Cheryl Schatz

NN,
You said:

Being of the power and authority of God, He chose a life of service to those under His authority. I agree that Christ is the perfect example of husbandly love (just as Paul said) – but realize that Christ’s serving us does not lessen His authority over us. The words and instructions of Christ are authoritative because they come from authority; from the Christ – our celestial and ultimate Bridegroom to the Church; of whom our present marriages are but shadows.

While I agree that before He came here to the earth He was in the very essence of God with all power, all authority and all glory. But He limited Himself so that He could be like us. He did not keep these rights as God and hold onto them, but willingly gave them up so that He could operate as a human as we do waiting for authority delegated by His father and power approved by God and eventually His own full glory would be given back so that we will see Him as He is.

John 17:1–2, 5 (NASB)
1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Notice that in Jesus’ high priestly prayer, he admitted that He had been given authority to give people eternal life. He also asked for the glory that He previously had and had not yet been given back. We can understand that it is only because Jesus became human that He had to be given authority. As God before He emptied Himself he already had that authority. I believe that Scripture is clear that Jesus the son of man was given authority because it was His rightful authority that He gave up in emptying Himself in order to come to the earth.

Hi NN,
Thanks for the reply and for trying to be brief. I do need to work on that as well as brevity is not my best characteristic. 😉

No, He didn’t. He gave up His rights certainly (e.g. Phil 2:7) – but nowhere are we told that He gave up His authority. In fact we are told quite the opposite in a great many places (e.g. Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, etc.)

Actually may I respectfully say that you are wrong? In my work with Jehovah’s Witnesses they use Scriptures like Matthew 28:18 to prove that Jesus did not have authority on His own but was given authority. This is where Philippians 2 comes in that Jesus gave up his rights to act independently as God so that He could live as a man. One of the rights that He gave up was His authority. That is why it was completely necessary for all authority to be given back to Jesus. He had it in the beginning as He existed as God but in His humility in coming as a man He gave up that right.

Since you quoted Matthew 28:18 you could explain to me how it is that Jesus had to be given all authority if He never gave it up in the first place? How is it that He was given something that He already had?

And on the other verse you referenced:

Matthew 9:6 (NASB95)
6 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”

This is a verse that I often use with Jehovah’s Witnesses to prove that Jesus had authority on earth to forgive sins. But this authority was given to Him just as eventually He received back all authority. This verse in no way disproves that Jesus was given this authority or that Jesus did not give up all of His rights when He came to the earth.

I will continue commenting on another comment number so that my questions are separated and I stay on the brief side. 😉

Hi Tiffany,
Thanks for adding your comments to this discussion.

I understand that you are looking for charitable discussion and so am I. May I respectfully say that you may have misunderstood me and thus see my comments as inflammatory when they are never meant to be that way?

You introduce NN’s argument in the most inflammatory way possible. Yes, in his post he points out that all of the relationships that are listed in Eph 5 and that Paul (not NN, but paul) uses the same word for all of them. That is far different than saying that the marriage relationship is like that of master-slave.

Actually that is not what I said. I didn’t say that NN said the marriage relationship is said to be the same as master/slave. I said that he said the submission is said to be the same. NN draws a hierarchal ordering in marriage submission and a hierarchal ordering in the slave/master submission. Yet he doesn’t see a hierarchical ordering in “normal” Christian interaction when we submit to one another. But in addition to the “normal”

But apparently he doesn’t see an equal submission for the husband and the master in these “parallel” sets so that only the slave submits and the master does not and only the wife submits and the husband does not.

It is not inflammatory to repeat back what the person has said (i.e. that two kinds of submission are related) but it would certainly be inflammatory if I had stated that NN was saying that the wife was to grovel at her husband’s feet waiting for his next command. Do you see the difference? Questioning one’s position and repeating back the statements that have been made are good communication skills. They promote communication.

I sense that you are very sensitive to this kind of discussion. Perhaps an egalitarian has been rude to you in the past and caused you to have pain. If that is the case, I am very sorry if you have been hurt by anyone calling themselves an egalitarian who is insensitive and/or condescending. But I assure you that this is not how I feel nor do I wish to express my passion in a way that would misrepresent another. This is one of the reasons that I welcome those who have opposing views to dialog here. I believe that talking through these issues is a very helpful thing so that even in the end if we were to agree to disagree, we would have a better view of what each of us believes and why we believe it. It allows us to give the other space on the non-essentials while we can have love and respect for each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Is it possible to give me the benefit of the doubt and ask me what I mean rather than assume that I am being inflammatory? If by your questions I can see that I have stated things in a wrong manner, it gives me the ability to correct my misstatement and apologize for inadvertently hurting someone’s feelings. It is not my intention to see my complementarian brothers and sisters in Christ as the enemy. They are to be loved and respected even if I disagree with their views.

I hope this helps. 🙂

TL,
E-sword has some good Greek tools. You can down load it here http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html

As far as hegeomai here are some lexical meanings. Unfortunately my blog won’t all foreign character so the Greek words and phrases will be missing:

to go before, lead the way, Hom., etc.:—c. dat. pers. to lead the way for him, guide, conduct, Id.:—also, to go before on the way, Lat. praeire viam, Od.
2. c. dat. pers. et gen. rei, to be ones leader in a thing, to lead the song, Id., etc.
3. c. acc. rei, to lead, conduct,
II. to lead an army or fleet, c. dat., Hom., etc.:—c. gen. to be the leader or commander of, Id.
2. absol., the rulers, Soph.; leading men, N.T.
III. to suppose, believe, hold,
2. with an attributive word added, to hold or regard as king,
3. to believe in gods,
4. to think it fit, deem it necessary to do,
IV. the pf. is used in pass. sense,
Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (347).

3. hegeomai (2233) primarily signifies “to lead”; then, “to consider”; it is translated “accounting” in Heb. 11:26, RV (KJV, “esteeming”); 2 Pet. 3:15, “account.” See CHIEF, COUNT, ESTEEM, GOVERNOR, JUDGE, RULE, SUPPOSE, THINK.
   Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vol. 2: Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (9).

4. to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide; in our lit. only pres. ptc. of men in any leading position (Soph., Phil. 386; freq. Polyb.; Diod S 1, 4, 7; 1, 72, 1; Lucian, Alex. 44; 57; ins, pap, LXX, EpArist; TestZeb 10:2; ViEzk 2 [p. 74, 7 Sch.]; Just., A II, 1, 1; Tat.; Mel., HE 4, 26, 10; Ath. 1, 2) ruler, leader (opp. the servant) Lk 22:26. Of princely authority (Ezk 43:7; Sir 17:17; 41:17) Mt 2:6; 1 Cl 32:2; 60:4.—Of high officials Ac 7:10; MPol 9:3; 1 Cl 5:7; 51:5; 55:1. Of military commanders (Appian, Iber. 78 §333, Bell. Civ. 3, 26 97; 1 Macc 9:30; 2 Macc 14:16) 37:2f. Also of leaders of religious bodies PVindBosw 1, 31 [87 A.D.] Cp. also Sir 33:19 Sb 7835 [I B.C.], 10; 14 the [monarchic] of the cultic brotherhood of Zeus Hypsistos) of heads of a Christian congregation Hb 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cl 1:3.leading men among the brothers/members Ac 15:22. FBüchsel, TW II 909f.—Of Paul taken to be Hermes the chief speaker 14:12

5. to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard (Trag., Hdt.+) 2 Cor 9:5; Phil 2:25. Phil 3:8a …
   Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (434).

hegeomai.
1. This word means a. “to lead,” b. “to think,” “believe,” “regard as.” In the NT it occurs in sense a. only in the present participle (see 2.), but is widespread in sense b. (though not found in the Johannine writings). “To esteem” is the point in 1 Th. 5:13 (as in Thucydides 2.89.9).
2. a. hegoumenoi (mostly plural) is used for community leaders in Heb. 13:7, 17, 24. These are examples of faith (v. 7) and pastors responsible to God (v. 17); they are thus to be obeyed (v. 17), and are mentioned before the saints (v. 24). Yet according to Lk. 22:26 the hegoumenos is to be as one who serves—a necessary check on officialdom. Judas and Silas are called “leading men” among the brethren in Acts 15:22.
b. hegoumenoi can also be leaders outside the community, e.g., military leaders in 1 Macc. 9:30, national leaders in Ezek. 43:7, princes in 1 Clem. 5.7, leading priests in the papyri. Quoting Mic. 5:1ff., Mt. 2:6 has the term for a national ruler, and Acts 7:10 has it for Joseph as the governor of Egypt.
Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (303).

I hope that helps!

NN,
Thanks for joining in the discussion so that we can work on clarification on this issue and a sense of unity in our love for the Lord Jesus and each other.

A few points are necessary to clarify the content of what I said and to point out that the logical demonstration which I described regarding a biblical understanding of gender roles in marriage was not even addressed by the above discussion.

My article was on the issues and context of Ephesians 5. I may write another article going into the other epistles but for this article my comments were long enough and the still emphasis on mutual submission must not be missed by moving on to another passage. We have to remember that the Scripture does not contradict itself and when Paul emphasized mutual submission, the other epistles will not contradict this to announce female and slave submission only.

The logical argument is straightforward (and not based primarily on Eph 5):
~Both Peter & Paul explicitly instruct wives to “hupotassoe” their husbands in several places in the epistles.

Your “logical” argument would hold water if you could prove that submission is limited within the marriage unit to wives alone and disallowed for men to practice. The problem that you would have in Ephesians 5 (which is what my article is specifically focusing on) is that submission in marriage and submission in our Christian faith is linked to one verb found only in the verse describing our mutual submission.

So the question begs to be answered – does God forbid men to submit to their wives in marriage? Emphasizing one half of the relationship does not qualify as a prohibition on husbands submitting to their wives.

The next question that begs to be answered – does God model humble submission as an example for all godly Christian husbands and does He desire that husbands go even beyond submission to the point of giving up their male “rights”?

If we see Jesus as the perfect example of husbandly love, the very first thing that we see Him doing in coming to earth is giving up His rights and His authority so that He can live for and die for His bride.

I think I will create a second article to deal with the other instances of submission in the epistles. Watch for it shortly as I get time to put together a new article.

~ This command [to submit] as given explicitly to the wife in the marital relationship, while the husband is not instructed in the same way [but rather to love the wife]. This gives clear indication of hierarchy within the marital relationship is given.

There is no clear “indication” of hierarchy. Is the command to love one’s spouse something given only to men? Obviously not. And the clear indication of mutual submission for all Christians cannot be exempting husbands unless that is explicitly stated. Where is there anyplace in the Scriptures that the apostles stated that husbands are disallowed from submitting to their wives as that would be against their “office” or “rights” as men or husbands? I find it amazing at how much we “read into” the text our own bias. Let’s work hard to unload our own bias so that we can see what the text actually says.

The commentary on Ephesians 5:21 is a secondary issue to the logical proof given above. It is simply meant to clarify the question of “if ‘hupotassoe’ means ‘submit’ then how can it be mutual and how can there be hierarchy within marriage when all christians are instructed to ‘submit’ to each other. The simple answer of course is that within a christian marriage there are at least two distinct aspects to the relationship involved: the people are both christians and they are husband/wife. As christians the relationship is governed by love [agapaoe] and this leads to mutual ‘submission’ however in the marital relationship a second type of love also exists [eros] which is not intrinsic to all christian relationships, and this type of love is naturally hierarchical as established by God.

First of all the establishment of marriage was set up in Genesis. Where is there a hierarchy set up there? I don’t see it at all. The statement that married eros love is “naturally hierarchical” is not supported by God’s Word in the Genesis account. It may be your desire to have hierarchy in your marriage, but it is another thing to claim that Scripture supports that hierarchy.

Secondly agape love transcends any other kind of love and so if there were a competing kind of love in a relationship it must be under agape love not forcing agape love under submission to a lesser love. Agape is God’s kind of love and it is the highest of all.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (NASB) But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love (agape).

Where is the proof that another kind of love will force agape love to be underneath and subordinate to a secondary kind of love? This is an interesting concept that you have come up with, but your proof is sorely lacking. Agape love is the highest love and is not under subjection to eros love.

Two loose ends that I particularly want to address:
– I did not say that the submission of the wife was the same as a master-slave relationship.

You did say that the instructions are the same for both wives and slaves and the same word used. If you are not saying that the submission of women is the same as submission of slaves then why did you link the two? What is the sameness that you are claiming?

This raises a question of why God didn’t say that if the marital relationship contains hierarchy. The answer is the same reason that God did not tell the wife “make sure your husband shows sacrificial love for you.” We are each told our own responsibilities, when we worry about this then the rest is for God to handle.

But the point that I was making is that God gave no “responsibility” for the man to take authority over his wife. We cannot claim a hierarchical right of authority to the man without God giving Him that authority. In fact no authority is legitimate unless God gives it out as a right so that no one can claim an authority for themself. My point still stands that God gave no right of authority of a husband over his wife. It matters not that God didn’t talk to her about His plan for authority of the man. It does matter whether He assigned that authority over the wife to the man. God did not do that so for anyone to claim an authority that has not been God-given is usurping what belongs to God alone.

But even in our daily lives it is plain just how much trouble arises when people are more concerned about how other people aren’t living up to their end of the bargain than in living up to their own responsibilities.

Sure, I can agree with that. But that doesn’t take away the fact that men have claimed something as belonging to them that does not. No man has been given a male-right of authority over a woman. God’s plan is that all should grow up to maturity and learn how to make decisions on their own. To place women under the authority of men would mean that God made women inferior in that they need an eternal supervisor to keep them from failing. This takes away from the place of the Holy Spirit who alone is needed to keep us on track and growing in the knowledge of the Truth.

Hi Jane,

I appreciate your thoughts and you taking time to record your angst against religion. But I would like to say that the failures of men do not indict the Ancient of Days who created us. His way is far different than our traditional ways. I created a new post that lists His ideals in how the man should treat the woman as by His own example. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/

NN has sent me an email giving a link to a couple of articles that he placed on his own blog. I have done a new blog post responding to NN’s blog posts here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/

Charles, welcome! Thanks for your comments and your suggestion. Unfortunately I don’t think I will be redoing the graphics anytime soon and the utility knife (unfortunately I am not an expert on knives!) will have to do with the comic type characters, but I think we all know that the instrument of the removal of the skin would have been the sharpest knife. If I ever find myself with nothing else to do, I could always consider re-doing the graphic by looking for another example of a scalpel. A worthy suggestion never-the-less.

Jessica,
You said:

I have not always been a complementarian and have been humbled in the past few years as I have discovered what I believe to be the gracious design that God has for men and women.

It is interesting that for me it was just the opposite. We became egalitarians both from the Scriptures and from having the comp model fail to bring either one of us happiness. My husband was gracious and humble enough to admit that he did not have the ability to mold me into the vision he had for me and he did not have the ability to understand what was the best decision for me as a person. By making all the decisions in the marriage it only kept me in a dependent state unable to be mature. It wasn’t until he gave everything over to God and allowed me to fall down on my own that I grew tremendously. No longer did I need to have my husband make my decisions so I wouldn’t fail. I learned how to make independent and wise decisions and he supported me in my journey of growing and maturing. It was a scary time for us since neither of us had experienced the egal way before, but neither one of us would go back. I have as much an attitude of submission as I did before but I also now take responsibility for my own decisions and I make them wisely and carefully with God’s direction and my husband’s input. When my husband started to submit in this way and let go of the control that he believed he was entrusted with, both of us experienced the joy of equality in the Lord in a way that was not possible before.

I think that we often see the word submission and think weakness. I do not…I think true power…just as Christ’s submission to the Father brought about redemption for each one of us.

Excellent thought! I have had a real turnabout since becoming an egal. I now understand that submission is a beautiful thing and by submitting I am able to experience the gifts of the Lord through others. Since we have not been given the mandate to take authority over others and make them learn from us, others will not experience the blessing that God has for them through His gifts in us unless they submit to receive. So I see submission as not only a way to bless my husband or another brother or sister in the Lord, but I see it as a way to be blessed by receiving. If I am too proud to submit then I won’t receive God’s gift through them either. And I only want God’s best.

It certainly may have an awful lot to do with listening and submitting to the Holy Spirit. That is the key to providing Godly leadership and on the other hand allowing wives to be joyfully submitting to that leadership.

Here is where we have some differences. I see leadership as leading in one’s gifts but I don’t see leadership as something that a wife needs from her husband as if she is unable to reach maturity and must have a leader over her. I see this as a way to get in between the Lord, who is the only true leader above us, and ourselves. All over leaders are to lead by example and they are beside us as we look to Jesus. A husband needs his wife to lead with her gifts just as much as she needs him to lead in his gifts. But he doesn’t need her to lead him just like she doesn’t need him to lead her. We have one Lord, not two and one Master and Leader, not two. When we keep our eyes only on the Lord Jesus we will grow in maturity not staying in a dependent position needing an earthly leader who makes all of the final decisions for us.

If it was me it would feel like a huge sacrifice to step away from that for any reason. That is why I feel such respect for his thoughtful wisdom to take this leave of absence.

I agree that this must have been very hard for him and as one in ministry myself, I know that time away from ministry is extremely hard for me. I would go crazy if I had to be away from ministry for 8 months!

I would add that all of those parts have a purpose and it is crucial that our body parts/organs fulfill that purpose. That is the way God designed them. The heart needs the kidneys to filter the blood but the kidneys can’t do the same job the heart does.

The difference here is that God created and “gifted” the kidneys to do the filtering and He did not “gift” them to pump blood. But what if He had “gifted” them to pump blood? Would they be in error to do what He had gifted them to do? I think this is the crux of the matter. If God had not intended for women to be teachers or preachers, etc, then He would never have gifted them in this way. God is not one who taunts us with His gifts to sin by using them. He gifts those who are, by the evidence of their gift, empowered to serve in that gift for His glory.

I would pose the idea that submission is not always synonymous with hierarchy. All parts are necessary yet our parts maintain different roles.

I agree that submission is not always synonymous with hierarchy. But I maintain that anything less than willing submission is. I am happy to submit because that is my nature. But God has not kept me out of a servant “role” in any way except by not gifting me. God’s gifts are His endorsement to serve in that area and when He does not gift, I believe a person should not grumble about it, but be happy to serve in whatever way God has gifted them.

Equal in value yet different in purpose and the way in which the great glory of God is displayed.

We are indeed equal in value and individually we are different in purpose. But the question is always going to be whether God has forbidden a member to fulfill a purpose that he/she has been gifted by the Holy Spirit to fulfill. I say that the empowering of the Holy Spirit through His gifts are the decisive factor rather than mankind’s idea of what are proper roles for individuals depending on their race, social standing or gender. For if we have different ideas of what is proper, I think that we can join together with the Apostles who accepted the Holy Spirit’s gifting the Gentiles as proof that their own preconceived ideas of human limits by human category were not to be limits on God. I accept that and I glorify God in His wisdom that gifts and empowers any member of the body to do however He gifts them. If I see man made limits as conflicting with the gifts of God, I will bow to God’s wisdom knowing that His way is the best. He simply cannot empower us with His gifts and then us using these gifts be a cause of sin. It is not consistent with His nature.

Pride is evil…it will destroy us no matter what “ideas” we cling to. Christ crucified is the only “good news” all the rest is just gravy ; )

I couldn’t agree with you more! Praise the Lord that He allows us to have these minor differences so that the ties of love between us can show the world that it isn’t sameness that binds us together, but that God Himself binds us into one body that LOVES each other for the sake of Jesus.

Jessica,
I was a complementarian for most of my life as I was raised that way. I also don’t think that Piper would consider himself “submitting” to Noel, but to me that is an evidence of the pride that he has admitted. When one sets aside their own best interests to help another for the other person’s benefit it doesn’t matter if one calls this a “sacrifice” or “submission”. It is the same thing and just as wives can sacrifice for their husbands, so husbands can submit to their wives. However for a male to deny that it could be any kind of submission speaks to me of a pride still lurking within that says the action would qualify as something only women are to do as if women are somehow beneath a man.

The fact is that we are all called to the place o submission in the body of Christ. The body cannot function properly unless the parts submit to the service that each part provides. Can you imagine if the heart were to say that I refuse to submit to receive blood that has been cleaned by the kidney’s? There would be death instead of life. Each part must serve the other body parts and each body part must submit to receive the life giving benefit that the others provide.

For one to say that I will do what is needed but just don’t call it submission, shows an attitude that is not yet fully humble. Pride can rear up in us at any time and we need to deal with it, but the pride that some of these complementarian leaders have can be especially hard to manage. Their exalted position on top of their natural pride as a male can be a daunting task to conquer their pride. But we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. And Christ is an excellent example of a male who lived a life of submission to the full extent of His complete sacrifice of His life. The fact that John Piper recognizes that he has a pride issue and is taking the time necessary to deal with is and to lift his wife up in love is a very commendable act.

I am pleased when complementarians come here to dialog in a respectful manner. It is a good reminder that no secondary issue like this should divide us. We are joined and knitted together in love with one Lord Jesus as our common source.

PRIEST,
I think that questions are worthy of being asked and answered and this is how we learn from one another. There are so many “one another”s in the Scripture.

Sounds to me like you are on the right track by recognizing a weakness within yourself. The first step is seeing one’s own need to change. I think you have come past that. Praise the Lord!

Jessica,
Amen! And welcome to my blog.

Rachel Ann, welcome to my blog! I agree that the statement you pulled out is quite incredible. I listen to this type of teaching and wonder how people can so easily accept it without question. Perhaps we are into the worship of a man where if you are a popular pastor, it doesn’t matter what you teach, it is accepted.

PRIEST, you said:

Oh….and thank you for this forum.

You are welcome! Thanks for stopping by and I hope you visit here again and join in the discussion.

PRIEST, welcome to my blog! You asked:

How did Eve know the rule about the tree?

We know in Genesis 1 that God speaks to both Adam and Eve about what they may eat. He gives them both permission to eat from every tree that has seed bearing fruit. This would encompass the prohibition also since logically the forbidden tree could not have seed bearing fruit. Since God spoke to both of them about what they could eat and since Eve quotes God’s words to the serpent about the forbidden fruit, by Eve’s testimony we know that she heard the command from God Himself.

If she was told it would not her response to the serpent be the first sin…lying?

No. It was Eve’s testimony that God said what she quoted and neither God nor Adam accused her of lying so her testimony stands as true. Somewhere God spoke these words to Adam and Eve together and His words are quoted and defended by the woman. There is no reason to believe that she lied.

How do we know where Adam was when Eve was being decieved?

The Bible says that Adam was “with” Eve when she took of the fruit. The Hebrew means: together with, in company with. He was right there by her side.

If Adam was there did he then commit a sin of omission letting his wife be tricked?

It was worse than just omission. If a watchman on the wall fails to warn the city, he isn’t guilty of omission. He is guilty of treason. God calls Adam’s sin as treachery in Hosea 6:7.

If the roles in a marriage are established scripturally why is there a debate about the roles of men and women in ministry? When all is said and done can we not tell by the fruit of the ministry if God is being honored by it?

Amen! The gift that comes from God Himself and the godly use of that gift is all that is needed to show the good fruit. Those who want to see this as contradicting another passage in Scripture should question whether it might be their own understanding of that Scripture that is in conflict with God’s gifts and the work of God’s Holy Spirit through any vessel that He chooses.

Frank,
Excellent thoughts and a great question!

There is a God-ordained method to solve the complementarians problems with gifts. If God stopped gifting women then who would argue with restrictions if women were never gifted in that area anyway? I have never yet heard a convincing argument why God gifts women with gifts for preaching and teaching and shepherding. How can one argue that God doesn’t gift women in this way when it is so evident that many are gifted? If all it took was for God to withhold these “male” gifts from women, the case would be closed. After all who would argue for the freedom of pink elephants to minister if there are no pink elephants? 😉

Kirsten,
Here is another…if men cannot listen to what women are teaching, then how will they be able to keep watch on any error that might be taught? How can one evaluate truth from error without actually listening to what is taught?

Carin,
Welcome to my blog!

Women can minister under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely. The Holy Spirit can use anyone He wants to and we cannot stop His moving through a female vessel.

For some reason this post is failing to load some of the time and I am thinking that this is because we have gone way past 400 comments. So I have created a new post calling it part 2 at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/14/sin-nature-through-man-2/ Could we please comment on this new post so that we won’t have any more problems with the massive amount of comments that have come through?

Thanks!

Charis,
Ah, yes, typo. It should be commendation and since I have blogmaster privileges I will go back and fix my mistake. Thanks for catching that typo for me. Yes, indeed the term condemnation would not fit what I was saying.

Charis,
In comment #79 you said:

Perhaps Adam put his wife before God and decided that since she was going to die, he would join her in death?

Hmmm…that would be an odd way to put one’s wife before God especially since he said nothing while she took of the fruit and ate it even though he was not deceived and had the ability to warn her and plead with her not to die. If he then said to himself, “While she is going o die so I will die too and that way I will put my wife before God and lay down my life for her…” it wouldn’t also fit that after they are “found out” he blames his wife for his sin instead of continuing to lay down his life for her and take the fall for her. And it seems to be that God gives Adam no commendation for his way of loving her enough to lay down his life for her (after refusing to lift a finger to help her when she was in her deception).

But as you so aptly put it, anyone (including a wife) who has been given the charge to be a watchman and who understands the lie and the deception is required to speak up and say something so that her husband and her kids are not deceived.

Thanks for your comments, Charis!

Mark, you said:

Thankyou for your comments. A few points… you are correct that the verb to be in verse 1 is a present participle- I missed that and I’m glad you corrected me. However this does not change a thing, since a present participle is used as a contrast. For example it is very hard to translate that into English, but the most ‘wooden’ approach is to apply the word ‘while’. Thus the verse would read…”while you were dead in your trespasses…God made you alive”, thus the present participle stills gives the contrasting effect- thus why it is in the present tense. At the very time when God made us alive in Christ, we were presently dead in sin. So therefore the present participle of ‘to be’ still in effect constrasts a previous state to a new one.

The problem with this thinking is that if God wanted to clearly state that it was a previous state the aorist would be the tense that He could have used. But if the action was ongoing…. then the present tense is the correct tense to use just as was inspired.

Now like I have said the context ought to decide. Now it is clear in verses 1-10 that Paul is constrating a past situation with a new. He is not saying you can be both dead and alive at the same time. My position (and in fact pretty much all greek commentators) is also confirmed by the rest of the chapter. Look at verses 11 to the end of the chapter. Paul is calling them to ‘remember’ their ‘flesh’ nature and how they were seperated from Christ, but now in Christ they have been changed.

Paul is saying that they are to be dead to that nature, not just to remember it. If we are dead to sin then it has no hold over us.

So although the present can imply a continuous event, to interpret in this way divorces the verse from the context of the passage.

Now in relation to Rom 6:11 you have made the same mistake. Look at the conjunctions ‘men’ and ‘de’ Now if you know how these conjunctions work, you would know that when the two are used in the constructing precisely like Rom 6:11, a contrast is being made. So the verse essentially said “consider yourselves to be (on the one hand) dead to sin but (on the other hand) alive to God”. See the contrast? The conjunctions are used grammatically in this way to make that contrast. So no, Paul is not saying you can be both dead and alive at the same time. We are dead to sin because we are alive in Christ, in the same way as Eph 2, when we were dead in sins, but are now alive in Christ.

The contrast through ‘de’ does not mean that we are not both things at the same time. Consider Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 6:10

2 Corinthians 6:10 (NASB)
10 as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things.

Paul had nothing yet possessed all things. There is a contrast here for sure but the text reveals that Paul is claiming to be both having nothing and possessing all things.

“This is something that we can all search and dig deeply into God’s word for the truth is worth the effort.”

This is very true. But the problem I see with your view, is that you are divorcing the verses from their context, and therefore not allowing the actual inspired grammar to function properly. Sure a present tense can be a continuous state of being, as your grammar friend has pointed out, but and it’s a big but, the context always decides the meaning.

I went through the passage very carefully going verse by verse from Ephesians 1 and the context is God’s power over sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus and that “in Him” we have all things placed under our feet. This includes the very sin that we struggled with in the past and the sin that conquered us. Paul is saying that we are dead to that sin through the death of Jesus and that our life is lived through Christ because it was his death to sin that accomplished our mastery over sin. We indeed are dead to sin and alive to Christ. Both things are true. While you may not want to believe this because your Calvinism forces you to hold onto the only verse that can be used to say that dead unbelieving men were raised with Christ in the heavens, the fact is that my explanation is both consistent with the text and consistent with the entire text of Scripture that expresses a power over sin through the death of Christ. It is this consistent message that is the basis of the gospel.

You need to show from the context of Eph 2 how your grammar construction makes sense.

I have already done this. Unfortunately the comment I am quoting here was written by you before I was able to have time to write my verse by verse explanation of Eph. 1 & 2.

As for Roman’s 6, you are simply wrong becasue the conjunctions are clear and cannot be interpreted in the way you have said.

Again you have overstated your case. If Romans 6:11 cannot mean that we are dead (to sin) and alive (to Christ) at the same time, then Paul’s writing that he is both poor and rich at the same time cannot also be true. The fact that the expression of opposite truths that are both true at the same time can be accepted as written is not refuted by your view. To say that the conjunction must represent a contrasting view where both cannot be true at the same time is false and is easily disproven as I have shown above.

Well, I think if I am not mistaken, I have come to the end of the comments that I needed to respond to. Yeah!! 😉 Now it is time to wait for Mark to come back to life. Likely his wife is either in the process of having her baby or the busy time of post baby has begun and so Mark has not returned here likely for a good reason. So when you are ready Mark, I welcome you back. Where were we in John 6? I think it is your turn for the verse by verse exegesis.

Mark, you quoted me and then said:

“There is a difference between giving of the person and enabling them to believe.”

I’m not so sure. Look at how the terms are used interchangeably in John 6
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The NIV translates the last one ‘enabled’. So it appears that the three terms ‘gives’, enables/granted and ‘draws’ mean similar things. They all relate to the father giving to the Son. The first three relate the truth of assurance of salvation. The last one relates back to the third one. To me John 6 shows that these terms are synonomous.

Giving of a person is not the same as granting the ability to come to Jesus. Verse 37 & 39 are talking about those who belong to the Father and verses 44 & 65 are not about a specific people given to Jesus but about the generic drawing that is done with all of mankind.

When you say that “gives” means the same thing as “enabled” and “draws” you have really overstated your case. First of all the Father only “gives” people who belong to Him. But the enabling and the drawing are never said to be done to only those who are already believers in the Father. Jesus Him self said that He would draw all men to Himself. He didn’t say that He would draw all believers in the Father to Himself. To make three separate terms to be synonymous is a grace error and no wonder you had to say “To me John 6 shows that these terms are synonomous.” You can think anything you want to but that doesn’t mean that you an create synonyms between words that deal with different kinds of people. While John talks about “all” as a group that has been promised that they would all come to Jesus, there are others who are drawn but they are not promised that they will come to Jesus. We cannot equate the two groups of people otherwise we would have to say that all people belong to the Father and that is not true. Only believers actually belong to the Father.

“No, not true. We are all commanded to fear God and God is righteous enough to give us the ability to fear Him.”

I like this. It seems you finally admit that it is God who ‘gives’ us the ability to fear Him. You have never admitted that before. You have previously said that Job ‘fearing God’ was from his own free-will.

You greatly misunderstand. Without God granting us the ability to believe and the ability to fear Him, we can do nothing without His enabling. Yet just because God enables us to believe doesn’t mean that we believe. And just because God enables us to fear Him doesn’t mean that we will fear Himn. Job chose to fear God of his own free-will just as we can chose to fear God from our free-will. God has commanded us to fear Him so He enables us to fear Him, but He doesn’t plant a “gift” of fear within us. Enabling gives us the ability and free-will allows us to respond to God with reverent fear.

I guess you have changed your mind. You realise that unregenerate people cannot fear God without his gift to do so.

I have not changed my mind. What I have consistently said is that when God commands something He enables us to obey His command. But just because we have been enabled to do so doesn’t mean that we do it. We still have a responsibility to act with free will on the freedom to fear that God has given us.

So my question is, have you changed your mind? Do you believe that God commands people to do things that He deliberately withholds from them any ability to obey Him? Does God love to mock people by commanding something that they cannot choose to obey? Does He mock them by making sure that they are disobedient by refusing to give them any ability to fear or have faith in Him? Is this the kind of God we serve who is a mocker?

Hi A. Amos Love,

While we are ONE in Christ we are also joint heirs and “joint” means to share together which speaks of complete equality with no one inheriting more because of a special status. Thus we are equally heirs together as fellow “sons” of God in Christ and no one can claim to be bigger, better or more able because of their race, their gender or their social status. We all share together as equal members in Christ.

Thoughts?

ChadH,
Welcome to my blog. Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion. Perhaps you may want to ask Waneta Dawn what information led her to believe that Piper’s sin that he talks about is controlling or why she thinks that he may have a tendency to abuse as part of the pride that he has admitted. But to say that she should be ashamed and her words are that of a clanging symbol would not be the right way to provide what you think is correction to your sister in Christ. I try very hard to encourage a respectful tone here for both egalitarians and complementarians so that we have more reason to love one another for the sake of Christ. If we choose our words wisely instead of judging another’s opinion I think our love and unity might come through better.

Mark you quoted me and then said:

“Ephesians 2:8, 9 is not talking about faith as a gift because the term is singular and faith is said to be the thing that the gift (salvation) comes through. If faith were also a gift, then the Greek term would have been plural.”

Not true. Notice in verse 8 what is the first word. It is the feminine definite article encompassing the entire verse “by (the) grace you have seen saved, by (the) faith. The definite article links into the noun ‘faith’ sandwiching everything in between, therefore the singular supports that, since what is in view in the singular gift is the whole statement “by grace you have been saved through faith”. (The) grace and (the) faith are both gifts but expressed in the singular because of the precise grammatical construction. They are not of ourselves so we cannot boast. Your point is wrong.

Actually, Mark you are the one that is wrong. “This” “gift” is neuter not feminine so it does not refer back to the feminine faith. It is referring to salvation not to faith. If Paul had wanted to make faith a gift, he should have used the dative as this case refers to the person or thing to which something is given a perfect match if it is a gift.

dative — The case that is regularly used for indirect objects and the objects of some prepositions. The dative refers to the person or thing to which something is given or for whom something is done.
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

The dative case is also used in Ephesians 2:5 of “grace” so grace is a bona fide gift.

Also you stated that it is “the” faith but the definite article is not in the oldest manuscripts although it is in the KJV. So if you look in an interlinear for the NASB you won’t find the definite article there with the feminine “faith”. Without the definite article, faith is anarthrous and should be treated as a quality or principle. It is also genitive which makes the thing or the person the source or possessor of something. If Christ was the possessor of this faith then Paul should have added the genitive “of Christ” to show Christ as the owner of the faith.

“Grace” is the objective and effective cause or the source of salvation and its position in the sentence as first is given the prominence or emphasis even more than “through faith”. But again the netuer case for gift doesn’t refer back to grace but to salvation since grace is also feminine.

There is also a double negative in verses 8 & 9 that are connected together. In verse 8, it is “not of yourselves” and in verse 9 it is “not of works”. Both refer back to salvation, so through the precise grammar in the text with the neuter for “gift”, the double negative in verses 8 & 9 that refer back to salvation and because only (the) grace is in the dative with “faith” without the definite article and in the genitive, the “gift” is seen to be salvation and not faith.

Nothing you said here disproves my point. In fact your own source cited that it is something ‘given’ to the believers. That is, anyone in Christ has nothing to boast about precisely because it is God who gave them their salvation including their faith.

Salvation is what is given to believers by grace through faith. If God wanted us to know that it was faith that was the gift then there were several very easy ways for Him to have structured the text:

1. The genitive (of Christ) could have been used with faith showing that Christ owns the faith
2. Faith could easily have been in the dative form to show that it was a gift.
3. “Gift” could have been in the feminine plural to show that faith was meant as a gift or one of the gifts given by God.

Once again we have a passage that has precise grammar missing that would have made sure that we were aware that “Faith” as saving faith is God’s gift rather than our faith which is a response to God’s work in our life.

Also remember that the genitive case denotes possession and In this case who is the faith linked back to- God. It is the gift of God.

Sorry, Mark but the neuter goes back to salvation not to the feminine faith so what is “of God” is salvation not faith.

So therefore again the greek grammar proves my precise point. Faith in the genitive is the possessive of God

But again, Mark, “faith” is feminine and “gift” is neuter so you cannot point faith back to the possessive of God.

more later….

Mark, you said:

1 Cor 6:11 says three parallel things, you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified. These are three elements of our total salvation. You have again mixed up the text.

Again a good Romans discussion.

“It is Jesus’ blood that justifies and He freely gives His salvation by His death to all.”

Again No! It is faith which justifies us. This is the historic protestant teaching. But of course Jesus death is tied into that.
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:9 says that we are justified by His blood, so your “No!” answer is again not right.

Romans 5:9 (NASB)
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

You said:

That is why not all are ‘justified’ because not all have ‘faith’. You might say that Jesus atoned for everyone but to say he justified everyone is going to far. That is not biblical teaching. That is universalism.

The teaching of the Bible is that we are justified by His blood. If you don’t want to believe that, then you have left out parts of the Bible that are key to understanding salvation. And no it isn’t universalism because the purchased price that was paid for us that justified us must have the price applied to our account. That is why universalists are wrong and once again when you say that my doctrine is universalism, you show that you understand very little about non-Calvinist doctrine that you should have known before you became a Calvinist.

“Romans 8:5-8 is not about all.”

I’m surprised and then not surprised. I’m surprised because a while back you agreed that the Bible teaches that we as humans because of Adam have a sinful nature. But then when Rom 8 specifically refers to sinful natures (5) you say it doesn’t apply to all. But then I’m not surprised because of your other views on other passages. You just seem to inconsistent.

I am not inconsistent at all. The passage does not say “all” people. How odd that you are willing to take passages that limit the application to some people to mean all people, but the passages that say “all” you want to disregard the universal language. We will get to this when we get to Romans 8, but the key to that passage is to clearly identify those whom Paul has identified. It will be a fun passage to exegete together, don’t you think?

Mark, you said:

I find it interesting that you accept the BDAG use of ‘world’ but have formerly criticised me for saying that God has a ‘special’ or ‘saving’ love for some and not others. Inconsistency?

Mark, there is a huge difference between the definition of a Greek word and a doctrine that restricts the atonement.

“But people are blind for several reasons.”

I agree, and one of those reasons is because they are spiritually ‘dead’ (Eph 2:1) Dead people cannot see, they are blind!

“Drawing is not the same thing as coming.”

I agree, that is why I found it odd that you said about Jn 6 that people had to believe before they could come to Jesus.

I didn’t say that. I said that only believers in God were given to Jesus. I said that the ones who belonged to the father had to be ones who listened to the father and learned from Him. Is this not what the Scripture says? Didn’t Jesus say that those who listened to the Father and learned from Him came to Jesus?

“Romans 8:29 does not say “inward call” and the washing by the baptism into Jesus’ death is our justification.”

That is the only way to understand Rom 8:29 since those God calls, he also justifies.

It is the only way that you have seen, but it would be overstating your case to say that it is the only way to understand it since we have not yet hit Romans.

God does not call all in the sense of Rom 8 because simply not all are justified. And no, having faith in Christ is what justifies us. It is a declaring of righteousness.

We shall have a good discussion in Romans when we get there.

More to come…

Mark you said:

Also he did make clear in Matt 25:31ff that the goats would go to hell but the sheep to eternal glory which was prepared “for you since the creation of the world” (34).

But don’t you see what you are missing? God prepared eternal glory for us “from the creation of the world” because that is His desire for the ones who bear His image. But do you see anyplace that says that those who go to hell are going to a place “prepared for them from the foundation of the world”? Why doesn’t God say this? It is because hell was not prepared for those who are God’s image bearers. It was prepared for the devil and his angels. If you would have not just been looking for a proof text for the elect, you should have seen this. Look again:

Matthew 25:41 (NASB)
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

If God has predestined most to unconditionally go to hell, then why is there not even one Scripture that says that hell was also prepared for them?

Jesus did use limited language – many, sheep and goats, sinners and righteous, healthy and sick.

This is not limited language as if Jesus is limiting those who can be His sheep because He only died for them. This is the language of those who will submit to God and receive eternal life and those who refuse to submit.

Romans 10:3 (NASB)
3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Don’t you see the difference yet? The goats are goats not because God predestined them to go to hell, but because they refuse to submit themselves to the righteousness of God.

Jesus whole ministry was exclusive and limited. He came for his sheep and for their salvation.

Jesus did come for the sheep, but the problem with Calvinism is that it says that Jesus came only for His sheep. But the Bible never adds the term “only”. In fact in Jesus’ own examples He said that the ones that the kingdom was prepared for would be cast out and those who had not been invited first were to be compelled to come in.

Luke 14:23–24 (NASB)
23 “And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.
24 ‘For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.’ ”

The ones for whom the kingdom had been prepared would be cast out into outer darkness.

Matthew 8:12 (NASB)
12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 21:43 (NASB)
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

If the kingdom of God had been prepared for people who rejected it and ended up in hell, then how can we say that God unconditionally predestined them to go to hell? How on earth can we reconcile that hell was not prepared for them but heaven was, yet they went to hell? It doesn’t sound like God has prepared hell to receive a people who are made in His image but whom He has rejected unconditionally so that His image was always meant to be found in hell? There are more and more inconsistencies to this Calvinist position then I could even reconcile in a million years.

More to come….

Mark, you quoted me and then commented:

“Surely Jesus could have said that clearly. Why didn’t He say that he would save only a select few the God chose? Why didn’t He make it clear that those who did not believe Him had been selected by God to go to hell? Why would He have chosen words that were universal rather than limited? Doesn’t it appear that to accept Calvinism would require a reinterpreting of what has been inspired as universal language? If it is really truth, what should we have to do that?”

A theology is not solely based on the ‘red’ letters of the gospels. Jesus did say that he came to save sinners NOT the righteous.

That is just another way to say that He came to save everyone because God has confined all in sin so that on our own none of us qualifies to be saved by our good behavior or by the works of the law.

Galatians 3:22 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

If Galatians 3:22 is true as I believe it is, then everyone is “shut up” under sin therefore when the Bible says that Jesus came to save sinners, that means that He came to save each of us because we are all under sin. The theology of the doctrine of salvation is based on both the “red letters” and the rest of the Scriptures. But Calvinism must ignore a lot of the inspired Scriptures to even try to make a case. So while you say that Jesus came to save sinners NOT the righteous, then apparently the elect are the only sinners and the reprobate are the righteous?? Surely you can see the contradiction here. The fact is it is clear that we are all under sin and all of need a Savior so Jesus came for all of us. The knight in shining armor came just in time to save us all and He purposely left none behind to suffer eternal damnation through unconditional election at His good pleasure. That is inconsistent with the consistent message of the gospel. There is no “gospel” for the reprobate, because there is no good news for them.

to be continued…