• Truth Unites... and Divides

    Denny Burk: “Going forward, it is difficult to imagine how biblical directives about male-only elders can withstand the logic of a trajectory hermeneutic.

    Modifying slightly…

    “Going forward, it is difficult to imagine how most biblical directives can withstand the (perverted) logic of a trajectory hermeneutic.”

    Therefore: “Eventually, all apparent limitations will be deemed as reflecting a “transitional ethic” that no longer applies to contemporary culture.

    Denny continues: “Third and finally, the trajectory hermeneutic remains a threat to the functional authority of the Bible in the life of God’s people. Wayne Grudem’s warning in this regard is still relevant: “Webb’s trajectory hermeneutic nullifies in principle the moral authority of the entire New Testament and thus contradicts the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.” For this reason, we do not view the changes at IBC with indifference. The situation is a matter of grave moral concern because it amounts to a setting aside of the clear teachings of scripture (e.g.,1 Tim 2:12) in favor of misguided hermeneutical criteria.

    Perhaps more than ever before, it is clear that this debate is unfolding as a contention about the authority of scripture itself.

    Indeed. And if the Authority of Scripture is set aside…

    … anarchy, confusion, and chaos ensues.

    “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25b)

  • Kathy

    Eve came out of her deception, Gen 3.

    Paul talks about 2 women in v.14, one he names and the other he does not. They are Eve and then the woman he began writing about from v.11. The woman Paul is speaking of was deceived at the time he wrote the letter, yet Eve was dead at that time besides the fact that she had come out of being deceived shown by her words to God.

    ‘A woman’ means in this context, 1 particular woman, who was deceived at the time Paul wrote 1 Tim 2. That is who Paul stopped, a woman from teaching her husband.

  • Kathy

    In Genesis there is no mention that either Adam or Eve taught eachother God’s command and that would be because we have God telling Adam the prohibiton and also the woman’s testimony that God told them both the prohibition. The prohibiton is actualy said 4 times in different ways in Genesis. So God was the one who gave them his word and the same would be today, especialy since his laws are written on our hearts.

    So why don’t we have a record of Adam giving Eve the prohibition, if only men are to teach?

    While not even Adam gave God’s prohibiton to Eve, also not even Paul gives permission to men alone to teach doctrine in 1 Tim 2 because rather he stops a deceived woman from teaching a man.

  • Don

    A few points:

    1. Going beyond the Bible should always be a concern. Yes, it would be possible to use trajectory hermeneutics to end up in lala land.

    2. One does not need trajectory hermeneutics to be a Biblical egal.

    3. There is the opposite of trajectory hermeneutics that is also a concern and this is “transporter hermeneutics” where one takes texts written 2000 years ago in a very different culture and transports them into the 21st century directly. Yes, this is done all the time, indeed it is the naive way to read Scripture, outside of the cultural context in which it was written.

  • podman

    I’ve been following many of the comments on the Egal / Complementarian topics and have a couple of questions:

    1. In the Bible Does God ever prescribe behaviors / actions without a reason for those prescriptions (and possibly rammifications of those behaviors / actions are not followed?). In other words, can we ever only answer a question of “Why does God ask us to do something?” with an answer of “Because he’s God and he can” or does the Bible usually contain a reason that we can understand more easily?

    2. What happens when a woman teaches in front of men at church? Is God displeased? Does this result in a backsliding church? Does it result in a church who does not follow Jesus?

    The reason i ask is that i attended the service at Irving Bible Church where Jackie Roese taught and i was impressed with her message. I came away wondering if it was harmful for people at church to hear the message since she was female and if so, why was it harmful.

  • Brian (Another)

    3. I understand this when saying we don’t live in a theocracy (see some OT law). But how does the “texts written 2000” comment not instantaneously go to allowing divorce (we legally pursue deadbeat dads, the culture is different), premarital sex (we have protection and birth control, now, the culture is different!), homosexuality (the culture 2000 years ago just didn’t understand the behavior (see the Ray Boltz post)), or even meeting at church (hey, not everyone was educated and could read the bible plus we have the internet now, the culture is different.), etc., etc.? I know we take culture into account, but how do we get a moral application to be the polar opposite of what is cited based on “texts written 2000 years ago in a very different culture”.

  • Don

    Here is what I do:
    1. Try my best to discern what the text MEANT to the original readers. The biggest potential gap in one’s knowledge is cultural context. It is also true that every word and even letter can be critical to understand the intent.

    2. Do my best to APPLY what it meant to what it means today.

    It is always a 2 step process. Trying to do it as a 1 step process can often mean losing context and intent. It can also mean misunderstanding some text in some cases.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.