority in the church.

  90. Truth Unites... and Divides September 13, 2008 at 2:37 am #

    “Women are deserting the Church in their thousands and turning to the pagan religion of Wicca.

    …..

    Maybe the Episcopal Church was ahead of the game when it posted a “pagan” rite – called A celebration of the Divine Feminine – on its web site a few years ago.

    As part of the eucharist, the priest raises a cup of milk and honey and then a plate of raisin cakes to Mother God, before saying: “Thank you, Mother, for the abundance of life for the rich, full, pleasing, and life giving milk of our bodies.

    “Thank you for the children who drink from our breasts for they bring sweetness to our lives. We drink this cup as your daughters, fed from your own bosom.”

    It goes on: “Mother God, our ancient sisters called you Queen of Heaven and baked these cakes in your honour in defiance of their brothers and husbands who would not see your feminine face.”

    This affirmation of womanhood, which Dr Aune argues is one of the main attractions of paganism, is bolstered by a hostility to men, as if the two can not be complementary but rather are mutually exclusive.

    ….

    Yet, speak to most female Christians and they will say that the lack of churchgoing men is an imbalance just as worrying.

    One reason for this may be what some put down to a gradual feminisation of the Church.

    It’s not just the fact that the number of female clergy has risen dramatically over the last decade – as many women are now being ordained as men – but more because of a growing tendency to put the emphasis on emotions and feelings rather than tradition and doctrine.”

    Excerpted from: Has the Church Become Too Feminine?

    Egalitarianism is a slippery slope….

  91. Don September 13, 2008 at 3:35 am #

    Jason,

    It is far from linguistic hopscotch. It is simply taking off the blue colored glasses, then one notices that things are not blue! Voila!

  92. Jason September 13, 2008 at 11:42 am #

    First, what is the whole “blue glasses” thing? Where did that come from?

    Second, ALL OF US have our biases. If you think you are able to read the text without ANY presuppositions, you are self-deluded.

    Third, once again I find it funny that ONLY the complementarians are guilty of this but all the evangelical feminists think they are free from this error (you especially, Don, since you make this accusation more than anyone on here).

    Fourth, Don, I think you see what you want to see. I think you read the text with your own biases and anytime the plain reading of a text and the context dictate an understanding of male headship and leadership you reject the idea and search for any possible way to wiggle out from it. The usual tactic is to try some fancy wordplay and refer to usage OUTSIDE of Scripture and to make huge assumptions about usage and semantic ranges (and also pretend that no one has responded to those claims despite the fact that many posts have responded and answered those linguistic claims). Nevermind that the linguistic hopscotch (if this term makes it into the COMP-EGAL debate, I want credit 🙂 )leads to interpretations that make no sense in the context of the passage and worse yet end up making no sense within the larger testimony of Scripture.

  93. Sue September 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm #

    Jason,

    I share the same concerns about presuppositions. Everyone has them. That is why I put so much stress on verifiable facts.

    That is why I never argued against complementarianism until a pastor recommended Grudem’s studies and I kept saying, “wait a minute here, this is not what the Greek example that he cites actually says.”

    I was astounded.

    I found out that the one occurrence of authenteo that was classified as “to have authority” did not actually exist. I emailed an eminent complementarian scholar, one that I trust very much and asked him. He said yes it does not exist. He asked me not to ever cite his private email.

    I then checked to see that Grudem and Baldwin classified BGU 1208 as a hostile encounter, involving insolence. Yes, they did that.

    I then checked Hippolytus. It is clearly negative in *connotation.” The context is highly negative.

    I then checked with Dan Wallace and Andreas Köstenberger, who admut that the meaning of authenteo can only be taken from the grammatical construction.

    Kostenberger and Wallace depend on the fact that authenteo is joined to didasko, which, according to them, must be positive in meaning.

    When I point out that didasko is not always positive in meaning, the conversation ends.

    There is no willingness to admit that no one really knows what 1 Tim. 2:12 says. The translation “to have authority” first appeared in the 16th century and up until then it had been translated as “dominari” the same word that was used for the wicked way that men would treat their wives in Gen. 3:16.

    I have to say that, for me, there is no point in discussing interpretation or application unless one can have a simple conversation about the facts.

    These are the simple facts. The meaning “to have authority” for authenteo was supported by a piece of evidence which we now know does not exist.

    I am quite happy to see others discussing interpretation and application. But I read Greek and I am astounded that Biblical interpretation has simply parted ways with the evidence some time ago.

    If people want to be complementarians for traditional or cultural reasons, I could understand that. But to call other people heretics when you won’t even discuss the scriptures in Greek is something else.

  94. Jason September 13, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    Sue,

    I always hesitate to respond to your posts for 2 reasons.

    1. They are too long (and to your credit chock full of info) and honestly I don’t want to take the time to respond to everything, nor is it fair to respond to only a few points and ignore the rest. Several times I have started posts and just deleted them

    2. Your comments on this issue (and others) have been repeated over and over again. I know (and I think you know) they have been responded to multiple time by multiple people. Now I understand you do not accept their responses, but Denny and others have responded before…and I am not sure if I will say much different than those guys. To say that people refuse to talk about the Greek is simply untrue, there are quite a few of us that read Greek and study in Greek (as well as English translations)…it has been talked about, but you reject the explanations. Thus people have stopped responding to you, and you (and now others) think that people are running away from you and your posts. That simply isn’t true. I think people are not posting because of these 2 reasons I listed.

    Now, I have no problem responding…but I just want to let you know my hesitancy.

    Now, for the meaning of authenteo…the word is neutral. Context determines whether this neutral word is used positively or negatively. So to say the word is not used positively, is simply unfair because inherently the word is neither positive nor negative, but context and usage determines HOW it is used. How do we know what 1 Tim 2 means? You read it in context. One explanation fits the context, one does not.

    I understand if your personal experience and culture leads you to be a evangelical feminist, but I think you should accept the fact that there are answers to your critiques, even if you do not accept them…and as I said before, the Greek has been discussed on here (and elsewhere) A LOT.

  95. Sue September 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    1. How do you know that authenteo has a neutral meaning and not a negative meaning? What is the evidence for that? I can provide evidence for a negative connotation, but where is the evidence that it is neutral or positive?

    2. If it were proven to be a word that could be either negative or positive, how could anyone prove 100% that it was positive in 1 Tim. 2:12?

    3. In short, what evidence is there that the complementarian interpretation is more valid than the egalitarian one?

  96. Sue September 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm #

    PS Denny has not responded to me. He asked Chris Cowan of CBMW to excerpt some passages from Schreiner’s book. They were for the most part irrelevant.

    Chris Cowan knows very well that the CBMW website posts a lot of stuff that cannot be verified. I discussed with him the egregious nonsense posted by Wayne Grudem where he stated that aner never means “person” in one of his attacks on the translators of the TNIV. I sent Cowan endless quotes from Plato etc. proving that aner had always had the meaning of “person” in classical Greek, and Wayne Grudem emailed to say that he “had not had access” to these citations when he wrote the article.

    What nonsense! Who can’t find Plato and discover that aner always meant person or citizen.

    So Chris Cowan and the people who keep up the CBMW website know very well that there are problems and they tried to find someone to respond to me.

    But, apparently it is not a priority because people want so badly to believe in complemenatarianism that the fact that the evidence does not support the studies doesn’t bother anyone.

    The truth is that there are so many inaccurate statements about Greek in these studies that it is hard to know where to start.

    If it weren’t that women’s lives are seriously impacted by this stuff I would not spend the time it takes to type this out.

  97. Jason September 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Sue said: “1. How do you know that authenteo has a neutral meaning and not a negative meaning? What is the evidence for that? I can provide evidence for a negative connotation, but where is the evidence that it is neutral or positive?”

    Here, again, is one of your repeated assertions that is simply not the case and people have given up trying to convince you.
    The evidence suggests that the word is negative (or even positive). There is no evidence of a negative connotation of the word in the literature at the time of the NT.
    Have you read Wolter’s study on the cognates of authenteo?

    Sue said: “2. If it were proven to be a word that could be either negative or positive, how could anyone prove 100% that it was positive in 1 Tim. 2:12?”

    I know you reject Kostenberger’s work on the sentence structure showing that it rules out any negative meaning. But I find that compelling, especially considering I’ve seen no proof whatsoever that the word can be negative. I think we go to context, and we see the context (as I have seen it) is never negative, on top of the word not being negative inherently.

    Sorry, Sue, I remain unconvinced of your point.

    You can say that the facts don’t support it…but you are rejecting a mountain of evidence against your position off hand.

    I don’t know if it is past personal experience that blinds you to those arguments, or if it is pride in your linguistics background…but there are many Greek scholars who find those arguments severely lacking. I am no Greek scholar (though I am quite functional), and I have to side with where I actually see the evidence pointing.

    BTW, I know you believe your work is superior to all these great scholars but maybe your tone turns people off to your argument as well. You assert that you “prove” things. Yet people have rejected your assertions outright. Maybe you’re not proving as much as you think you are.

    3. In short, what evidence is there that the complementarian interpretation is more valid than the egalitarian one?

  98. Jason September 13, 2008 at 2:09 pm #

    BTW (pt2) – Denny has responded to you in many posts…but I believe he has stopped because you 1) reject his views outright and 2) pretend like he never responded.

    Like I said before, there is a reason people have quit responding to your posts outright…and I gave you 2 polite reasons.

  99. Jason September 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm #

    Disregard the part title “3.” in my post #97…that was cut and paste gone bad.

    🙂

  100. Sue September 13, 2008 at 2:12 pm #

    Jason,

    1. BGU 1208 is labeled by B aldwin and Grudem as “compel” a hostile interaction with insolence. It is evidence. Are you saying that this is not negative? I don’t understand what you are saying.

    I have read Al Wolter’s article and I have discussed this at length with him by email. He does not disagree with me on the evidence. He did ask me not to quote his email.

    Once again, are you saying that “hostile” and “insolence” are not negative?

  101. Sue September 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm #

    Could someone kindly quote something that Denny has said in response to my comments. I don’t have any recollection of Denny making a direct response to me aside from recommending book titles to me.

  102. Sue September 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm #

    Jason,

    What do you present as evidence. If you present some recent Bibles, I discuss Jerome and Erasmus. I want to show you how this interpretation of “to have authority” came about. Dan Wallace knows this and he says that Tyndale simply knew Greek better that all the scholars of the KJV, because Tyndale wrote “to have authority” and KJV has “to usurp authority.”

    The trouble is that Wallace puts way too much weight on the superior scholarship of Tydnale over the 40 or so translators of the KJV. Tyndale was better at Latin and used Erasmus’ Latin paraphrase and Luther’s translation as well.

    If you really engage with what Wallace, and Wolters, and Kostenberger really think about this passage, you will find one presupposition piled on top of another. It is very tenuous and 1 Tim 2:12 should never be used as a stand alone text to restrict women. Denny in particular likes to use it this way. He gives advice to women that is based on the most tenuous information.

    There is an underground scholarship on this verse, that is not made public. It is very mysterious to me that Kostenberger will not just say that the evidence that he had used, Philodemus, is now known to not exist. If he is interested in actual scholarship, and not just proving a point about women, why does he not write about these new results of research? They are quite interesting.

  103. Jason September 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm #

    Is BGU 1208 disputed? Yes. You know there is no consensus on that usage. It isn’t evidence if it is not clear. Is it worthy of discussion? Sure.

    Now, IMO, I don’t really care if someone one time used it in a negative way. That is still not proof that Paul used it in a negative way.

    So, though I am not willing to give up any ground on something that is debated…in the end I don’t think winning that battle for you would prove all that you think it would prove. Especially considering the onyl possible example you could provide is this one debated text. The other 81 or so are undisputed and positive (or at worst neutral). The overwhelming evidence of its usage at the time of the NT is against you.

    That combined with what I feel is a convincing argument from Kostenberger about the sentence structure showing the positive use of the word in 1 Tim 2, is enough to accept the complementarian position.

    What you fail to do is prove that Paul is using it negatively…or that it is used negatively anywhere more than once.

  104. Jason September 13, 2008 at 2:36 pm #

    This is really going nowhere, isn’t it?

    LOL

  105. Sue September 13, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    Now, IMO, I don’t really care if someone one time used it in a negative way. That is still not proof that Paul used it in a negative way.

    But this is, according to Kostenberger and Burk, the ONLY admissible occurrence. So, just because it is only once, it is still the only evidence that is contemporary with the NT.

    You misunderstand about the other 81 pieces of evidence. Kostenberger, Grudem and Burk have ruled them out for the purposes of this study because they are for the most part negative. Denny took me to task rather sharply for trying to include any of the other 81 examples. Take this up with him, not me.

    The argument concerning sentence structure depends on proving that authenteo CAN be used positively, and that didasko cannot EVER be used negatively.

    Neither of these two points have ever been proven.

  106. Paul September 13, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

    How many times do I have to tell fine upstanding Christian males?

    DON’T PUT THE COMPUTER ANYWHERE NEAR THE KITCHEN.

    If my advice was heeded more often, conversations like these would never occur.

  107. Sue September 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm #

    The truth is that this verse should never be used as a proof text to restrict women. No one really knows what it means. But of course, Chrysostom said that a husband may never authenteo a wife, so we must assume that a wife should also never authenteo a husband. Neither a husband nor a wife should treat their spouse like a slave or an underling.

  108. Sue September 13, 2008 at 2:45 pm #

    Paul,

    Do you mean that Jason is mixing this argument with his Saturday special recipes? Or am I?

  109. Lydia September 13, 2008 at 2:46 pm #

    But Sue’s questions makes an even more important point to me: We should not trust the scholarship of some CBMW folks because it is not honest in that they suppress or ignores information.

    This was also obvious with Piper and Grudem’s mishap with ‘Junia’ a while back.

  110. Paul September 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    Sue,

    yes.

  111. Jason September 13, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    I probably should have heeded my gut feeling of not getting sucked into this because it goes absolutely nowhere like the 150 times it has happened before on this site.

    Sue, we just disagree…and I don’t think we will work this out.

    When people see the evidence completely different, there really is no hope. Now I see why people have just given up , we’re coming from so far apart.

    Paul, thanks for the drive by comment. 😉 I have a question, Paul, are you married? Have kids?

  112. Sue September 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    Jason,

    You know you cannot provide a positive use of authenteo. I actually used to believe that there was evidence for the complementarian position. I came from that position myself. But at some point I asked a question, and then I had a study recommnended to me, and I was simply fascinated by how the evidence did not line up with the conclusions.

    Now, in google, one can open most of the pertinent Greek documents and I was simply astounded. It is the same thing for Junia, aner, kephale, and authenteo.

    A study has been built out of little evidence and made to look authoritative. The authenteo study has, according to Kostenberger, “one or two” pieces of evidence.

    We are discussing the one piece, which is labeled “hostile.” That’s it. Think of all the women that have been told they cannot do this or that, based on this little evidence. Women are not being treated well by their menfolk, if men teach women to not do things on the basis of this evidence.

  113. Paul September 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    Jason,

    I thought I had already answered this, but yes, I am married with a beautiful daughter.

    If my wife ever saw comment #106, I would probably be chained to the stove in the middle of the night and beaten with a copy of a mennonite cookbook.

  114. Jason September 13, 2008 at 3:18 pm #

    LOL @ Paul

    I was just going to make some sort of tongue in cheek comment about that…but you beat me to it.

    Sue, if I bite on your comment I get sucked back into this argument that goes round and round. Believe me, it’s tempting…but because I am not one of the “menfolk” whose wife is “not being treated well”, I want to prove it by spending time with her…and as fun as arguing with no resolution is, I will simply have to postpone for a bit.

    Honestly I hate doing this, because I know some will take it as a sign of concession. Believe me it is not. But I know when I offer up my argument (answer to Sue’s question), she will say it is unpersuasive and typical comp stuff (which I’m sure it is true that it is typical). I’ll respond in kind, and we’ll have wasted a Saturday going the way of many threads before. I am just saving us time. I hope you understand, Sue. I am sure we will discuss these things again (albeit, inadvertently…and unrelated to the original topic Denny posted…how can we turn the Ray bOltz story into a Egal/Comp debate???)

  115. Sue September 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm #

    Jason,

    I understand your not wanting to spend time on this. Truly I do. And, no doubt, you follow Chrysostom’s dictate to not authenteo your wife. I don’t doubt that.

    It is not that your are unpersuasive. I just do not perceive how you have engaged with the evidence at all. You claim many things but don’t back them up with examples.

    I am sure that if Denny had ever responded to me on this topic, that TUAD or someone would find his response and paste it in. The fact is that he has not.

    Denny first posted two years ago about how he had told a women friend of his that she would be in sin, or some such thing, if she preached, on the basis of 1 Tim. 2:12.

    This kind of thing is simply not honest.

  116. Don September 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm #

    The non-egals see what they want to see, contra the evidence. This means they are choosing to interpret the way they do and disregard the evidence to do so.

  117. Sue September 13, 2008 at 5:57 pm #

    Don,

    I was just reading 1 Cor. 16 for another reason and I came across this verse.

    “Now I urge you, brothers[c]—you know that(AA) the household[d] of Stephanas were(AB) the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves(AC) to the service of the saints— 16(AD) be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer.” 1 Cor. 16:15-16 ESV

    I really don’t get it. Here is what Grudem said in an open letter to egalitarians,

    “we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotassō (passive) refers to a person or persons being “subject to” another person, and where the idea of submission to that person’s authority is absent.”

    The fact is that there are lots of others, in Clement for one, and 2 Macc. for another. But I had forgotten that there was a reference in 1 Cor. I don’t understand this.

    Where is the idea of submission to the authority of every fellow worker and labourer. I just don’t see their authority mentioned anywhere. Perhaps everyone has authority. Then women, mentioned as fellow workers, would also have authority, and men, also fellow workers, should submit to these women.

    I do not see how Grudem’s statement makes sense of 1 Cor. 16:16. Can anyone offer an explanation?

  118. Don September 13, 2008 at 7:52 pm #

    I think the “fellow workers” of Paul were leaders. But then some women are called such, so CBMW does not want to go down that path. So they just do not discuss it at all.

    I think you found a case where their contradictions surface, either such fellow workers are leaders and what that implies or such are not leaders and what that implies.

  119. Sue September 13, 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    Odd, here is what Adam Clarke had to say,

    “That ye have due regard to them, and consider them as especial instruments in the hand of God for countenancing and carrying on his great work. The submission here recommended does not imply obedience, but kind and courteous demeanour. Kypke vindicates this sense of the word from Ephesians 5:21; ; 1 Peter 5:5.”

  120. Jason September 15, 2008 at 12:51 pm #

    I really hesitate to do this, since I know where this will lead (nowhere). But I feel bad just bowing out of the discussion a few days ago. I also am now back at the office and have a little bit of free time to discuss. Hopefully I will not regret this decision, but I am already starting to do so.

    Sue,

    I fully recognize that there is extensive debate over almost every word in the 1 Timothy passage. But to say, “no one knows what it means”, and then to just basically move on as if the passage does not exist is not a fair conclusion. Would we agree?

    So we know that it must mean something. The question is: what understanding best fits with the context of the passage along with what Paul says elsewhere about men and women’s roles within marriage and the church? It is on this point that I find the egalitarian perspective unconvincing. Because there is so much wordplay done to deconstruct a passage, it makes each passage say basically nothing…which is clearly NOT what Paul (ultimately, God) was trying to do. The convoluted interpretations then do not fit with the convoluted interpretations of other passages.

    So you ask about the usage of “authentein” (I need to get the Greek font on here)…I replied before that context determines whether a usage is positive or negative. I think the word is inherently neutral. The fact that there is debate over the positive/negative usages proves this. So we must see what fits this context. Correct?

    It is here that Kostenberger’s article about the relationship between those infinitives is very compelling. Because of that evidence, I believe the context is making this passage positive. (I know you think I make assertions without proof – I disagree, but that is neither here nor there – this is my reasoning for why I understand the passage the way I do.) Now, you ask for examples of positive uses of authentein – now you assert that the use in BGU 1208 is negative. I disagree. But we both know there is extensive debate on this text and its usage is odd. Could it be negative? yes. Must it be? No. But I ask, why do you think it is negative? Your answer will be something about context (if you answer along the lines of the debate of that text). Then I would say, “fine, but does the context of one text now automatically mean we import that same definition in a different context into our passage?” Of course not. So, that is why I said before I do not think that you proving that point actually proves anything about 1 Tim 2. It really does not matter that much. Supportive evidence, maybe, but it doesn’t prove or disprove an understanding of 1 Tim 2.
    I also know that there is very little evidence of usage around the time of the writing of 1 Timothy, so I also know that when I give you an example of positive usage, your response will be that it is not near the time of the letter.

    So, we are back to context. Please tell me what your interpretation of the passage actually is.

  121. Jason September 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    Don: “The non-egals see what they want to see, contra the evidence. This means they are choosing to interpret the way they do and disregard the evidence to do so.”

    Honestly, the drive-by comments are rather annoying.

    Either add to the discussion or don’t. The cheerleading and cheap shots is neither edifying nor entertaining.

    (BTW, both sides can make this claim.)

  122. Don September 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm #

    On 1 Tim, it is simply wrong of non-egals like Grudem to make claims that the verses are “clear” when they are not clear.

    My take is Paul is discussing a deceived woman at Ephesus and informing Timothy that contrary to Hy and Al who were disfellowshipped, she is to be taught the truth, and while learning she is not to teach.

    The gist of 1 Tim 2:11-12 is something like, as I understand it:
    Paul: “I command the [deceived] woman in class order be allowed to learn; to be teaching I am not now permitting her nor to authentein a man while in class.”

    It is possible that there are 2 things or 1 thing being (temporarily) stopped, if 2 things then the structure in Greek has “to be teaching” without a direct object and so it is unlimited in scope within the context of church.

  123. Jason September 15, 2008 at 2:31 pm #

    Don said: “My take is Paul is discussing a deceived woman at Ephesus and informing Timothy that contrary to Hy and Al who were disfellowshipped, she is to be taught the truth, and while learning she is not to teach.”

    But nothing in the context suggests that. Nothing Paul says suggests that.

    You invented it, imported it, and interpreted it to fit what you WANT to see.

    The thing about your interpretation is: a) your premise is faulty, b” you’re adding words and ideas that are not there, and c) it doesn’t fit the context at all. Plus it is just a bad translation, even if you had the context right.

  124. Don September 15, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

    No, the context carries forward and backward from the surrounding verses in the pericope.

    It is the non-egals taking a few verses out of immediate context that causes the appearance of a permanent injunction.

  125. Jason September 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm #

    Thank you for defining context, Don. But that still doesn’t prove your point. You have to prove that those ideas are actually IN the context. They aren’t.

    You imported those ideas…they are not in the text.

    (Funny how you don’t see that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.)

  126. Don September 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm #

    I was asked about how I understood 1 Tim 2:11-12. I gave my answer. You disagreed.

    To go deeper we need to discuss the whole pericope, but I can assure you that context is there for my claims.

  127. Jason September 15, 2008 at 3:01 pm #

    Don, that’s the point.

    Your understanding does not take the entire passage into account. You drew a very iffy conclusion (that’s me being generous) and then interpreted a passage you did not like by pulling in something that is not in the text (a deceived woman). You cannot do that. Paul was not trying to be tricky. He was being straight-forward. if there was a deceived woman, why would he not mention her? He mentioned Hymenaeus and Alexander. Plus, that interpretation makes no sense with regard to v13-15 or (what is labeled) chapter 3.

  128. Don September 15, 2008 at 3:16 pm #

    It does make sense in the context of the whole pericope. But this becomes a full fledged teaching.

    I do not think Paul was trying to be tricky, but he was writing a personal letter to Timothy in 1st century Ephesus. We are not Timothy, who was the spiritual son of Paul and therefore had a LARGE shared context that we do not have today.

    I think Paul was using terms that were used at Ephesus, which is part of the reason they are so challenging today.

    Of course it makes sense (to me) with 1 Tim 3, as the first part of that chapter continues the pericope in my understanding. I think the pericope is 1 Tim 2:8-3:15.

  129. Don September 15, 2008 at 3:23 pm #

    I agree that I have not explained all the reasons why I believe as I do on 1 Tim 2-3 pericope. This takes a study of many papers by BOTH sides.

  130. Jason September 15, 2008 at 3:38 pm #

    Don said: “I think Paul was using terms that were used at Ephesus, which is part of the reason they are so challenging today.”

    That is a rather convenient argument isn’t it?

    So the argument goes: ‘Paul didn’t mention a specific woman because Timothy UNDERSTOOD what he meant without him saying it.’?
    Wow. That opens the door to all sort of nonsense.

    Besides being poor exegesis, it denies the fact that God supernaturally guided the writing of all Scripture to communicate to all believers at all times. These are not simply personal letters from Paul to Timothy, but the very Word of God intended to reveal the truth to His people.

  131. Don September 15, 2008 at 3:48 pm #

    You are wrong about people agreeing about what ALL Scripture means. There are some verses that are simply unclear to us today and claiming they are clear is false. Verses about salvation are pretty clear. Young kids can be saved from reading the Bible.

    Paul in other places refers to a person without naming them.

  132. Jason September 15, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    So…

    1. God did not supernaturally author all Scripture?

    2. I didn’t say all Scripture is easily understandable, but it is all understandable…and that understanding is non-contradictory with the rest of Scripture.

    3. Why are the verses about salvation more clear? Are you SURE they are clear? What confidence do you have about that?

    4. The problem is, Don, he doesn’t refer to anyone in these verses. He is making a general statement. To impose your thought on this text is not fair to the text. he referred to H and A earlier, but there is no reference AT ALL to a specific person or even a veiled reference to someone in particular.

  133. Don September 15, 2008 at 4:31 pm #

    1. God inspired all the authors of the 66 books of the Bible. Every letter or mark is inspired.

    2. There are many puzzling verses and people DISAGREE what they mean. We need to be humble about what we do not know. Not everyone agrees what Rev. means in the details, this is just an obvious example.

    3. God wants people saved, to come into His Kingdom. So trust in Jesus, He will change your world. I am sure you already know this.

    4. Your claims show you do not know much Greek. Translation is an art, not a science. Just as an example, the single word gunaiki in 1 Tim 2:12, it MIGHT mean:
    1. a woman
    2. the woman
    3. a wife
    4. the wife.

    As another example ouk epitrepo might mean:
    1. I am not permitting
    2. I am not now permitting.

    It is the translator’s judgment as to what was intended and translators can be wrong, it is a human effort. But more to the point, you can make one choice and I can make another, yet we are both trying to be faithful to the text.

  134. Jason September 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    Don,

    I will just focus on #4.

    I am sorry that my education in Greek fails to meet your standards. I suppose they’ll want my degrees back. 😉

    But I don’t think I made any references to Greek, so I’m not sure where that is coming from. Exactly what have I done that shows I do not understand greek?? I believe I can hold my own, though I make no claims to be a Greek scholar. But I can/do study out of the Greek text and I’m alright. (Can we avoid the cheap shots, Don? Especially when I have done nothing to deserve the cheap shot.)

    Hermeneutics is both an art and a science…but I’ll agree what you do is all art, no science…crazy modern art.
    I love that you have tricked yourself into importing an interpretation from thin air into the text and trying to pass it off as being there in the greek. Sorry, bud, not buying it.

    There would have to be some contextual reason for understanding this to be talking about ONE PARTICULAR woman. Now grammatically could it be so? Sure. But contextually it does not fit. Paul makes no mention of female false teachers. If there was one and she was linked to Hym and Alex in false teaching, would not Paul have included her in his condemnation of them? His appeal to why woman cannot teach is not based on some specific error, but based on creation. Surely you know how arguments are grounded, Don.

    This argument isn’t over could the Greek word mean “A (particular) woman” instead of “a woman”…it’s about what does the context allow or disallow? I think your interpretation is faulty. Should I call your ability to handle Greek, English, and logic into question based on your faulty interpretation and exegesis?? Please Don, let’s not go down that road.

  135. Don September 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm #

    The brackets around [deceived] meant I was adding that word to aid is clarifying the context, the brackets mean it is not there in the Greek text.

    I think contextually it does fit, but instead of asking me why, you claim it is crazy and modern art.

    NO ONE knows the details of the situation at Ephesus, Timothy did and we assume he did what needed to be done. We do not even know what communication Timothy might have had with Paul prior to the letter. What he have is an letter which is like half of a phone transcript about a specific problem at Ephesus. We are LACKING much of the context that might help us understand it better. We are LACKING knowledge about some things in the letter, like the meaning of authentein and the childbearing.

    The term for the false teachers might include women, the term tis (any or anyone) for who might want to be an elder might include women; and some translations do not show this.

  136. Jason September 15, 2008 at 7:04 pm #

    Don,

    First, that “modern art” comment was probably not very fair. I apologize.

    Second, you have stumbled onto what I believe is a very important area of disagreement between us. You say that we are “lacking” what we need to fully understand the passage. I believe God has given us His perfect Word, and though it may take work to understand it, we are not lacking anything necessary to fully understand His word.

    I do not believe God chose to communicate with us…and then refused to give us the info needed.

    Third, again, context determines how a word is used. Ultimately it doesn’t matter how people 200 years before or after used the word once in a writing, those writings are not inspired. Context trumps that. Are those things helpful? Yes. But they are secondary and supportive, not definitive on anything. So, when someone is constantly referring to semantic range and choosing a meaning of a word that does not fit the context, I don’t care how plausible their definition may seem, the context can disallow it as likely.

    Fifth, there is no evidence from the text that the false teachers were women. Nor does that really matter, because Paul does refer to false teaching as the reason for preclusion from teaching and authority.

  137. Sue September 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm #

    Jason,

    BGU 1208 was always classified as a negative use of authentein. The positive use was Philodemus. But now we know that the Philodemus piece does not exist, so we are stuck with only the one negative example. The argument has to be reformulated.

    Past scholarship was based on

    A two occurrences or authentein, one negative and one positive

    The positive one is gone

    and

    B no negative uses of didaskein

    But there is one in Titus 1:11

    I am only asking complementarians to reformulate the argument. Those who in the past classified BGU 1208 as negative were Baldwin, Grudem and Kostenberger. They have to justify their own about face on this. They have to support changing horses in mid-stream. Kostenberger cannot get away with pretending he has dealt with the evidence if he has not. If he thinks that BGU 1208 is no longer a negative use of authentein, then he has to support his switch on this in an article.

  138. Sue September 15, 2008 at 7:11 pm #

    Jason,

    You imply that context trumps anything. If we had no idea what the word was, and it was a blank, would we be able to say that women could not exercise authority on the basis of this verse?

    Surely you are aware that a psalm like Psalm 68 has 13 hapax legomena in it. Perhaps you think we should make up meanings for these words.

    Perhaps you are not aware that Ps. 68 says that a mighty host of women shall proclaim the good news. Perhaps we should formulate church policy on Ps. 68 instead of 1 Tim. 2:12.

    Who decided that Ps. 68 was out and 1 Tim. 2:12 was in?

  139. Jason September 15, 2008 at 7:15 pm #

    Certainly I am not suggesting making up definitions from thin air. But we all agree that context determines which definition is correct. Right?

    (Maybe I should not have used the word “trump”.)

  140. Sue September 15, 2008 at 8:06 pm #

    Jason,

    But we all agree that context determines which definition is correct. Right?

    Right. But someone has to prove that there is a possible positive meaning for authentein. This has not been done. Otherwise, it is made up out of thin air. That is exactly what I am claiming. The fact that no one offers any other evidence confirms this. I have discussed this with Dan Wallace and Al Wolters. They do not offer any further evidence. There isn’t any. This is just a fact.

    There is only one offurrence and it is negative. The full text is on my blog.

    It is the only evidence, and Denny has never commented on it. Why is he avoiding discussing the only piece of evidence for authentein?

  141. Sue September 15, 2008 at 8:07 pm #

    offurrence –

    occurrence

  142. Kathy September 15, 2008 at 9:55 pm #

    ‘Your understanding does not take the entire passage into account. You drew a very iffy conclusion (that’s me being generous) and then interpreted a passage you did not like by pulling in something that is not in the text (a deceived woman). You cannot do that. Paul was not trying to be tricky. He was being straight-forward. if there was a deceived woman, why would he not mention her?’

    v.14,’but the (or this) WOMAN, having been deceived, into transgression came’.

    Paul speaks of ‘a woman’ in v.11 then changes to speaking of ‘Eve’ by refering to her using her proper name and then he switches back to talking about the woman of v.11. There is a deceived woman in the text to be sure and he did mention her and he begins by refering to her as ‘a woman’. He did not name her because she was deceived but had not shipwrecked her faith, and was to learn.

  143. Kathy September 15, 2008 at 9:58 pm #

    In v.9 & 10 Paul uses plural ‘women’ and then shifts to ‘a woman’ in v.11 and v.14, meaning a specific woman.

  144. Kathy September 15, 2008 at 10:01 pm #

    ‘There would have to be some contextual reason for understanding this to be talking about ONE PARTICULAR woman.’

    1. Paul shifts from plural to singular.

    2. In v.14 he shifts from ‘Eve’ back to 1 certain woman.

    3. V.12 ‘she (1 particular woman) will be saved if they’ (1 woman and probably her husband)

    There’s three contextual reasaons so far off the top of my head.

  145. Don September 15, 2008 at 10:43 pm #

    On 1 Tim 2 my take is Paul is making a multiple mapping. He earlier pointed to himself as deceived, then the women in the garden as deceived, and the mapping is to the woman (or perhaps women) in Ephesus who are deceived; and saying there is hope thru learning the truth. We see (that just as) the woman in the garden learned (or figured out) that she was deceived by the serpent and Paul was taught the the risen Lord on the road, so the deceived woman/women at Ephesus can be taught the truth and possibly be restored.

    The deliberate sinner in the garden (the man) was cast out of the garden and same for the 2 men at Ephesus, they were cast out of church.

  146. Kathy September 15, 2008 at 10:59 pm #

    ‘Second, it is through Paul that God’s created order is pointed to within the Christian command for wives to submit to their husbands and for men to be the teachers/elders in the church.’

    Paul doesn’t say in 1 Tim 3 ‘men’ are to be teachers or elders, ONLY you do. Paul used Greek tis, meaning ‘anyone.’ So I can SAY JUST as Paul did, ‘If ANYONE…’

    ‘It isn’t hidden at all…he comes right out and says it. Only linguistic hopscotch avoids it. The created order is the ground for his statement of male authority in the church.’

    Paul comes right out and SAYS what? He says that a woman is not to teach a man because Adam was formed first, then Eve and was not deceived, and this woman is deceived. Paul stops a deceived woman from teaching a man (probably her husband).

    Adam was formed first, he had knowledge of creation that Eve did not have, he then was not deceived, but the woman of 1 Tim 2 was deceived, v.14 says so. So the deceived woman needs to learn, this is the command Paul gives in the passage. Deceived persons should not be teaching anyone.

    Adam was not deceived into believing that THEY could become like God because he was formed first therefore as we know from the Genesis text, he learned things about creation that Eve did not but Eve on the other hand was decived into believing that THEY could become like God, but she came out of her deception WHICH PAUL would have known.

  147. Kathy September 15, 2008 at 11:01 pm #

    So Paul aware of Eve having come out of her deception would want to make the rebel the leader, the one who CONTINUED to rebel by later blaming God and his wife? Only one came out of the state, and that was the woman.

  148. Kathy September 15, 2008 at 11:03 pm #

    Correction.

    Only one came out of their respective states, and that was the woman.

  149. Don September 15, 2008 at 11:17 pm #

    In Gen 4, we see the woman making faith statements honoring God. Given the small amount of text, it seems to me she was a believer.

    Where are the faith statements after the fall that honor God made by the man? Does anyone see a pattern here?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes