This is a no-frills post. I am writing this from my phone because Hurricane Ike has left me without electricity. So I apologize in advance for the raw links and the pictureless post.
David Gushe writes about the so-called “Palin Inconsistency” in today’s USA TODAY:
We have already discussed on this blog the issues that Gushee raises. Nevertheless, I will try to respond more fully when I have electricity. For now, I will just say that it would really help if Egalitarians like Gushee would take Complementarians on their own terms. For years, Complementarians have been addressing the very questions that he raises. There is a biblical and theological rationale for the Complementarian response to Palin; Gushee, for whatever reason, simply doesn’t acknowledge it.
As an example, here is where I see CBMW being inconsistent.
CBMW claims there is a Creation principle in Gen that Paul uses where the man is the leader of the woman (and men are to lead women but not vice versa) to justify their interpretations of 1 Cor and 1 Tim. But they do not carry this (supposed) Creation principle into all areas of life. In other words, they pick and choose when to use this principle. This is inconsistent.
CBMW could become consistent by not using this type of Creation principle argument. But this is NOT what they do. They seem to want to use all possible arguments for their position, but do not require acceptance of all the implications of their arguments.
The extreme non-egals are consistent as they believe this (supposed) Creation principle and apply it consistently, to all areas of life.
As an egal, I do not see this principle (of male only leadership) being taught in Gen (I see a coregency being taught) so both men and women can be leaders anywhere and marriage is to be a partnership. So I at least attempt to be consistent.
If you’re going to argue from creation, and creation doesn’t put any limits on “male headship”, then you’re being inconsistent when you say there’s nothing wrong with a woman being a leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth. She can’t lead at home, she can’t lead at church, but sure, she can lead one of the most powerful nations on earth. Can you not see why many people are saying this? I’m surprised you haven’t really voiced much of your opinion yet Denny, you just keep putting terms you don’t like in quotes. At least man-up and see you’re uncomfortable with it, or you don’t like it but you will still vote for her because of your “transcendent issue”. Can you at least admit that?
God saw fit to allow Deborah to run Israel but not run the tabernacle and it seemed to work. So I see no inconsistancy in the comp camp…
“God saw fit to allow Deborah to run Israel but not run the tabernacle and it seemed to work. So I see no inconsistancy in the comp campâ€¦”
Hmmm. Not even the fact that that we are in a NC with no temple priests and Deborah was head of a THEOCRACY which did not separate church and state…you see no inconsistency in comp teaching on Palin?
Aren’t we making some conclusions about Deborah that are not found in the text?
In a theocracy, who is the head? God.
Deborah was a judge. but her case was quite odd, was it not? There were several oddities about her time as judge.
Now, on to the actual issue of Palin.
Just because you want to see inconsistency does not mean there actually is inconsistency.
The passages clarifying the roles of women speak clearly to home and the church…and not to business or government.
Let the Bible speak to what it wants to and do not make it say something it doesn’t just to fit your criterion of “consistent”. Scripture speaks clearly to some aspects of this debate, and it does not speak to other issues. I therefore see no reason to limit where God has not limited. That is not being inconsistent.
Don says: “As an egal, I do not see this principle (of male only leadership) being taught in Gen (I see a coregency being taught) so both men and women can be leaders anywhere and marriage is to be a partnership. So I at least attempt to be consistent.”
We know quite well you don’t see it. But it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Paul saw it. God saw it (it’s why Adam is held responsible for the covenant breaking, not Eve or both).
Partnership in marriage. Loaded term, but a biblical one? That needs some fleshing out, IMO.
I know you seek to be consistent. The question is how biblical is your consistency? I seek to be both…but that means not forcing my logical conclusions on the text (nor forcing my 21st century ideas of feminism onto the text).
Follow-up question: Don, are you married?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
And I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues.
We disagree on the meaning of what Paul wrote. The man broke the covenant deliberately, the woman was deceived, but quickly figured out she was deceived. The man continued to try to blame the woman and God. Wrong choice. Worse consequences.
Gen 1 shows a coregency at creation.
If there was a “true” co-regency in Genesis 1, then why is there no textual evidence to show that God gave both Adam and Eve instructions?
I believe textually all we know is that God spoke to Adam about responsibilities. The text does say that God walked with both but instructionally all we have is God to Adam.
Just to clarify, the apostle Paul is the one who rooted order within the home and church in creation, not those applying biblical complementarianism. Complementarians don’t argue headship out of creation. Paul established church and home order and rooted it in the creation. I believe (and there are those that disagree with me) that taking creation outside of God’s temples (church today and individually, Christian’s lives and homes) is reading too much using implication, but the order set forth from creation definitely should influence us (again, though, Jason summed up very well the thought of speak on what the text speaks.). I think part of the challenge is attempting to put our reason behind why things are said in the manner they are and abandon what the text actually says. That seems to be part of the rub here.
Just to split a hair, Don, the woman was deceived, but quickly figured out she was deceived.. Thatâ€™s new. Iâ€™ll dispense with snarkiness, but I need you to explain this one. And you are correct, complementarians (most) would not agree with your concept of a coregency (but 50 point triple word score! Or something like that.).
Thanks for the link, Dr. Burk! Hope your power comes on soon (are you “back home” or did KY get hit that hard?).
Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”
Gen 3:10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”
Gen 3:11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
Gen 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
The woman was deceived a short time, to realize she was deceived meant she was no longer deceived.
The man CONTINUED to sin, by trying to blame the woman and God; bad decision on his part.
There is church and home order discussed by Paul, but it needs to be understood as best we can in 1st century context, as an original reader would understand.
The problem is that nowhere in scripture do we read that God attributed the breaking of the covenant to Adam because he deliberately sinned as opposed to was deceived making his sin worse.
Adam sinned. Adam was the representative head of all mankind, and was held accountable for his sin. He broke the covenant, and as covenant head, he is held responsible…even though both sinned.
Headship is all over Genesis 1-3…even if you refuse to see it.
No, the idea of representative head is imported into the text, the idea of headship is imported into the text.
And I thought this post was going to be about the “bridge to nowhere!” 😉
Hos 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
To deal faithlessly means it was treachery, to do something while deceived is different.
Who did God call out? The one whom He gave the command to not eat from the tree. Though all parties are addressed, the judgment is on Adam’s race (this by the way included Eve) as she was taken from Adam. Adam is the Head.
Yet the man and the woman are still connected in the one-flesh union as it will be from the woman that salvation will come for Adam’s race.
Scott, I think all of these Egal-Comp debates are definitely bridges to nowhere. Dead on.
Don, that idea is not imported into the text…it’s there. It is how Paul understood creation, covenant, and headship.
Your crazy ideas aren’t remotely biblical. “Coregency”? Your understanding of why God holds Adam responsible is simply crazy.
BTW, you never answered my question about being married.
The command came before Eve was created. That is a HUGE deal, Don.
I decline to discuss personal matters on this forum.
There is no word “headship” in the Bible, this is simply a man-made concept user to try to steer the conversion. I prefer to use terms found in the Bible and discuss the meaning of them, less chance of adding to the Bible.
Well, there were several commands within the Adamic Covenant: to work the Garden, to “keep” (better translation is “to guard”) the Garden, and to not eat from the Tree.
Three commands to be faithful to the Covenant…all 3 were made TO ADAM and all three were made BEFORE Eve was created.
Is that not significant??
The idea of headship is spoken of throughout Romans, especially in Romans 5…as well as in passages dealing with husbands/wives, although we know the linguistic loppty-loops that are done with kephale.
It is not a man-made concept. Of course kephale is found in the Bible, even though you reject its definition. But the concept is found more than just in places with the word kephale.
Do we really need to re-hash the elementary discussion over concepts of SCR even if the words are not there (trinity, for example)?
Denial of this concept is huge. Which is why you HAVE TO argue against kephale meaning head and you HAVE TO deny headship. So I understand why you want it not to be true.
I don’t think anyone is trying to convert you, are they (ha ha……ha? Just trying to keep it â€œlight heartedâ€.)?
To say somebody is wrong b/c a word isn’t used in the bible is akin to saying that servanthood (a term frequented, rightly, by all sides of this particular discussion) to one another isn’t biblical since the word doesn’t appear. The word headship characterizes the biblical teaching of complementarianism.
Also, to say you use terms from the bible (so as not to add to the bible), but then import entire concepts from outside the bible (Aristotelian) to â€œunderstandâ€ how the actual words in the bible mean the exact opposite of what is written (the actual words and terms) seems at odds. But I suppose weâ€™ll have to disagree on that one.
Jason: you stole my line about bridge to nowhere!
And on that note, it seems like this always goes nowhere. But it does cause us to flesh out what our beliefs are and why. Canâ€™t we just talk about a D1 college game ending in a score of 3 â€“ 2?! Or the absolute hide-tanning by BYU (Iâ€™ll be honest and say that one really surprised me!). Iâ€™m trying to do the impossible and steer a complementarian post to football instead of the other way around!
I’m with you…I am constantly weighing the value of responding to these posts. At some points I just have to stop posting because it is going nowhere…we’re close on this one.
So, does the outcome of the BYU-UCLA game make anyone else think that Florida will kill Tennessee?
Things always seem so up in the air. I donâ€™t think OK would do to BYU what they (OK) did against Washington (BYU squeaked by Wash, right?). Who knows? But yea, I think that is a likelihood.
I think my dreams of a Cinderella season for the mustangs went down the tubes. Well, that happened in the first game 😉 â€¦.erâ€¦..practiceâ€¦â€¦
I can discuss kephale/head and what it might mean, as it is found in the Bible.
Discussing headship is not relevant, as it is NOT found in the Bible, it is a man-made construct, trying to steer the conversation, and I decline to be steered. It seems obvious to me that the more man-made constructs one introduces into the conversation, the more chance there is of coming up with something that adds to the Bible.
This is contrasted with my REFERENCE to Aristotle’s Household codes, which were LIVED OUT by the people in the 1st century but not many know them today. So to put Paul’s household codes in cultural context is extremely useful. We get to contrast with the MAN-MADE ones of Aristotle and see how they differ and where they do not.
When the electricity comes back on and life bets back to normal, could you please offer a discussion on the political ramifications of Palin’s nominee? I would like to hear what you think of her as a political figure and how you would respond to her interview with Charles Gibson.
*meant to say Palin’s nomination, not Palin’s nominee… got ahead of myself there!
Paul is not referencing headship in Romans 5?
Kephale is head (the act of being head is called headship). Ephesians 5 tells us not only of Christ’s headship over the church, but male headship in the home.
Of corse, we know that EFs MUST reject kephale meaning head…of course, we also know the theological ramifications of that, and here we are.
The concept of headship is not imported, it is taught throughout Scripture. It is found in Genesis. It is seen in the idea of a theocracy. It is seen in kings. It is seen in the idea of a priesthood and mediator.
The word is not always present, but the concept of a head is found throughout Scripture.
Are you not going to deal with the issue of the commands given to Adam?
Eph 5 does not even mention the home qua home. It is a head/body metaphor for both husband and wife AND Christ and the church. A head/body metaphor has nothing to do with the non-egal concept of headship. Do not teleport a 21st century concept of head meaning boss into a 1st century text where it does not mean that.
In the garden, the man was formed first and given changes. He had experiences the woman did not have. This does not mean he was her leader. This is entirely read into the text by non-egals.
The man was to till the trees and guard the garden. He failed in the latter task and this was the first sin. It was a sin of omission, not a sin of commission.
I think Florida should overwhelm Ten! Of course, I think UCLA will always be inconsistent with Nueheisel at the helm. He’s just that strange.
As a Florida grad it warms my heart to see people picking us to win.
Of course as a fan I am always nervous about rivalry games.
I think UF will win 35-24…but it will be a comfortable 11 pts.
He mentions the husband-wife relationship, and makes mention of the husband being the “head” (kephale) of the wife.
Since when are husband and wife relationships not dealing with the home?
Paul says the husband is the head/hephale of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church, his body. This is a head/body metaphor, twice, of organic unity, the one-flesh of marriage.
Paul did NOT say the husband is the head/kephale of the home, there is a difference.
Denny needs to change his header from:
A commentary about theology, politics and culture
A place where complimentarians and egalitarians can have the exact same conversation every four days
Hi; I’m from Canada and couldn’t care less about football. I am hoping that you will stick to the point of the post as Don, as far as I can see has you on the ropes and you-all are trying to change the subject which don’t look good on you.
Help me here.
I never said it said “head of the home”…but anyway…going with your interpretation for a moment, what does this passage teach?
We agree yet again.
All of Don’s ridiculous statements have been addressed. He has said nothing new that hasn’t been addressed 100 times. His hermeneutic is faulty and his exegesis is off. You must not be paying attention. 🙂
If there is something that has fallen through the cracks that needs to be addressed, please point it out.
If not, then either add to the discussion or keep your pot shots to yourself.
I’d also LOVE to see what you think he has posted that is convincing. Seems to me that everything has been answered.
Thanks for adding to this discussion.
Have you read this blog much? I so wish your user name were an application.
Deborah was a judge. but her case was quite odd, was it not? There were several oddities about her time as judge.
It brought about 40 years of peace.
Yes, praise God for using Deborah in the way that He did.
Has anyone EVER had their mind changed on this blog?
seriously, has a comp ever said “You know what guys, I was wrong I think we have done a disservice to women, your emotional yet biblical arguments have convinced me. I apologise to all the women I have hindered over the years”. Or has an egal ever said “Guys, your mildly arrogant, yet well worded arguments have convinced me. I have been a cancer to the church and I want to ask you for your forigiveness – I realise I have strayed from scripture and am now a fully fledged comp. Now I shall go tell all egals they are wrong”.
If this has never happened I wonder why we keep going over and over the same issue. I don’t bother getting involved in these discussions anymore as it appears like they get nowhere. Unfortunately the same could be said for a lot of discussions here. God is probably so bored and disappointed in the bickering.
Even your attempt at adding perspective was an attack on complementarians.
You proved your point quite nicely…even if by accident.
(BTW, I agree that this is going nowhere…which is why I quit the other day, but I got sucked back in. I think it is time to really be done with this.)
“Complementarians donâ€™t argue headship out of creation.”
Yes they do.
So, I am a proud father of 3 daughters and I want to teach them in the way they should go, I am sorry, I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, I read this to be informed and I pray for the Holy Spirits guidance. I can either stick my head in the sand and just stick with my tradition or I can learn from both perpectives, sorry if you think that is a pot shot
OK So Don Says of Eph. 5:23 “Christ is the church, his body,…” There lies the metaphor he speaks of, and as I see it, he has a point, Paul uses the metaphor of the church being his body so why should we (I’m a soft comp…) take it as a headship issue when Paul used it as a metaphor for Christs relationship to his church.
Sue, do you see it that way? As a metaphor for Christs relationship to His church or is this a headship passage?
Smart Comp/football guys, explain the headship part from what is clearly (to me) a metaphor, what am I missing??
Maybe I should just go stick my head in the sand, it’s so much easier… )c:
What a great name. I don’t have all the answers. But I do know that kephale was never used for leader, so we are starting with a blank slate there.
I think that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul was saying that God shares his nature with Christ and man with woman and Christ, as human, shares his nature with man. Paul was concerned about organic unity. This is the opinion of the church fathers, who did not see Christ as under God’s authority. At least that was not their concern. There concern was the nature of Christ.
In Eph. there is an extension of the metaphor. The household with the three asymmetric relations was an ideal paradigm in Greek literature. But it was only a paradigm, not a pragmatic reality. For example, Lydia, Nympha and Chloe were the householders in their families, and had slaves under them, it appears, and the slaves obeyed the female owner or mistress. Although legally a woman needed a man to do her banking, a wealthy woman could certainly own slaves.
So, a woman could be a slave owner, and a slave could be a husband, at least, in practice, although not without sharing his wife with the master.
But, my point is that in Eph. master is a designation of ownership, and not related in an intrinsic way to gender. Neither is a slave. So, in fact, there is no essential or actual connection between leadership and responsibility in the family and gender.
But, paradigmatically, as an ideal, there was. Paradigmatically, between husband and wife, the husband is stronger.
In Clement, there is mutual submission between the strong and the weak, the strong must give to the weak and the weak must be grateful.
So, if the husband has the income, he must give to the weaker, the wife, and she must be grateful. However, this is only a paradigm. The wife could be stronger, and over 50 years of age, it is about 50-50, who is stronger, who provides, who earns, who cares for the other.
At any age, a woman can earn, and provide. The paradigmatic relations are only an example or metaphor.
Between any two people the stronger must give freely to the weaker and the weaker must be respectful and appreciative.
On bringing up daughters, it is good to remember that it was Christian women who were the first medical doctors to graduate from the universities and work full time. It was Christian women who broke the gender barriers.
The truth is that some men and women are suited for careers and accomplishments and mission. And, some of us just have jobs and raise kids and that’s about it. There is nothing to say that a woman should, or should not have a career. However, to put women under men, a woman under her husband, or to exclude women from leadership in the church, is a bad business all around.
I am not a young person, and maybe it doesn’t seem so obvious when one is young, but now, to me, all exclusion of women is a petty and pitiful business.
‘I believe textually all we know is that God spoke to Adam about responsibilities.’
Do you not believe the woman’s testimony of what God told them both?
‘The command came before Eve was created. That is a HUGE deal, Don.’
The command was in the singular (to Adam alone) obviously before the woman was created, and then the woman says what God told them both ‘you’ pl (after her creation).
Truth Unites... and Divides
Sue, Don, Adam O., Lydia, et al…, what do you think of the following excerpt?
“… Thou shalt bear witness against the idea of the truth. But the linchpin of them all, it seems to me, is Egalitarianism. Now that egalitarianism somehow does not alter our shabby treatment of adjunct faculty, our sucking blood from the families of our students, and our cat-clawing scramble for perks and promotions. But alas, sin will always be with us; and it is dearly to be hoped that at the Second Coming of John Dewey, that great Egalitarian Snob, all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well, and the lady professor will lie down with the janitor, and they shall clean out the earth.
C. S. Lewis beheld this fundamentalism long ago, and it is really ridiculous for any attentive reader of his works to suggest otherwise. As my colleague Steve Hutchens has repeatedly pointed out, it’s not simply the case that Lewis was not an egalitarian. He was most ardently inegalitarian, and this inegalitarianism runs like a river through every one of his works. He was so, because he saw the goodness of inequality in Scripture, in the Renaissance and medieval poetry he loved, and in life.”
If Sue, Don, Adam O., Lydia, et al care to post comments about this, here’s the link to the thread: The Fundamentalist Egalitarian.
C.S. Lewis became more egalitarian over the course of his life, esp. after his marriage. This shows up in his later books, but they are not as popular as some of his earlier ones. Mary SVL has a great presentation on this.
Why does everyone forget Genesis 1?
You and MSVL can dream about an Egalitarian paradise with CSL as your patron saint – but I’ll put up Joseph Pearce’s scholarship on the subject against the both of you any day.
C.S. Lewis used the metaphor of a marriage being like a boat with 2 engines in the back. But this was in one of his last books.
He also wrote about smoking as a good thing.
I LOVE SOME of the things he wrote, they really helped me.
Who said that C.S. Lewis was an egalitarian? I’m confused. It seems obvious that he was pretty much not (see: Mere Christianity, the Narnia Books, the Space Trilogy, the one sermon about women being priests, etc). I don’t know if he changed over the course of his career/life, but he had some strong words to say against egalitarianism.
So, TUAD, I guess this boils down to: What’s your point? It’s just C.S. Lewis.
In his earlier and more famous books, he was not egal; but as MSVL points out, he moved towards egalism in his later books, she gives quotes in her talk, which I thought was very good.
Truth Unites... and Divides
The point is that revisionist egalitarians are not only wrong in their assessment of C.S. Lewis as an egalitarian, but that they are also invited to post their comments about egalitarianism on the referenced thread on Touchstone.
Of course, it would be understandable if the revisionist egalitarians who comment on Denny’s blog declined this invitation….
Don’t be silly TUAD. At Mere Comments, they have no conscience about just telling people that what they say is “stupid.” Refreshingly blunt but hardly an academic exchange.
“Of course, it would be understandable if the revisionist egalitarians who comment on Dennyâ€™s blog declined this invitationâ€¦.”
The last time I visted there, many of the commenters needed to have their mouths washed out with soap. Too much cussing for my taste. They will know we are Christians by our cussing? How can one defend hierarchy with scripture and cussing?
Truth Unites.. and Divides
Sue: “Donâ€™t be silly TUAD. At Mere Comments, they have no conscience about just telling people that what they say is â€œstupid.â€ Refreshingly blunt but hardly an academic exchange.”
I’m not being silly. I have witnessed a fair amount of academic exchanges in my lifetime, and they do let each other know in wonderfully creative ways when the other side’s arguments are unintelligent. Moreover, there are a fair number of academics who post at MereComments. If you feel like you’re out of your league, I can understand that.
After all, Don was soundly rebuked and refuted over there. Your friend Professor John Stackhouse was also soundly rebuked and refuted over there too. In fact, Stackhouse lost his cool and talked about engaging in fisticuffs.
Sue, you’re a revisionist egalitarian agitator. Along with your colleague Peter Kirk and others. And there are biblical complementarians who will contend vigorously against revisionist egalitarians. I know how Lane of Green Baggins convincingly answered you about authenteo. I know how Fr. Bill exposed your exegetical fallacies by pointing you to D.A. Carson’s work. Denny Burk has gone round and round with you over your assertions.
You tried to smear Dr. Grudem by claiming that Grudem says that God submits to man. Yet when Don says that Christ submits to him, there was nary a word of protest from your mouth about Don’s assertion. You have also tried to smear Dr. Ware by distorting what he has said. I repeat: Sue, you are an agenda-driven revisionist egalitarian agitator.
You have great leeway here on Denny’s blog. If you want to take your false teaching over to MereComments, you will be given the same leeway, and you can make the same arguments that you have repeated over and over again here over there.
On a sidenote, I do remember some commenter here (not me) saying that Don’s exegesis was “exegetical excrement”. I don’t know if that qualifies as “cussing”, but I thought it was vividly apt.
Yes, TUAD, I have read those exchanges. No, I don’t think I am out of my league.
The Mere Comments crew were unable to explain why the ESV has translated 2 Tim. 2:2 with “men” instead of “people” for the plural of anthropos. So is everyone else. It is not a difficult question. Why “people” in 1 Tim. 2:1 and “men” in 2 Tim. 2:2.
Denny hasn’t answered this, nor anyone at Mere Comments.
Truth Unites.. and Divides
“The Mere Comments crew were unable to explain why the ESV has translated 2 Tim. 2:2 with â€œmenâ€ instead of â€œpeopleâ€ for the plural of anthropos.”
Sue, can you show me the thread at MereComments where you asked the MereComments crew your question?
Since it is probably the only remaining interaction of mine that you have not found yet I would not want to deprive you of the fun of googling for it yourself.
Would you also like my picture? 😉
Truth Unites.. and Divides
Sue, go ahead and provide the link to the MereComments thread that you posted on.
I have not asked for your picture, but if you insist on providing it, I won’t say no. 😉
This is from when I went to Bibelschule in Swizterland.
I still don’t want to show you the thread from Mere Comments because they weren’t very nice to me. Call me vain, but no one like to be made fun of for their name.
I was in a play and got the part of a young man. I am a good actor as I am sure you can see.
Truth Unites.. and Divides
I still donâ€™t want to show you the thread from Mere Comments because they werenâ€™t very nice to me. Call me vain, but no one like to be made fun of for their name.
Sue, I’m not nice to false teaching either.
And if an egalitarian thinks complementarianism is false teaching, I have utterly no problems and no complaints with egalitarians not being nice about what they regard as false teaching.
It’s simply intellectual honesty.
Next. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if the MereCommenters made fun of your name, I should still like to peruse that thread for the substantive exchanges. I will ignore any comments about your name. I would simply like to verify and substantiate your claim that “the Mere Comments crew were unable to explain why the ESV has translated 2 Tim. 2:2 with â€œmenâ€ instead of â€œpeopleâ€ for the plural of anthropos.”
I was hardly refuted at “mere”. They do seem to be into bombast, which is not very Christian.
A believer is to show respect to all, regardless of whether they disagree with another on some thing.
Truth Unites.. and Divides
I was hardly refuted at â€œmereâ€.
Don, I think you were. Soundly too.
But if you don’t think so, press forward on MereComments as to why you don’t think you were refuted.
In case, you’ve forgotten, here’s the MereComments thread where you engaged in theological debate: Sanctified Incoherence.
My friend, I think I shall have to start calling you DonQ. Read Romans 1:21 and then tell me why you think Don and Suzanne are ever going to understand how well and truly spanked they have been by the MC crowd (and others).
In that thread, I eventually called for repentance from a disrespectful poster and the thread was shut down.
I did learn something there tho, that it was not worth posting there as disrespect was tolerated.
Truth Unites.. and Divides
My friend, I think I shall have to start calling you DonQ.
Ouch! Good one Kamilla. Alas, I am fruitlessly tilting at windmills.
Read Romans 1:21 and then tell me why you think Don and Suzanne are ever going to understand how well and truly spanked they have been by the MC crowd (and others).
Ouch again! Quite right. I don’t think they will ever understand (short of laying down their egalitarian pride and submitting to an intervention by the Holy Spirit) how well and truly spanked they have been by the MC crowd (and others).
Thanks Kamilla for your rescue call to this Don Quixote here. I shall cede the field to the revisionist egalitarians on Denny’s blog. Denny shall have to bear the burden if they sway and influence a young-in-the-faith Christian to support liberal revisionist egalitarianism.
I am not liberal and I am not a revisionist, altho restoration of God’s truth might look like revision to some.
Truth Unites... and Divides
A final thought.
Tony Esolen: “Think of that rich and complex tapestry of virtues, humility and proper pride, …, bound together in the love that wishes only to shower the beloved with greater and greater blessings. Now compare that with what the Fundamentalist Egalitarian believes. It is like comparing a hillside bursting in a wild variety of blooms with the dreary homogeneity of a parking lot.”
The true triune God, Creator and Maker of heaven and earth, has divinely designed rapturous, majestic, poetic, melodic complementary beauty for His beloved worshippers to praise and adore Him in.
The REAL Adversary has the pain of a mundane blandness of an eternal fire that burns everyone in it equally. Tis a sad pity.
“mundane blandness” of eguality, hardly. Each person is able to be all God wants them to be, without constraints of man-made limits.
I know Don Quixote. Don Quixote is a friend of mine. TUAD, you are NO Don Quixote.