Cheryl

Sue,
The difficulties have been hard to navigate over because of some foundational faulty teaching that we have been subjected to for years. It is time to deal with the faulty teaching head on.

The issue in the garden between man and woman is burred by the faulty teaching that God only gave the prohibition to the man, that women’s conception was the same in the garden as it is now and that God gave man a special rule that included the rule over his wife. These are made-made traditions that can be properly refuted using the inspired words and the inspired grammar from the book of Genesis. More to come in future posts.

The issue of the temporary subordination of the Son is also blurred by a faulty interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:28 that takes away the full authority and rulership of the Son of God in the future. This must be dealt with and dealt with decisively so that we can once again recognize Jesus as Lord and God without giving in to those who downgrade his “role” and his authority.

Yes, it has been difficult, but it is doable. The time is now and the tools are in our hands to present a viable, in-context and compelling exegesis to these hard passages.

Sam,

My work on 1 Cor 15 is focused on the refutation of the complementarian position that Jesus is less in authority than the Father (the Father is considered as the supreme authority a position highlighted by Bruce Ware in his book “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”) and the position that 1 Cor. 15 means that Jesus is giving over his authority and rule to the Father and taking a subordinate position for all of eternity.

I am not going to go into the full refutation especially since I am still working on my DVD on the Trinity, but since the question about 1 Cor 15 was brought up, it is good to state some foundational points from scripture.

1. We know that 1 Cor 15:24-28 cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus gives up his rule, since scripture tells us that his reign will never end.

2. We also know that 1 Cor. 15:24-28 cannot be interpreted to mean that the Father has authority that Jesus does not have because Jesus said that he himself has all authority (Matt 28:18) and there is nothing at all in 1 Cor. 15 that says that Jesus is giving up this authority. Since turning over the kingdom to the Father cannot mean that Jesus stops reigning as King, then Jesus’ submission also cannot mean that Jesus is giving up his full authority over all things.

All three in the Trinity have one will and all three have one authority because they are all united as the one God. When Jesus said that all authority had been given to him (Matt 28:18), that didn’t leave his Father without authority. Turning over the kingdom to his Father also does not leave Jesus without authority and it does not leave him without a kingdom or take away his throne or his Kingship.

In verse 24 of 1 Cor. 15 we see Jesus as the triumphant Son turning over the spoils, the kingdom, to his Father. In verse 25 we see that God the Father has put all enemies underneath the feet of Jesus so that Jesus is supreme, the ruler of all.

The Father for a time has stepped back from judging and from ruling as he has given the priority to the Son during the 1,000 year reign. Just as the Father has served the Son by making his enemies as a footstool for the Son, the Son now serves the kingdom back to the Father so that it is not just the Son who has the priority but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So the human Son who has been given the priority, subjects himself voluntarily and the subjection is not “under” the authority of the Father but in “unity” with the Father so that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are “all” in “all”, in complete unity as they were before creation. (The Greek is very important to pay attention to in verse 27 & 28)

The Son does not “give up” the kingdom nor does he “give up” authority or rule. The purpose of the Son’s subjection is for God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to be all in all and there will be no division of authority or rule but complete unity.

There is much more to this passage but this should suffice for now until my DVD comes out.

Thank you, Sam, I will have a look at them. I have Giles book. I do tend to think outside the box more than most do. I guess it is all those years of counseling Jehovah’s Witnesses and bringing them to Christ. You really had to work to turn every doctrine over and look at the doctrines they had problems with from upside down, at any angle and from this way and that to find a way to present the truth in a way that they did not have a canned answer to because they had never heard it presented that way before. It was really neat to see the lights go on and the “ah ha” moments. I still think this way in my head, turning everything upside down and inside out to catch every possible angle.

Justa Berean,
That is a great way of answering from a position of humility yet strength. I had never thought to answer this way. Kudos to Don.

Sam C,
This is a wonderful, great question. In fact this is a very important part of the DVD that I am working on in the research/writing/scripting stage right now. The DVD is entirely on the Trinity and a huge focus will be refuting the theologians in the church who say that Jesus is not equal in authority with the Father as they say that Jesus is eternally under the Father’s authority and under the Father’s his will. I will be completely unpacking the 1 Cor. 15 passage in the DVD. I will try to summarize the position tomorrow when I have the time to work on summarizing the meat of the passage in a hundred words or less. For more than that you will have to get the DVD scheduled to be released by the fall of 2008 🙂

“May God continue to bless, strengthen and guide – and open Matt Slick’s heart to hear the truth!”

Amen! And may Matt’s followers have their eyes opened up too so that they may escape the world of the mockers. They shall know that we are Christians by our love not by our mockery of our own.

Hi “SAM”,

Welcome!! Well Matt is responsible for the series airing on the Boise radio station but it is not what he wants. The DVDs will be played on the radio station that hosts Matt’s program but it will not be during the time of his own program. Because Matt has misrepresented my views on one of his radio shows in December 2007 and in that program he labeled a false caricature as my own teaching, and since he has spoken against me for months on that radio station, I have been given a fair amount of time to present the truth of the “other side of the story”.

In the radio shows that you listened to, it was difficult for me to get my point across. Not only was I not used to live radio having never done “live” or “radio” before, but Matt took a very adversarial stance against me when he had promised that he would be polite and respectful. I found him neither polite nor respectful. Instead of being polite he kept on interrupting me and on the second show he accused me of being the one who was not polite! Well, at least good has come out of this unfair treatment and for that I give all the glory to God!

Welcome SingingOwl,
I hope you enjoy the community here. I don’t post as often as I would like. I am in the midst of writing and scripting our newest DVD on the Trinity so I will be sporatic in my posts here but the community on this blog is great.

Paula,
Yes, you are right in that I have seen this kind of thing before. It is easy to claim misrepresentation and then fail to show how that misrepresentation has been done. The first thing I did notice was that Donna gave no example of where I misrepresented the material I was quoting from. The fact is that I have given the link to the actual chapter of the book in question and I encourage people to go and read the material for themselves. If CBMW would like us to believe that the book greatly misrepresents their position, then perhaps they would want to take the offending material off their site instead of promoting a book written by one of their own and giving it prominence on their site. I am sure that Donna could lobby CBMW to remove the book and then I could adjust this article to read “a book that CBMW formerly endorsed on their site”.

Donna,
I have tried to get CBMW to dialog for 2 years ever since I gave them a preview copy of my DVD. They are unwilling to dialog.

As far as the quote about the husband as king, the chapter speaks for itself. The quotes were taken from the chapter on the husband being the prophet, priest and king. CBMW gives this on-line book prominence on their web site and I have seen no note of caution that this very strong view of the husband’s authority over the wife is not appropriate. The author of the book is on CBMW’s board of reference. Perhaps if you would like to argue with Mr. Lepine who wrote the chapter or Mr. Rainey who included it in his book, you can take it up with them.

Tiro3,
Let me give you an example of the way I understand these two verses so that they will make sense. If a fool says to you “na-na-na boo, boo, you are ugly and you don’t ever read the bible”, this is the fool’s folly and you should not come down to his level and answer a foolish attack. But if the fool says “there is no bodily resurrection because what if a cannibal ate the person, how could God resurrect a dead body when it is within another living body?” you can answer this one because although it is also foolish, if you leave him without an answer then he thinks he has proved that there can be no bodily resurrection.

Does the difference between these two seem clear? By the way, I got that great “na-na-na boo-boo” from my granddaughter. It seems like this is 5 to 6 year old sillyness thing that can irritate other 5 or 6 year olds into starting a fight. I hope that we as Christians leave aside the old trap of a fool’s “na-na-na boo-boo” comments and ignore them. 😉

Tiro3,
The Hebrew for Prov. 26 is here http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/pro26.pdf

You will notice two things about the differences between verses 4 & 5. The first thing is that verse 5 is in the emphatic. This is shown by the notation “!” as “answer-you !” so it literally means to make sure you do this which is to “answer”. Secondly you will notice that in verse 4 it says you-shall-be-equal to-him. This is the reason not to answer a fool.

This is where the wisdom comes because we need to determine whether to answer the fool or not. If we answer a fool in his wisdom or rather his folly, we become equal to him and we are told not to do that. However verse 5 tells us emphatically that we are to answer him. The second type of answer is not the one that is equal to the fool’s own folly (verse 4) but it is a real answer, one that will put him in his place and not allow him to think that his stupidity is truth.

Is this helping to make sense using the direct English translation of the Hebrew?

Hi Metacrock,
Welcome! I was on CARM as WIM but often I signed my name as Cheryl at the bottom of my posts. There could be another Cheryl too, I don’t know. I don’t know what you mean by “who was in the CADRE”. Either that means that it went over my head or there is someone else who knows what that means 🙂

Yes, indeed, much wisdom from the book of Proverbs.

I take this to mean (verse 4) Do not participate in a fool’s foolish argument or you fall into his (or her) foolish trap
(verse 5) Answer a fool in a way that refutes his foolish talk lest he think you have no answer and he becomes wise in his own eyes.

I see verse 4 as not entering into the fool’s argument and verse 5 as encouraging a rebuke of the fool with a word of godly wisdom that does not follow the fool’s path but overrides it. This is the way of the wise and I need to keep reminding myself that the taunts of the fool are merely the fool’s folly. Never, never go there.

Tiro3,
Great wisdom that you have shared! I am relatively new to the blogging world where I have regretfully seen that the attack is the favorite way of handling an inability to give a valid reason for one’s own belief. What I have figured out is to never answer a mocker. If we answer them, we get pulled into their trap.

Psalms 1:1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

Proverbs 1:22 …And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge?

Hi Martin,
I don’t think the radio station does a podcast. I think the only link they have is for listening live. I will be announcing the dates and times as soon as I get them.

Dennis #13,

Polygamy was allowed in the Jewish tradition and we know that there were Jews in Corinth because their law was appealed to in 1 Cor. 14:34-35. The oral law of the Jews allowed for polygamy. Jeb 65a says A man may marry as many wives as he pleases. Another on of the rabbis limited the number to four (Jeb 44a) The one agreement that all the Rabbis had was that there was to be no polygamy for the High Priest (Joma 13a). Everyman’s Talmud by Abraham Cohen says “While there can be no doubt that among the masses polygamy was practiced, there is no record of any Rabbi having resorted to it.”

Tiro3,
Welcome!! I am always glad to meet long-time lurkers. I feel honored that you advertised here about this respectful discussion board. I think the Christian community can use many, many more of these respectful boards. In my humble opinion, respect, honor and love should be part of our Christian community even if we disagree on these secondary issues. Gosh, one day I may find out that even I have an idea that might not be quite right 😉 When the shock dies down, I will be grateful for having my error brought to my attention by someone who treats me with love and respect. I respond well to that love and so I try hard to give it out in advance.

It seems to me that there is a definite plan to try to shut out the egalitarians because if they cannot shame them into leaving through name-calling, then they will take any little thing to shut them down. I believe there will come a time when there will be no one on the board who doesn’t completely agree with Matt Slick or who keeps silent and says nothing.

If there are any complementarians reading this who are ashamed at seeing the above actions going on under the name of Christian, please know that you are welcome here. We may not agree with you on the women’s issue, but if you are a true born again Christian you are our brother or sister in Christ.

Paula,
That is too funny! I guess inflation has done its work.

“Is that message board still closed to lurker viewing?”

If you mean Matt’s board, you can only see it if you are registered. And if you are registered and you break one of their restrictive rules, you can’t see anything until they lift the ban. That is where I am at right now. My ban is lifted on the 29th.

Okay, I put in my two cents worth. If the comment stands then someone may be helped. That may be all that I can do. 🙂

Light,
I read the post. What a shame when men take this authority over a woman to silence her.

Justa Berean,
“It’s a terrible witness for Christ. And terribly revealing of what patriarchy is about.”

I agree. The thing I wonder about is are there no reasonable complementarians on that board who also see this as a poor example of leadership? If I was a complementarian, it would rattle my chains and help to set me free.

These are things that happen when one has authority without accountability. We are supposed to accept that this is how God wants his church run too. Oh boy, this is so far off the way of our Lord and Master that honestly I am wondering how living under the Taliban might not be any different. Jesus never led his disciples to act this way. I am so sorry that you and other egalitarians have been treated to this abuse. Lord Jesus, I pray that you will right the wrongs and bring good out of the evil that has been done in your name.

Wow! Are you serious? She has been calling you guys witches and all those other names? Pinklight, this just shows us what is in her heart. When Christians label other Christians with names like this over secondary issues of doctrine, the love of the Lord is not in them. We are required to love our brothers and sisters in the faith.

1 John 2:9 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
1 John 2:10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

There is a foundational problem with Matt’s organization when it is based on attack and revenge. And apparently it isn’t just the Christians who disagree on minor issues who have experienced banning and name-calling. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

By the way, did the other banning happen because of me or something that I did?

Yes, that’s a great idea. I think it might be a good idea to make a separate post on each week and give opportunity to comment. Thanks!

Just a note for anyone that is interested in the discussion on contemplative meditation. It has been moved over to Paula’s blog at http://www.fether.net/2008/01/25/contemplative-spirituality/. Thanks.

What surprised me is how widespread this belief has become in the complementarian camp that the Son in the Trinity (not the incarnation) is not equal with the Father. I sent these same audio files to a staunch complementarian couple because I thought they would be as appalled as I was to hear this downgrading of Jesus. To my utter amazement, they said that they didn’t hear anything wrong in what Burk said, yet I know that the husband himself had always used Philippians 2 to prove the Deity of Jesus with Jehovah’s Witnesses. But through the years somewhere they had picked up the thought that Jesus was not equal with the Father. It is time that this nonsense is stopped and Jesus again has his rightful place alongside the Father.

Thank you Light! We appreciate all the prayers we can get right now!

Just as I was answering this, I noticed an email come through from the radio station. They are asking for some audio promotion from me as they want to promote the DVDs ahead of time to get more listeners. Praise the Lord!