Don Johnson

I think this is a good point, many people want to be told what to do and how to interpret the Bible. Doing the work of deciding for yourself what you believe can be hard!

I think there is also an aspect of fear, so the world keeps changing and there are some real concerns with some of the changes. I think this is why we see slippery slope arguments from the non-egals.

Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

On working on a timeline for the life of Christ, the good news is there are 4 gospels and the bad news is there are 4 gospels. People have spent a huge amount of study on just the last week, let alone the whole thing.

I also believe it is important to get the details right. Inspired text means every detail can be important. I also agree with Buth that each pericope needs to be understood on its own, before any attempt at integration with others, as the opposite idea can result in reading into the text.

Jews talk about the 6 days of creation as special and point out that they are not necessarily the same as days today.

For me, I incorporate the 3 Genesis origins accounts together by losing the assumption of (strict) chronological time. That is, besides being a poem about Creation, Gen 1 has a purpose of giving a reason for Sabbath keepting; that is, working 6 days (like God did) and resting on 1 (like God did). The working days are stated in a way that could be understood by farmers and shepherds of the time and that deal with work appropriate for God, namely creation of everything.

I think the reason CARM responded as they did as they saw that their non-egal position on women was losing and they did not want to change their position so they up’ed the ante.

So that is what a tree hugger looks like!

Exegetist has been requested to check out
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/YaBB.pl

It is a forum discussing equality so others may wish to check it out also. I have no way of contacting him, other than here.

I heard an egal. male teacher mention this of a non-egal male; when a female taught; he simply was not there when he knew she would be teaching and if something happened where she would teach that was not planned, he left quietly. I immediately had respect for the non-egal male. It did hurt the female as she knew what was going on, but it was a lot better than making a scene. He acted on his conscience, but worked to preserve the peace.

A few other ideas that might help, for those in either camp:
1. Be humble and see that one MIGHT be wrong. I am a sinner, altho redeemed, and it is possible to deceive myself due to selfish motives so that I think I am right but am wrong.
2. Believe the best about another, instead of the worst.
3. Ask for clarification.
4. Do not lump together other debates in the body of Christ; let each debate stand or fall on its own merits.
5. Pray for the other. And give the other room for God to work, faith is not so much about winning as loving. (This is one I struggle with all the time.)
6. IF another offends you, go to them one on one, follow the procedure in Matthew 18.
7. If it is clear you cannot have unity in the faith, endeavor to maintain unity in the Spirit. Acknowedge the other as a believer at the very least, unless it is a salvation issue that is debated.
8. Realize that the body of Christ is about unity in diversity, as each is conformed to Christ, and not necessarily conformity with each other.
9. See where you can agree with another.
10. If a man cannot in faith learn from a woman in some format (e.g., pulpit), perhaps he can in another, for example, one on one or small group (ala Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos). Be willing to go the extra mile for those “weak in the faith” without necessarily identifying which of the 2 is “weak”.
11. Be respectful, loving, and helpful.
12. Know when to be quiet. When you start to repeat, it may be time to let go and let God.
13. Realize that some in the other camp may have “trust issues” with those in your camp, so maintain the highest integrity.
14. In everything, honor God.

I sent in my application to ECA based on your suggestion.

Yes, removing the foreskin is a fleshly act. Yes, there can be ROUGHLY analogous parts in males and females, except the females are smaller. In my way of seeing it, the female MAYBE is ALREADY tender, but the male needed to be made so, in the physical shadow of the spiritual reality. Or perhaps it was just not a good idea to circumcize females when flint cutting tools were the norm. In the spiritual reality, both genders need to be made tender and this was true in the Torah.

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Deu 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
—
And the other 2 refs to heart circumcision:
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.”
Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

So I can agree with all these verses and you can, we just see them differently, we explain the metaphor differently. Being a Greek thinker, I used to believe that one should seek for the ONE truth and then try to convince everyone of it. As I become more Hebraic, I realize that on SOME things there are many truths as there are many ways to see it. I try as much as possible for each to find their own truth and let each be. Of course, each should have enough info on context and culture to make an informed decision about what works for them. And always be willing to learn more and change, when more evidence comes in. And of course we all seek to have a relationship with God, who is Truth, capital T.

I can find 73 hits in e-sword in the ESV on “circumc*” and 7 on “foreskin”. I cannot find any of them saying that the foreskin is a symbol for sin or circumcision is a symbol for removing sin. If you can, please post it.

On the tender aspect, the Bible talks about healing after it is done, and it is obvious that some of the protection is removed for a very sensitive part of a male.

Here is my understanding.

Circumcision of males was the sign of a FAMILY entering Abraham’s covenant. This is one you want to be in as it is just promises from God and is therefore sometimes called the Promise.
It is a physical sign of a spiritual truth, the need for heart circumcision, which is true for everyone, males and females Some pagans also circumcized males, so JUST because one is circumcized does not mean anything, it needs to have been done in faith, as does everything that counts spiritually.

ANYONE IN CHRIST has put on Christ and so is in Abraham’s covenant and so can partake in Passover in good faith, for example, where it is required to be circumcized if male to participate.

But I do not see explicitly where the foreskin is a symbol for sin, rather removing the foreskin is a sign of being tenderized.

I was taught patriarchy since I became a Christian, so that is how I interpreted all the verses, it seemed so obvious to me, especially as all those I respected taught it. Especially because it seems so obvious (once your mind has been taught to interpret some things in a patriarchical way) it just seems like others are playing games when they do not read some verses like the patriarchs do. And of course, evengelicals are warned about those who claim to be Christians in some sense, but really do not hold the Bible in high esteem and so do almost anything they want.

Because of this pervasive mindset, it took someone who I really respected for other reasons to even be able to suggest I should study the other side. I simply did not believe at first that there WAS a viable other side for Bible believers. So when I see my old attitude in others, it is easy to remind myself that I was once there myself and be gentle. Blasting me would never have worked, it took a work of the Spirit along with an understanding that the other side were not bogus from the get go.

When I finally did flip to egalitarianism, I was amazed at the courage of the ones that had gone before, lighting the way so I could follow. They were willing to suffer being falsely accused, in order to bring God’s light to others. They are role models for me and I admire them greatly.

IMO, God is so far beyond our understanding, that God uses metaphors and analogies so we might have any understanding at all. God is like quantum theory, if you think you understand all of it, you don’t. I think J.B. Phillips wrote a book, “Your God is too Small” which I found very useful in not putting God in a box.

The “traditionalist” side in any discussion can always say that those that do not follow their lead end include those that do X, where X is something negative. This is a totally spurious argument, it is a scare tactic. It only works on those who are scared, unfortunately, this seems to be significant number of believers.

Here is a chain demolishing some arguments, this is not original with me.
1. The Bible says that Miriam was a leader of the Israelites, along with Moses and Aaron, but perhaps she only led women.
2. But Deborah led men (sat in authority over them), being a judge, but perhaps God used her as their were no suitable men.
3. But Huldah declared at least Deuteronomy (and perhaps the Pentateuch) to be God’s word, even though there were other male prophets available to consult, including Jeremiah.

As far as I can tell, shaking the dust off your feet was done when non-believers rejected the gospel. We need to be careful to use that terminology in the Biblical context.

I agree it can “feel soooooo good” to blast away at some theological “opponent” (I know from personal experience) but Jesus died for him also. The goal is always redemption, not winning the argument. (I am also talking to myself.)

The same is true of YHWH as husband to the Israelites. YHWH never forced his way or broke the tie or anything like that, even tho both the northern tribes and southern tribes were unfaithful, etc.

I have read both of Giles books on the subjects, I am wondering what Michael Terran is specifically referring to when he uses the title ‘The Father and the Son” as I cannot find a book with that title at Amazon with the subject being Theology.

Who is the author and what is the full title of what you refer to as “The Father and The Son”? I cannot seem to find such a book name on Amazon that deals with this subject.

I have read both of Gile’s books. I agree with Gile’s but his points come down to interpretations of what the ECF and church councils meant, which means just more disagreements, as the comps see things thru their worldview on what they meant. Giles also says that the Bible can be used to support either position, but I do not agree with that when the whole Bible is considered.

I noticed on CARM that the male hierarchicalists are left with claiming that Mary had no choice in getting pregnant. But a fundamental Biblical truth is that God never forces anyone to do something against their own will. To me, this just shows how one skewed interpretation (male hierarchy) results in a cascade of errors (eternal hierarchy in the trinity and God forcing people) in an attempt to justify the initial error.

In my undestanding, Joseph planned to get a Hillel “Any Matter” divorce from Mary due to her pregnancy and this would be a quiet divorce that would avoid shaming her as he did not need to bring any reason forward for discussion. The Pharisees taught that a man in such a situation MUST divorce his engaged wife, or else he partook in her sin.

Here is a Biblical refutation of eternal subordination of the Son using types.

Almost everyone knows Joseph is a type of Jesus, the Son, but this also means Jacob in that timeframe is acting as a type of God, the Father. Joseph’s 2nd dream was that his 11 bro’s, mother and father would bow down to him, this indicates submission. This all happens in Genesis, but for some reason is not discussed in commentaries much that I have read. In fact, a BIG deal is made of missing one bro in Gen, so that the 11th bro needs to be there to bow down. But the mother and father bowning down is not even mentioned much. But you can see the 2nd dream is not fulfilled until these happen.

I think there is a temptation to avoid Mary among protestants, because of fears of Mariology. But Mary is a good example of a follower.

Marriage and divorce (the other side of the coin) is one of my focus study areas so I am looking forward to what you have to say also.

So the comps have no authority to speak in many believer’s lives EXCEPT over a matter of sin. This is one reason they reach the conclusions they do and call a woman leading in church a rebellion, if they did not think this was the case, they should just mind their own business.

Atheists and agnostics will try to point out that Christianity is offensive to and degrades women, etc. and they will quote the Bible and comp. interpretation. They WANT it to appear to be patriarchical, the better to get people to agree with them and reject Christianity as offensive. It is VERY educational to peek at some of their websites, they make up lists of why the Bible is offensive, etc. and the comps just play into their hands.

On what I was trying to say before, for example, the SBC which accepts the comp position, the comps can speak at their churches and people listen to them, because they are invited. As they are invited and endorsed by the leaders, they have authority. But lots of churches do not invite them.

In my understanding, Timothy was not considered Jewish, that is why he was circumcized in Acts 16, so he would be. As a God fearing gentile, he could only get up to the gentile barrier in the temple area; but as a Jew he could get to where any Jewish male could get.

IIRC, Jews switched from tracing thru males to tracing thru females due to the high number of rapes and therefore lack of assurance of paternity.

The ONLY way the comps can claim to have any authority to speak to a group that does not recognize their authority is about the gospel, this is why they seek to extend it. By falsely extending the gospel they reduce the number of people that can accept it. There are MANY atheists and agnostics who AGREE with the comps, as they know that many people will then side with them. It is all so sad.