Don

I know not to trust satan and my non-trust extends to not thinking he needs to be consistent with my understanding of logic.

There are logic puzzles where an island is inhabited by 2 types of people, those that always tell the truth and those that always lie, one can ask a tricky question such as “If I were to ask you about this, what would you say?”  The truth teller tells the truth and the liar lies about the lie he would say and so tells the truth in the puzzle.  But I do not think satan is limited in this way.

Another way to think of it is the evidence of satan is to be ignored, one cannot rely on it one way or the other.

Cheryl,

I am glad you can put this behind you.

May the Spirit act mightily at this meeting.

I agree the gospel gives freedom and this is more than just freedom from being a slave to sin, it means choices and is one of the principles of the Kingdom.

I have the Companion Bible and it has many insights I like.

Gal 3 is the most egal statement for centuries, it was quiet unprecedented, no wild Greek philosopher went that far.

I agree the Bible does not discuss big church hierarchies, I prefer rule at a local church myself.

Acts 15 has a specific context, given in v. 1 and it is important to understand the whole chapter in that context.  It does not talk about Jews, only gentiles.

Yes, one needs to strive to obey all commandments of all covenants one is in.  Do not enter a covenant (e.g., marriage) if you do not intend to keep your vows, for example.

You cannot divide a covenant up, the Bible says it cannot be done, if in the Mosaic covenant, keep all those commandments that apply to you and that you can do.  Many Messianic Jews try to do this, they keep Sabbath and kosher and I do not see this as wrong, they are honoring God by what they do.

There is some 1st century context that is useful to understand some of the NT.  Most gentiles were pagan but some were called God fearers and were allowed in the temple up to the court of the gentiles.  In effect they were on the road to becoming a Jewish convert and stopped part way.  This was allowed, they could go to synagogue and learn, see Acts 15:21.

Mikveh baths were a part of 2nd temple Judaism.  This is where the idea of baptism of believers came from.  The Jews would do this to be ritually pure to enter temple areas.  It was also the very last step of conversion of a gentile, when they came up out of the mikveh bath they were considered Jewish with all rights and responsibilities.  Before that they needed instruction, to be circumcised if male and to pay for a temple sacrifice, this last was changed to a contribution after the temple was destroyed.

Being baptised is one of the early acts of obedience of a believer and is a public declaration of the inner transformation.  This is also where Jews are freed from the being in the Mosaic covenant by dieing in baptism (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12) to enter the new covenant see Rom 7:1-6, which is a better covenant, e.g.,  God commandments are written on one’s heart and not just stone or paper.

Yes, faith and trust are implied in the Hebrew and Greek, it is English that makes them seem different, but it is good to point out what it means Biblically.

On sexual immorality, see 1 Cor 5:1.  There was a concept among pagans about sexual immorality, but it was not the same as the Jewish concept.  The Jews are asking to meet the commandments of the Jewish understanding.  Recall that some gentiles might be new believers.  Paul teaches not to be immoral also.

I appreciate your point.

I might understand Acts 15 somewhat differently.  The context is gentiles and what do they need to do to be saved.  Do they need to join the Mosaic covenant?  No, as the Mosaic covenant does not save anyone, as pointed out by Peter in v. 11.  Do they need to be circumcised and join Abraham’s covenant?  This is a little trickier, but no, as they are in Jesus and Jesus was circumcised they are already IN Abraham’s covenant.  And if “circumcision” is referring to the traditions of Pharisees on conversion v. 5 (which it might) then no again, as James points out both Jews and gentiles will worship God v. 17 per Amos quote so there is no requirement for Jewish coversion.

So Jews and gentiles are saved by accepting Jesus and accepting the Spirit in them v.8 & v 11.

But what will it take so Jewish believers will not be grossed out by being with gentile believers?  (They might be saved, but do I have to sit next to them or go to the same church with them?)  These are the 4 minimal requests, from a Jewish POV these were gross things that exemplified what it meant to be a pagan, so please stop doing these worst things from the Jewish POV so that Jewish believers in Jesus can be with you in fellowship.  Remember, they are trying to make it as easy as possible on the gentiles v. 28.

But this does not talk about what a church is to do for leaders or what a family is work, that is elsewhere in Scripture.

http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/i-am-more-egalitarian-than-i-want-to-admit/

is another blog discussing Stinson’s post.

Cheryl,

It is true that 1 Tim 2:12 is the most famous verse used to restrict women in ministry (often with the claim that some translation is the clear teaching of Scripture) but there are other verses that are also used to do that and I am sure you know this.  1 Cor 14:34-35 (women be silent), 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 (husband of one wife) are some others used by non-egals, as well as using inconsistent or non-primary meaning translations of Rom 16:1 on Phoebe and Rom 16:7 on Junia.

I wish it was a simple as one verse.

This whole situation takes a lot of wisdom to know what to do, so I am praying the Holy Spirit will give EVERYONE involved wisdom.

{Edit by Cheryl to remove information that may identify the ministry that this person works}

Stinson wrote “…my concern is that in the name of gender equality, the Bible is undermined and the very words of God end up being revised.”

This statement is incoherent and therefore wrong.  There is an assumption that the words of God are in English, so when a translator makes a different choice than Stinson would make, that translator is “revising” the Bible.  This is not the way it works, folks!  In fact, besides being fundamentally wrong, it is very arrogant for Stinson to make this claim.

The words of God in Scripture are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.  Most agree that the original manuscripts were inspired, what best represents those is a discussion, but there are methods to do our best to reconstruct those original manuscripts.

How best to translate text in one language to another is an art, not a science, which is why machine translation is not very good at it.  There are disagreements about how some verses should be translated, this is a far cry from “revising” Scripture.  Besides that, English itself evolves, who speaks KJV English today except in church, but it was the common tongue back then.

The non-egal arguments used by CBMW and co. are new and becoming strident.  They are basically a reaction against the flow of freedom that they noticed.  I think the stridency is because IF they are wrong, then they would need to repent.  We saw the same reaction with the US slaveholders in 1850s.

If you did not already know, it is getting nasty out there for egals, so be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Mat 10:16

Hey, did I just learn from a woman? 
Oh, nooooooooooo!
🙂

On the various Jewish sects in the 2nd temple Judaism(s), we know about the Sadducees and Pharisees and Essenes and Zealots and Herodians and the Way.  The Pharisees had 2 main schools, Shammai and Hillel, their debates are recorded in the Mishnah.  The school of Hillel evolved into orthodox rabbic Judaism after the temple was destroyed, all the rest were wiped out by 100 except the Way evolved into Christianity once the gentiles came in.

On love, this is the MAIN sign of a believer, esp. love of the brethren.  See 1 Cor 13 and elsewhere.  God dealt with me when I thought that being right was more important than love.

Guess who the Don was at Touchstone blog, as mentioned in the comments under this Burk blog?

Any guesses?

One of the many ways one can feed one’s pride is to make a fuss about whatever one is working on.  I am working on this big and important project, so I must be big and important.  If people do not listen to me-me-me things will get much worse, etc.  We need to be careful to assess things correctly and not inflate them (or deflate them) just because we are working on them.

Also, we need to be very careful in disfellowshipping someone.  At the very least, we need to get with them and ask them how they understand the verses that seem to us to be relevant to a concern we might have.  If it is one of the puzzling verses, we need to be careful as one can be faithful yet not agree with us.

I do not see most non-egals as having a crippled faith, I see them as having a diminished faith; they are not all God wants them to be, but they can certainly advance the Kingdom.

Here is my understanding on being saved.

1. Salvation is a personal experience between God and an individual, when they accept Jesus as Messiah.  A church cannot grant salvation or take it away.

2. We are to confess our salvation.  This helps us recognize others who are saved, so we can join a body of believers.

3. We are to accept another’s confession of salvation, except in the face of evidence to the contrary.  Such evidence, for example, would be a repudiation of a previous confession of salvation or continuing unrepentant sin.

4. However, we are to be gracious.

I am reposting some text from above, as it seems it might have been missed.

I think it is important to see that what the woman says God said contains an ambiguous or partial truth.  There were 2 trees in the middle of the garden.  Which one is she referring to?  If she is quoting God, which one is God referring to?
And the important question is: Would God declare a sin of commission in an ambiguous way?

1. I think this is a heartfelt admission by Stinson how he feels and since published by CBMW how they feel.

2. While I would not be so strident, I do think his points (the authority of Scripture, the health of the home, the health of the church, our worship, Bible translations, and the advance of the gospel) are correct.  It is just that I come to opposite conclusions that he does, egal conclusions.  In each of these areas, if one is not mostly agreeing with egal conclusions, things will be diminished from what they could otherwise be in terms of Kingdom advance.

3. However, and this is important, people have a right to their own conclusions, this is soul liberty.  We can discuss, explain our reasons to each other, and part ways.  I am thankful for religious liberty in the West and hope the rest of the world will have it.  I would not want to try to force my egal conclusions on anyone, rather, I would invite them to accept them.

4. I can be wrong, but God is faithful.

http://www.linguistsoftware.com/payneessays.htm

has a great new article on 1 Tim 2.  I post it here as this is the most recent discussion on 1 Tim.

Of course not.

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } PRE { font-family: “Arial” } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>
Eph 6:4 And fathers, do not provoke your children, but nurture them
 in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.

This is the verse I am commenting on. In the Greco-Roman world the
paterfamilias had the power over kids. But in the believing word, both
parents have the power over kids, it is mutual. So substitute parents
for fathers in the above, it applies to both, but Paul used paternes,
so that the Roman spies at church meetings looking for subversion
would not find it EXPLICITLY in his letter.

Those nasty egals are advancing cuz they cheat! How can we get them to cheat less?

Give me a break!  When someone writes this type of non-argument, it means they have no better arguments.  What do the non-egals do?  They suppress dissent.  So they see this as what egals do.

I think it is important to see that what the woman says God said contains an ambiguous or partial truth.  There were 2 trees in the middle of the garden.  Which one is she referring to?  If she is quoting God, which one is God referring to?

And the important question is: Would God declare a sin of commission in an ambiguous way?

On Paul, for example, in Eph 6 paternes is plural, but it does not need to be, it could have been written as singular.  If singular it almost certainly would mean father, when plural it might mean either fathers or parents, as the male plural form is used for a group that contains at least 1 man all the way up to all men.

Recall the letters were read in the church meeting, most could not read. My take is the Roman spies sent to suspicious meetings were looking for confirmation that the paterfamilias was in charge, so they would hear paternes and think fathers.  But the Ephesian believers would catch it and know the OT says for kids to honor BOTH their father and mother, etc. so they would understand it as parents, perhaps with the help of an elder to explain.

There is SOME Scripture that have multiple meanings.  Some prophecies have multiple fulfillments.  Some words or phrases are word plays or puns with 2 meanings.  I also think some words Paul uses in Eph 5-6 (for example) are deliberately ambiguous.

Yes, I really appreciate Matthew.  Each gospel has its perspective and they are all useful.

I totally disagree with the idea of going around the room and seeing what a verse means to each person.  And then taking a vote ala the Jesus seminar.

But it IS possible for people of faith to make different choices for the meaning of some words and phrases and each has a different understanding in good faith.  Many of the meaning choices made by non-egals are possible, it is just that they are not required.   And it IS possible to come up with different understandings of the book of Rev. in good faith, for example.

On context of verses, I agree with pericope context and Biblical subject context, but another is the cultural context of the time the book was written.  This is one that is missing for many discussions on meaning but can be absolutely critical.  The Bible gets to define and refine the words it uses and when it does we are to use that, but it does not contain a complete dictionary of all the words it uses.  The only way to know what those words meant is the way they were used in the culture of the time.

I see Stinson’s article as the way they actually view reality.  They are running scared.  They cannot admit there are exegetical challenges or they lose, they have to claim their way is the only way or very few would choose it today.

But when they discuss some puzzling verse or phrase, they produce pages and pages trying to show that something they claim is obvious is correct.  They want to have it both ways.  So they self-repudiate their own position with every paper they publish.

What they should be is honest and admit there are challenges, but then they know they will lose.

So they use scare tactics and innuendo to con the gullible.

What is the link for Stinson’s post?

Yes, of course.  The non-egal holders are radicalizing, it is not just enough to teach what they teach, other teachings are to be excluded.  This is in line with what the ESV and HCSB do in their word choices, by their word translation choices, they make it easy to be non-egal, as the translators are.  And then the many in the ESV group knock the TNIV, saying it is an untrustworthy translation.

When I have been attacked in the past, God gave me a word, “Daniel” which means “God is my judge” and I hold onto that word sometimes when I need to do so.

I think we will see continued radicalizing of the non-egals, as the egal message is going forth and many churches are responding by becoming more egal.

I used to think there was ONE RIGHT WAY to interpret each verse in the Bible, but more and more I see there are “clouds” of various ways to understand various verses and a believer is to give grace to another with both are in the cloud but not the same.  The other way to address this would be via a quasi-Magisterium and I do not want to go there, that cure seems worse than the disease.

Everyone SHOULD have a current understanding and should be teachable, but if something does not convince them, then it would be bad faith to pretend it did.  We can try to show the non-egals how to understand the Bible in a egal way, but in the final analysis, it is their choice how they understand the Bible, we cannot FORCE them to see it our way or vice versa.  We are left with trying to convince others and they the same.

I am convinced there are believers that do not believe the same as I do about the milk things of the faith in Hebrews 5; BUT I am still to treat them as believers.  How MUCH MORE for the things that are beyond the milk stage.

One way to see my point is that God COULD have spelled things out step by step.  Instead of ONLY having the woman’s quote God could have written words showing how God DID say what the woman said he did and then have her say them and it all fits together, as we might wish.  But for whatever reason God did not do that.  In my words, there are gaps in the account about things we might wish to know; and how one fills in the gaps tells others about oneself, not necessarily about God or what the Bible says or does not say.

We ARE supposed to use our mind to understand the Bible and make connections and use logic, etc.  And if my words do not convince you, nor your words mine, we each go in peace, I see this as a very small piece of the puzzle, there are much bigger fish to fry.

I remember when a Christian counselor told me that everyone has a right to be wrong.  One of my temptations is to try to get everyone to agree with me-me-me since I am right-right-right and I end up being unloving.  And God rebuked me, informing me that love was more important than being right.  (That is, getting the other to agree with me or at least coming to a common understanding.)

On Jonah, obviously until God acts, such statements as Jonah’s are warnings.  We know this from the nature of God.  Yes, Jonah did not want Ninevah to repent, so he went minimalist with his prophecy.

On Mark, it is important to see truncation as a possibility in Hebrew thinking as Mark and Luke have no exception clause for divorce, while Matthew does; this means some try to suppress the exception clause to reconcile the verses, which is exactly the wrong way to do it, but they are trying to be faithful to the text.  Another way to look at the possibility of truncation is that Hebrews have a worldview that fills in the “gaps” in a teaching based on the Bible.  When a verse might appear to show an unmerciful God, they know they are not to see it that way.  Skeptics have a field day with the gaps, pronouncing it all nonsense and worse.

On the woman, the term “tree in the middle of the garden” is ambiguous, as there were 2 trees there.  So while it is not exactly wrong, it is also unclear.