Don
Active 2007–2011
Tag Cloud
Be careful what you ask for, as you may get it. There are SOME who teach that a child is to obey their parents/father even when an adult!
This is not true and in effect keeps the child a child until the parent dies.
I posted an extract of the above post on Denny Burk’s blog, however it was in a thread on Gushee from last month, as that was most appropriate.
It would be great to meet you and your compatriots also.
I had no idea what a room at the site cost. I was willing to pay a certain amount, but one room was $55 and the other was $65.
Since that was over my budget I thought of seeing about sharing a room.
I live about 4 hours away. If someone wants to share a room Fri and Sat, I might go.
Sure, makes sense. The title as a teaser.
What could she possibly mean by THAT?
I will read it to find out.
1) How many women disciples Jesus has?
Luk 8 says there were some, some are named, so we can figure out a minimum, but are not sure if this is all there was.
2) How many women Apostles are mentioned in the Bible
Junia is one mentioned.
3) How many high priests are mentioned in the old testament.
Not sure, but they were all men in the Mosaic covenant.
4) Is Modesty a cultural things,
In many ways, yes. In some cultures a woman showing arms or having your hair down is a sexual turn on, in others not. A believer is to dress modestly.
5) Is a cultural thing for Men to be leaders in their home, to love, protect their family.
Much of society was patriarchal. I believe the Bible teaches both husband and wife are to be leaders in the family.
6)Jesus submit to God the father, was He inferior than the father?
Jesus submitted to God, while human, he had a human nature.
7) Are Paul words inspired or not?
Of course, Paul’s words in the Bible are inspired. His words outside of the Bible were not.
8 ) Did Paul use culture to justify why women should not teach men?
Paul did not write that women should not teach men, he wrote that a woman at Ephesus should stop teaching, period, while she was learning.
I think the main points made are great. I have a few suggestions that might improve the force of the argument. The MAIN point is you have caught CBMW moving from some statements to others in the society area. You can focus on this and make it more powerful.
-
The Title is somewhat confusing. Just say something about consistency in the 3 realms of home, church and society.
-
I think it is useful to keep this discussion about the 3 realms. You show how CBMW tied them all together in the past, now they are separating one out.
-
I think the discussion of Webb and homosexuality is distracting.
-
What I think REALLY happened was the CBMW wanted to be a “big tent” and get all the non-egals together. In order to do that, they try to “hint at” the more extreme non-egal views without explicitly stating them and they also try to “hint at” the non-egal view of society, without explicitly saying this is what the Bible commands. That way they include both the more extreme and less extreme non-egals in their “tent”. However, some of the more extreme non-egals have now left the CBMW tent and this freed them from balancing the tent as before. About the same time, the Rep ticket is more to the liking of many evangelicals than the Dem ticket, BUT for folks that follow CBMW, there could be a concern about voting for Palin, esp. as she has just had a special needs baby. So they want to remove any possible obstable to for a CBMW follower to voting Rep.
In other words, what they have done is respond to culture and change their theology; this is EXACTLY what they accuse others of doing, which is why they are so sensitive to the claim of inconsistency.
You should send this analysis to Gushee and Mohler and Burk, not to mention Grudem.
Yes, I know. But this is what Grudem’s EFBT says. I see it as man’s tradition negating what Scripture teaches. This is a part of why they do not see themselves as inconsistent. Standing outside, WE can see it, but standing inside, they cannot see it.
As R. Groothuis points out, there are NO exceptions in God’s choices; God does not make a rule and then make an exception.
I agree that this aspect is inconsistent, but it does not seem so to them, this is similar to how CBMW responds: “Judges is not a book to derive doctrine, it was a time of ups and downs. It does not say that Deborah taught men or ruled men. Picking Deborah was a rebuke for the absence of male leadership.”
In other words, they see her as an exceptional case and work to limit the implications within their worldview.
http://www.thetruthproject.org/
It is from FOTF. I have heard of it but many details are lacking.
Putting on the CBMW hat as best I can:
“Because the Bible does not use the supposed creation order to discuss society order, neither should we. In society it may be the case that men are desired as leaders as a general statement, but they are not always requiired. However, the creation order IS used when discussing family and church order.”
Note that I do not agree with this argument, as I do not accept the supposed creation order. But this is what I see CBMW as saying.
On CBMW and particularly Grudem, they/he claim that the “women” verses are clear, and the question is whether to obey or not.
However the verses are not clear, and this intellectual dishonesty gets them in trouble, as it should. But a byproduct of their claim is that SINCE the verses are supposedly clear, the interpretation of them needs to be consistent and supposedly have been since the beginning of their group. Hence they are VERY sensitive to a claim of inconsistency; as they know such if demonstrated is self-repudiating.
And now they find that both sides (the egals and the more non-egals) are pointing out their potential inconsistency.
I myself do NOT see them as inconsistent, GIVEN their interpretive choices. However, the very idea of interpretive choices is somewhere they do not want to go, as they know they will then lose.
I am so grateful I live in a nation with religious liberty and NOT a so-called Christian nation, as the question would then be, who gets to define the Christianity of the nation?
The state by its very nature has coercive power and to have that power endorsing some specific religion denies the free choice even of that religion.
VF is consistent legalism.
CBMW is inconsistent legalism.
BE is consistent freedom.
The choice is obvious to me.
BDAG is the official acronym for the 3rd edition of Bauer’s Lexicon, updated by Danker.
I do not think it is.
My take is the only way to do better than BDAG is archeology, as a general statement. In other words, Strong’s and Thayer’s, etc. are useful, but are more limited.
What about BDAG?
The olive tree is ashakin’. I see 2 possibilities, repentence or division.
Jeremy,
Welcome to Cheryl’s blog. I am egal, formerly not, as that was all I had been taught. Once I studied both sides, I became egal and continue to study both sides. Cheryl has some great insights that I have not seen elsewhere.
hesuchia is the attitude of a student when learning, it is allowing to be taught by a teacher and not being disruptive.
This is something ALL believers are to have, we are all to be students at times learning from another who is teaching.
In this pericope it is a repeated word indicating a inclusio or tight coupling of 1 Tim 2:11 with v. 12, these verses are in effect the whole teaching of Paul to Timothy on what to do with “a/the woman” and need to be bundled when discussed. (This shows the typical unbundling by non-egals is flawed.)
This whole idea of logic versus emotions (Apollo vs. Dionysus) is WAY too much Greek thinking, as if we had a choice. They are BOTH tied up together, I have read that people that have damage to their emotion centers cannot think logically at all. So the solution is to unravel their premise, that logic and emotions CAN be separated, as they cannot.
What IS happening I think when one is called “too emotional” is that person is saying why THEY would be acting as you are. We carry around models of others and we try to figure out their motivations from what we can see, but we are imperfect modelers. My point is that when someone says this, they are telling you more about themselves than about you. They may be right or wrong in their analysis, but they are saying if THEY said/did what you said/did that would be the reason.
The Bible is meant to change us, one way we can oppose that is to instead change the Bible to be like us, then we do not need to change. This is always a temptation for everyone.
It is strong stuff to try to do our best to understand the Bible in context, but this is what we are called to do.
Are you going to discuss the chiasm in 1 Cor 14, I think this makes it all come together.
Psalm 59 is appropriate for your situation in some ways. Hold onto the last verse.
It is important to know that NA27/UBS4 does include human interpretation in its presentation, including accent marks, punctuation and formatting.
Yes, put in context, one can see that these rules do not apply today, as the meaning for these things have changed. In application, there might be other things in a culture that DO apply and similar thinking would then apply.
I have faced some forum insults, I was amazed at how one can be treated when he/she does not toe the “party line” at some places. They are many who have gone before me who have faced much worse, including martyrs for the faith. I am grateful to them for being able to be baptized in water and have my own Bible and many other things which we now take for granted.
I see 1 Cor 11:4-6 as a quote from Corinth. So does Bruce Fleming.
The eta is one of those cases where the accent marks make the difference, but the earlier manuscripts do not have them. I do think this makes the most sense that Paul is repudiating sexism, but it is possible I am wrong on 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14.
One thing that is NOT discussed much is the double statement about men NOT covering their heads, so this is true regardless of how one understands the passage, yet is neglected in teaching. It might be thought that Paul IS sexist in denying men a choice that he gives women! This is not true either, but one needs to see the cultural meaning and why it contradicted the gospel.
In case some one reads this and does not know the context, I am egal and agree with Cheryl’s general conclusions. I just doubt in this case her method to get there.
Drunkeness prohibitions are only for Jews and believers, not for everyone. This does not mean it is wise for non-believing gentiles to do this.
For Jesus to show himself as Messiah to more than one witness, but it would only take one verse on Messiah for that prophecy to exist and be a valid prophecy. For example, Bethlehem is a one place prophecy and many others.