Frank,

I had prayed for you both several times during the conference, that God would give you strength and wisdom in proclaming and defending the truth, and so from the evidence I would say my prayers, and the prayers of others, were answered.

It is so wonderful to hear that prayers have been made on our behalf and then answered by God. THANK YOU for your prayers. I know for one that I need them a lot!

And as Wright also points out, the developing, predominantly male episcopal church was hostile to Montanism not only because women were prominent in this movement, but also because it bodly criticized the church’s accommadations to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, declaring the Church’s need to repent and prepare for the imminent Second Coming.

Very good points!

Maybe because he is so influenced by Wayne Grudem and his heretical view of the Trinity, Peter Barnes has forgotten that while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, in every other way, each is coeternal and coequal in Divine Being. And to so distinquish the Divine Person as to make the Father superior to the Son and the Spirit in will, power, authority and majesty is to fall back into the heresies of tritheism and subordinationism that were condemned by the Eastern Church in 381 A.D. and by the Western Chruch in 382 A.D.

I enjoy reading the way you word this. This has been a big issue for me and it is appalling to me to see complementarians revert to a subordinate will of Jesus in the Trinity mere to try to enhance their view of the sub-standard status of the woman’s will and her apparent inability to act without a superior’s order of command. This is the place that they put Jesus and I scratch my head in wonder how those who believe this could possibly correct a Jehovah’s Witness on their teaching of the subordinate place of Christ.

As far as Mike goes I am not yet sure if he will continue with our debate. I think that his idea that the Scriptures were so clearly in his favor took a bit of a beating and he is not so inclined to continue. I will pray and I ask you to pray with me that Mike will be open to allow my view to be questioned. This is where we are at right now. It is a precarious position to be in to question your opponent and allow them the opportunity to give a reason for the hope that is within them. If he cannot knock down my hope and my reason, then where does that leave him?

33 truthseeker,

You said:

Where in the bible does it say we ‘naturally inherited his rebellious nature? After all, if an inherited nature is required to sin, then where did Adam get his, since he sinned?

Adam did not have an “old man” nature. Adam had free will and he chose to exercise his free will to rebel against God. But the fact that Adam did not have an “old man” nature and still chose to sin in this one area does not exclude our “old man” nature that we received at the fall of Adam.

And if a sinful nature is requisite for sinning, then logically and in a parallel vein of thinking, a righteous nature would be required for choosing righteousness.

I have never heard anyone say that a sinful nature is required for one to sin. After all the devil was created as Lucifer without sin. He chose to sin by his own act of free will without a sin nature. However after he chose to sin his nature has completely changed into a nature where he cannot tell the truth as his nature is fully that of distortions and lies.

Yet, no mention is made of us inheriting a righteous nature so we can choose salvation. You rightly say that “Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions…,” it says nothing of our coming to righteousness by having some kind of inherited righteous nature.

I am not claiming that our coming to righteousness means that we have a righteous nature that has been put on us. Doesn’t this seem like what many Calvinists are saying? I am not a Calvinist.

However it is true that once we have come to faith in Christ, He creates in us a new nature. If we need that “new man” with its new nature, then surely there was something deficient about the “old man” as his inherent lusts.

Yet, the very same logic is being used to say that we choose sin because we have a sinful nature.

I am not making this argument. What I am saying is that it is easy for us to chose sin because we have the “old man” nature. We are not forced by this nature to sin so there is no excuse.

Adam seemed well able to choose to sin without having any mention of a sinful nature. I think then, that we are totally capable of sinning, in like manner, without having a ’sin nature’.

This does not follow that because Adam was created without the “old man” nature, that we too have no “old man” nature. The fact is that although Adam was created without sin and lived without sin for a time, after he sinned, he had an “old man” nature that made God kick him out of the garden so that he would not continue in sin and eat from the tree of life.

I hope this helps.

In Jesse Morrell’s article here are some of the areas that he has gotten wrong. Under II. Why homosexuals say that they are born that way:

A. If the fault is their nature, and not their choice, they cannot be blamed.

This is faulty reasoning. The fact is that the Bible teaches that sin is our choice and we are not blameless because we have a nature that craves sin. Even the unregenerate showed that they had a choice to sin or not to sin and the “fleshly lusts” of our old man is no excuse for sin.

B. If the fault is their will, and not their nature, they are to be blamed.

Here is a false dichotomy. Just because the ultimate fault is their free will and not their nature, does not disprove that they do not have a “fleshly man” that lusts after sin.

(1.) You are not responsible or accountable for the condition of your nature at birth.

While we are not responsible for the “fleshly man’s nature” that we have inherited, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that this nature forces us to sin. We are ultimately still accountable for our free-will choice even if our nature tempts us to sin. Morrell’s listing of excuses for not being accountable for sin in no way refutes the biblical teaching of the “old man” nature.

(2.) Men do not deserve hell for the flesh, blood, bones, skin they involuntarily and unavoidably inherit.

This is a straw man argument because men do not receive hell for flesh, blood, bones, skin that they inherit. Men receive hell for their free will choice to reject God and their practice of sin.

(4.) Since God punishes sinners, including homosexuals, this proves that it is their own fault that they
are sinners. And if it is their own fault, it must be their own free choice.

This is true, but it doesn’t disprove the “natural fleshly man” that we all have at birth. The fact is that we all have “natural lusts” but we have the will to chose to turn away from the lusts.

2. They logically know that if they were created that way, it is God’s fault.

This is no more logical than Adam’s blaming God and Eve for his sin. Neither God nor Eve made Adam sin and neither can be blamed for his sin.

Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.”

I know that many say that Charles Finney was a heretic. I know almost nothing about Charles Finney but I do know that the statement above is not true. God is not the author of the nature of Adam after the fall that became the nature of the “old man”. This nature is connected to the nature of the devil, not to the nature of the original creation.

3 A. If a person is born a sinner, instead of being a sinner by choice, they cannot be responsible to stop being a
sinner or be accountable for their failure to do so. Moral obligation and moral accountability is limited
by natural justice to moral ability.

This is a false representation of the doctrine of the “old man”. People are not “born a sinner”. People are born with the nature of the “old man” and from there they make choices of their own to sin. Moral accountability is not from the “natural man” who is the “old man” nature because if so then babies would be condemned to hell. Rather moral accountability is at the point where a person comes to a knowledge of their sin and makes a conscious choice to walk away from their conscience.

5. They intuitively know that punishment is limited to voluntary disobedience

This is true. Punishment is indeed limited to voluntary disobedience, however this does not disprove the Biblical doctrine of the nature of “old man”.

Under III. Homosexuality is not in accordance with human nature. – What Morrell does here is say that homosexuality is against “nature” and therefore is not “natural”. Again this is a false dichotomy since the “nature” that is spoken of in Romans 1:26 is the natural creation of our bodies. Homosexuality is certainly against “nature” but it is not in opposition to the nature of the “old man” who craves and lusts after sin. Morrell has again failed to disprove the nature of the “old man” which is our fleshly lusts that must be renewed by God to the “new man” with the new nature that seeks after God

1. A. Our metaphysical nature is fallen (physical depravity) but not sinful (moral depravity)..

Again this presents a misunderstanding of the doctrine of our common creation as the “old man”. We are not born as sinners but born with the cravings of the “old man”. God did not create this “old man” in us as this is our inheritance back to Adam, but if we turn to God in faith and in repentance He will create in us the “new man” which is absolutely from God.

More to come….

33 truthseeker,

You are again inserting ’sin nature’ where the bible never does. It is like when the comps insert terms and concepts such as ‘roles’, ‘masculinity’, and ‘femininity’, into the bible and biblical discussions when those terms are never mentioned in the bible.

Then let’s change the term to what the Bible actually uses. While the common modern term is “sin nature” the true Biblical terms “fleshly”, the “old man”, the “old self”.

While our “new self” is created in the image of Christ, our “old self” is created in the image of the first Adam.

Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
Col 3:10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him

Eph 4:22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
Eph 4:23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
Eph 4:24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

Gal 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, “Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no profit.”

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

1 Cor. 3:3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

2Co 1:12 For our proud confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you.

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

2 Peter 2:18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,

It is clear from the scriptures that there is something within us that from young on is a “fleshly desire” that all of us have that is bent on sin. This “fleshly desire” can be fought only effectively through the Spirit and through obedience to God.

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,

In the article that you linked to, Jesse Morrell tells the truth when we says that we choose to sin, but he gives no indication where the “fleshly desires” comes from and he says that sin is not “natural” to the unregenerated man. This is not true. What was “natural” (goodness) to God’s original creation is no longer the “natural” way. In fact just as the devil originally was part of God’s good creation his act of sin created a new nature within him and that nature is what he now follows.

Joh 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Adam too because of his act of rebellion against God had a new nature filled with sinful desires. God did not create this in him. It was the result of his first act of rebellion. And that nature, just like the new nature of satan, was a part of Adam that was there within him before any one of his children were born. The new nature of Adam’s that drove him to be be continually tempted to sin is what we have within us.

I will continue to comment shortly.

Alison,

I too really appreciated Pastor Dave’s post. I think that for a first blog conference on women in ministry it went over very well.

truthseeker,
This is Jesse Morrell’s weak point and one that he has been highly criticized on. Lots of holes in his arguments. I will respond more tomorrow. One thing for tonight. He says:

“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For is they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals

The Biblical doctrine of a fleshly nature does not mean that we are born with sin. But it means that we are born addicted to sin. Homosexuals have no more right to excuse their sinful actions than an adulterer does or one who is a liar. One may have an addiction in a certain area more so than another but all of the applications of our acting out the fleshly nature is sinful. Homosexuals also do not agree that their actions are sinful. They do say that they are born this way but their reasoning is more along the line that homosexuality is like blue eyes. It is not a sin to have blue eyes and in their mind homosexuality is a trait that is just as natural (and not sinful) as blue eyes. Morrell’s point here is flawed.

More later.

truthseeker,

You said: “Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see explicit verses that say men should have authority over women because Adam was created before Eve.”

We were “in Adam” when he sinned and from the natural man comes our death.

1 Cor 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

The connection to being “in Adam” is now our being “in Christ” and we are of His seed.

If our nature did not come from Adam then our new nature is not connected to Christ since both are our Father. The one natural and the other spiritual.

I have to go out now so I will come back later to answer questions.

truthseeker,

You said: “Where in the bible does it say we ‘naturally inherited his rebellious nature? After all, if an inherited nature is required to sin, then where did Adam get his, since he sinned?”

First of all, the Bible tells us that we are by nature in sin from before our birth.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Adam was not “born in sin”. Adam did not have a fleshly nature pulling him toward sin. Yet Adam had free will to sin against God. This is what made his sin of rebellion even more serious. Adam was not tempted to sin because of a fleshly nature but Adam was capable of sin. The same goes for satan. Satan chose to sin even though he was created perfect. He lost his perfection in his act of sin and now God says that satan’s nature is that of a liar, destroyer and murderer.

Adam’s nature was changed also with his sin. His propensity to sin from his rebellion caused him to rule over his wife. He was also the only one that God said might reach out to take the fruit from the tree of life. This shows a continuing natural propensity to sin.

The key passage that must be dealt with is Romans 5:16-19. Also the fact that small babies and young children are all naturally prone to sin without being taught. Where does this come from if our nature is perfect without sin from the beginning?

truthseeker,

I am very glad that you are willing to dialog on this issue. I believe that it is a very important one.

You said:

You said they brought us a sin nature. Very very different-sin nature vs. opportunity to sin. Perhaps better yet, Adam simply brought us an example of sinning to follow should we choose to do so along with all the consequences of his sin that affect us. I do not see any mention of sin nature in the passage.

Just as the words “The Trinity” are not in the Bible but the concept is there, so the exact words “sin nature” are not in the Bible but the concept is there.

The book of Romans calls the natural tendency toward sin as “the flesh” or “in the flesh”.

Rom 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Here we see that the “flesh” was aroused with sinful passions.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Here the phrase “in my flesh” is a synonym for the natural tendency towards an inability to continue to practice good.

In verse 21 Paul calls it a principle of the present evil within us.

Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

Paul further calls this natural tendency toward sin as against our intention to do good.

Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

Walking after the natural inclination is said to be “walking in the flesh”.

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The opposite of spiritual is of “the flesh” showing a natural tendency that is opposite to the spiritual nature.

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.

“Flesh and blood” is another term that Paul uses for the sinful human nature.

1 Cor 15:50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

We also know that the transgression of Adam caused “the many” to die.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

Through Adam came universal condemnation to Adam’s offspring:

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Here disobedience brought many to the place of sin:

Rom 5:19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The question we must ask ourselves is how did Adam’s disobedience bring us to sin? His disobedience cannot make us sin because we have a will that can refuse to sin. But the disobedience of Adam (as we were “in” Adam when he sinned) has tainted us in such a way that we are attracted to sin and desire to sin. We then choose to participate in sin because of this attraction.

truthseeker,

I have to run out for a bit but I thought I would clarify this before I left:

Cheryl, I didn’t say Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature. I said they brought us an opportunity to sin.

Yes, that’s right. The first sentence is my view and your view is what we agree on. The sin nature does not make us sin, that we can agree on. But because the sin nature or our propensity to sin is seen as a bondage, I used the illustration of a drug addict who doesn’t have to take drugs, but his craving draws him time and time again back into the old sin habit.

I will comment on the rest when I get back.

This comment is for truthseeker who was posing questions on the nature of sin before the host blog shut down the comments. Just follow my link that I gave before the comments were shut down and you will find my answer to your questions.

Blessings,
Cheryl

To truthseeker continuing from Paula’s blog which she has now shut down the comments.

You said: ” …then likewise, Adam’s actions would provide us an opportunity for sin but we would still have to appropriate or participate in it. ”

That is exactly right. Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature, but a sin nature doesn’t force us to sin. We can’t say “the devil made me do it” or “Adam made me do it”. What our sin nature does is crave sin but it doesn’t make us sin. It is like a drug addict. His “flesh” craves the drugs but he is physically able to stop and not take the drugs. If one doesn’t believe that then just put the guy in jail and watch how without a drug dealer he can survive without the drugs. It is possible for sure. But our “natural man” craves sin. We all give in but we don’t have to.

So what I am saying is that Adam’s sin brought us to sin with the natural inheritance of his rebellious nature, but it cannot make us sin. Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions but He does not force us to have faith in Him.

Does this make sense?

Kay,

I LOVE humor. Sometimes I find that in a tense situation a good laugh can really break it up. Of course we do need to temper the way we use humor so that we don’t seriously offend, but I do think that humor has its place. Peter has a dry sense of humor too so it would have been fun to see you two bounce off of each other. I also think the humor can work too if we make fun of ourselves. Sarcasm can be a little more biting so that needs to be tamed.

I am always amazed at how complementarians use “thought-stopping” techniques to shut down the discussion when they don’t have an answer. The “emperor has no clothes” was one of the cutest thought-stoppers I have heard. Usually I just get the typical personal insults.

Thank you Pastor Dave for your encouragement!

We indeed do have a marvelous, awesome God who gifts people in ministry. For a very long time I downplayed the gift that He had given me feeling that admitting one had a gift seemed rather prideful. But I have come to the place where enough people have told me that I am gifted that I realize that if I do not accept what God has given me as a gift and if I do not give Him the praise for the gifts instead of downplaying these gifts because they are in me, then I am failing to acknowledge God in His rightful place as the Giver.

The bottom line is that I now recognize that what I have to offer is unique and that many people can benefit from my insight and I am challenged to keep on doing what I do by God’s grace until I see unity in the body of Christ in this issue.

I have so enjoyed debating with Peter on your blog. It isn’t often that I even get a complementarian willing to engage some of my arguments. Once they see the way I systematically and logically dismantle the traditional interpretation, they usually just run for the hills. At least Peter didn’t run right away. His comments about my argument as being like the emperor that had no clothes really made me chuckle. It is easy to charge such a thing without actually engaging the argument itself. It is a deflection in order to side-step the fact that he has no answers. But I know that God is a loving God who is gently able to remove the blinders so that Peter can see that his accusation actually describes the complementarian position. There are no clothes on THAT emperor!

My game plan has always been to fight a strong battle with my brothers in Christ remembering how I would want to be talked to if I was the one in the wrong. As much as I am able to, I try for gentleness and respect because it is these things that softens my own heart and makes me love the one who shows me my error in a way that allows me to hear without being defensive. These are characteristics that I see in Jesus and I desire to be like Him.

Headless Unicorn Guy,

Welcome to my blog! I hope you feel welcome here enough to come back.

Thank you Mara. What a blessing you are to me too today! I will take your precious words, revel in them for a bit and then turn them over to the Lord who is worthy of all praise.

Kay,

I don’t see you as anything other than gracious! I am the one who needs to be reminded that prayer and God’s power is the key. My tendency to argue from logic will turn me toward my own ability if I am not careful. I was preaching to myself there and I will gladly admit it. My logic will not turn anyone toward the Lord Jesus without His empowerment and I admit my dependency on Him for without Him I can do nothing.

I also feel so guilty that I have neglected my own blog to spend time on arguing my position on the Australian blog conference. I am now finishing the corrections on my DVD project and creating a new DVD menu and so my time is still somewhat limited. I will be back here in time as this issue is always on my mind and I love the respectful people who frequent my blog.

Kay,

I just posted a comment on my own post at the conference at http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog/?p=262 in answer to Martin who is now admitting from my reasoning that using 1 Timothy 2:12 to stop women from ministry or teaching men is “ill advised”. I praise God that at least some are hearing and taking notice.

I trust that Peter Barnes will also hear in time. He apparently is a man who loves to jump into a debate and a good challenge spurs him on. Even though he said that he had “pulled up his stumps” he did come back one more time because of all the challenges I gave him. I think these challenges will keep him awake many nights knowing that he could not keep in the debate on this issue and he could not answer the hard questions. If he is a man of integrity (which I have no doubt that he is) this will nag him until he does something about it.

I have offered to him in a private email to continue the discussion and we will see if he eventually takes me up on my offer. All we can do is pray for these men that their conscience bothers them because of the strong argument they have heard that they cannot answer.

I too was hoping that Peter wouldn’t run but what else could he do? Until he is at the point where he is willing to change his view back to what he formerly held and admit that his was convinced to the complementarian position by invalid arguments, he can’t do much else but run away because he has no answers. I have been praying for Peter. I pray that God won’t give him peace until he deals with this issue.

I believe that reaching out and influencing even one pastor who has been teaching that women are not allowed by “law” to be in ministry because of 1 Timothy 2:12 will eventually bring great fruit. When Peter’s eyes are opened he will then be able to touch a whole lot of other people in that great land of Australia. Perhaps he will even be used to touch a few pastors here in North America where we are inundated with men taking authority over women and stopping them from being used for God’s glory.

This issue cannot be won merely by logic or argumentation. It must be won through prayer. I am going to keep praying that God will do the work that we cannot do. He can touch the heart and turn it from a heart of stone into a heart of flesh.

Hey guys,

I am SO excited that there is so much interaction between posters on my blog even without my attendance here. My time is so limited right now and I am putting my thoughts as I am able onto the debate on the Australian blog conference on women in ministry. My folks are here visiting right now and after they leave I will be back to my own blog. Thanks for your patience with me as I work hard to balance my time and my loyalties.

Mara,
Yup its long!

Dave,
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if people might get my sense of humor. Tooth and nail sense of humor.

Leigh,
Welcome to my blog!

Piper open to correction? I can’t see how. His whole system of complementarian thought would have to be reworked and it doesn’t appear that he is going to do that. My son tried talking to him this past year when he met him at a conference. He got a pokey finger in his chest even though he spoke the correction in a gentle and respectful way. If anyone would like to approach Piper, and would like to see how a strong public comp figure deals with correct, then go ahead. It should be an interesting challenge. My thought is that he wouldn’t even answer back. It isn’t worth his time.

Hi Rain,
Welcome to my blog! No I don’t think it is rude that you haven’t read all the comments. I haven’t even read them all yet. I have been extremely busy doing an editing project of our next DVD and it has meant very long hours for me and hard to keep up on everything. I thought I was already done but there were a few glitches so I just finished the final touches as I prepare to host my mom and dad. So I hope that people don’t think it is rude of me that I have not yet caught up either. I do get a special email for all those whose first comment has to be approved first and so I am replying to you because of that.

I know that there are a lot of people that really think a lot of John Piper. I haven’t listened to much that he has written or posted except for the women’s issue but from what I have documented, it seems to permeate his thinking. I used some of his quotes on my DVD set on women in ministry. The extent these guys go to, to put women in their place under men really did surprise me at first. It no longer surprises me and this recent quote from Piper just seems par for the course.

Dave,
I could never mind your rambling on my blog! I like what you write.

I too agree that the issue of women in ministry is not one worthy of breaking fellowship over. We can be passionate and we can argue in a careful, biblical way, but I do not believe that we have the right to attack a brother in Christ as an unbeliever over this issue. It is not a salvation issue and must not be treated that way or we can cause harm to the body of Christ.

My biggest issue is getting Complementarians to think outside the box – to help them with questions and a reasoning that they may never have thought through before. In the end they may still agree to disagree but I am confident that if they actual engage the argument and are exposed to the careful reasoning that has gone into the egalitarian side, the fruit of that effort will grow in time with those who truly love the Lord and want to stay true to God’s word. I do want them to see that they must not ignore some of God’s inspired words to hold onto a male-only form of service. I believe that men are hurt when they are not allowed to listen to women teach God’s word. We have a perspective on scripture that can cause men to be more well-rounded in their view.

You may not see your conference and your denomination as touched as much by the egalitarian position as you would like, but know for sure that you are planting seeds that God can cause to grow in time. We plant. We water. And then we wait. Ah for the gift of more patience, eh?

Abby,
Welcome and I am glad that you stopped by! I am always glad to have those who are more on the complementarian side visit because it helps us to remember there are more godly Christians out there who are not exactly the same as we are.

You bring out some very good points. That abusers don’t see themselves as they are. They are justified in their own eyes and if wives just let them treat them with disrespect and with abuse, they are allowing them to sin. Honestly, I think that John Piper would learn a lot from some one like you. I see wisdom in your words. I fully agree that men who give husband license to sin while counseling the wife to let them sin “for a time”, it is following satan’s pattern of destruction.

Mark,
Welcome!

You said:

he puts it in a totally worldly context

This is profound. It serves to remind me that the way of the world is oppression and possession of women. And John Piper thinks he has figured it out – how to marry the world’s way with Christian submission. It just doesn’t work.

Hi A. Amos Love,
I have some company coming over today and then again tomorrow, but I will try to go through the comments carefully in the next few days (God-willing) and see if I can unravel what you are saying and what you are not saying. 🙂

I am off now to get some cleaning done.

I have not had time yet to read through all the comments here as I just now finished the final graphics for the cover of the DVD editing project that has been on my plate for the last couple of months.

However I would like to jump in and give my opinion on leadership. If this is a repeat of what anyone else says, please pardon me for not having read all the comments yet. The key verse is 1 Timothy 3:1

1 Tim 3:1 (ESV) The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

1 Tim 3:1 (LITV) Faithful is the Word: If anyone reaches out to overseership, he desires a good work.

The place of leadership is a “good work” and a “noble task”. Anyone may desire this and work hard to be in a place of service to the body.

While there are many who have taken leadership and distorted into a thing of abuse, the bible shows that true, godly leadership is a thing to be desired and it is an excellent work and goal. We need to lift up those who attain to the place of a godly example and who work hard to protect the flock from the wolves. With these true leaders we will know them by their fruits. Their fruits will never be lordship over others but true servanthood towards the body and looking out for the body of Christ’s interests before their own. To these kinds of leaders we give our love and respect as we desire to live godly lives in Christ.

The ungodly work of the false shepherds is not our example. The godly work of those who follow the true Shepherd and our Lord is a fitting example to submit to learn from learn.

I hope this helps!
Cheryl

Mara,

I especially liked this:

Men, if they were honest with God and themselves, would have to ask, “Would I want to be treated the way I’m treating my wife right now?”

I’ll bet this is one thing that most abusers never think about.