I cannot find any evidence for infant baptism but can for believer’s baptism, so I believe in believer’s baptism, for example.

One of the interpretive principles I use is that things in the Mosaic covenants are shadows of realities in the new covenant.

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

A shadow to be a shadow gives a hint as to the fuller reality behind it, I do not see God as trying to trick us with shadow puppets. As there were women prophets in the Mosaic covenants, there are women prophets in the new covenant. The shadow cannot deny the reality, it may not fully reveal the reality, but it cannot deny it. This is why I see Deborah and Huldah, etc. as relevant to the new covenant.

IF CBMW did not claim there was a creation principle of male leadership being referred to in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, then they would not be inconsistent. But they do not do this, they assert the principle, but then do not fully carry it out in their application. This is being inconsistent.

I think the supposed creation principle of male-only leadership is not correct therefore I think Palin being VP is fine, as this sure seems to be what her and her husband want. My application is consistent with my principles.

Wow, I got busy and got left behind!

I we may be more different then that. the chain you listed I would have of course as the interpretive process. Then I would ask, now what do we do with it? And although I would hold it as true, it doesn’t function the same way the OT law did for Israel.

So..
OT: you can eat beef and not pig
Israel: therefore we eat beef and not pig, that is the law

The kosher law doesn’t have to make any sense, or follow any over aching principle. It is/can be arbitrary.

the Church is not under the OT law however, and was not given a “leviticus” as a law book to run itself. So such things as the regulative principle make little sense under this paradigm. The NT is instead looked to not as the “norm” itself, but as the norm that norms the norm. Principles that are to be followed are derived, not followed the same way one would follow the US code of law.

For example when commenting on infant baptism Francis Hall said “”The absence of explicit mention of such Baptisms signifies nothing, unless the New Testament was meant to be a complete directory of ecclesiastical discipline, which is untrue.” (avoiding this debate but) this would be an example of my view on how to use scripture itself.

So when it comes to Palin:

Most complementarians are NOT being hypocritical because they are following their own paradigm consistently. If fact “volfan007″ summed it up well (#54) where scripture is used like the kosher law: eat beef not pork because God said so. There is no reason within the system for the moral code to be consistent. more emphasis is placed on something being wrong because God said so, more then on god said so because as an idea it violates some principle of virtue.

BUT they are being inconsistent on a theological level, due to using scripture in this manner. The “creation principle” should trump direct statements (but not contradict, or then the principle is wrong). In this case, those who hold to male headship should not vote for Palin becasue the principle of male leadership in general is violated. Unless it can be demonstrated on a theological principle that these are categorical differences. But not based on “scripture allows it here, but not here”. Because that would be using the NT like it was intended to be a Levitical set up similar to what Israel had in the OT.

Jdg 5:31 “So may all your enemies perish, O LORD! But your friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.” And the land had rest for forty years.

Forty years is a very good evaluation.

Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

For me, these 2 verses provide an explicit endorsement of Deborah. The judges in the book of Judges were raised up by God, of which Deborah was one.

The problem is that it does not actually say what you say it does. That is the REAL problem. So, you are putting words into God’s mouth that HE does not say. Dangerous stuff. You are adding to scripture…especially on the Deborah issue. Where does God make it plain that there were no men and He HAD to chose Deborah?

Would you please point that out?

Not at all. Here we go again with accusing egals of not being spiritual. That is a very serious thing, my friend.

One has to believe that Authenteo/Kephale means something it doesn’t to believe the comp position. Notice I did not accuse you of not believing the scriptures are ‘inspired’ as you accused us of doing because we simply disagree on the correct translation.

Exactly. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us even through horrible translations. We are promised Wisdom if we ask and believe and this applies to understanding scripture:

Ja 1

4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.