Kristen

Ok, finally getting back to this:
NN said:
“Let us apply the reasoning which you just outlined to a parallel passage of scripture, we’ll pick 1st Peter:
1 Pet 2:13 ~ “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme”
1 Pet 3:1 ~ “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives”
First of all, I don’t know if you realize that your tone comes across as condescending. “We” didn’t pick 1st Peter, you did. I think perhaps you are accustomed to presenting your point of view in a teaching, rather than a discussion, format. I prefer the courtesy of: “I would like to pick 1st Peter, if you don’t mind.” Thanks for your consideration.
But leaving that aside and going on to your point:
“Applying the same reasoning we say that “wives should submit to their husbands in the same way that christians are to submit to human governance. But this is quite different than your proposed reading of Ephesians. And since two contradictory statements CANNOT both be true (again a fundamental axiom of logic) – we must find a hermeneutic which produces a consistent understanding for both passages.”
The two passages are different, but reading Ephesians in terms of mutual submission is not contradictory with 1st Peter. Keeping in mind that both are written to Christians living in a Greek-speaking culture in which authority of husbands over wives, and of the emperor over everyone, are assumed, the two books still have completely different focuses. Peter makes it clear what his purpose in writing is, in 1 Peter 2:11 – “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims. . . [have] your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works which they observe, glorify God. . .” It is from there that he goes on to tell these “sojourners” to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” He then goes on to speak of slaves who are under the control of non-Christian masters, and how the slaves should behave as Christ did, even when their masters are unjust. It is then that he goes on to say, “Likewise, wives, be submissive to your own husbands.” Peter is addressing how Christians are to behave towards those non-believers who are in authority over them. Wives are to submit to their husbands due to the governing authority husbands were considered by the culture to have over wives. The passage then goes on to talk about how unbelieving husbands (“who do not obey the word”) will be influenced by this kind of submission on the part of their believing wives.
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians has an entirely different focus. His whole letter is about what it is to be “in Christ.” The relationships that Paul focuses on are not about Christians-to-unbelievers, but about Christians-to-Christians. Though Paul also assumes the existence of the cultural authority of husbands over wives (as he does also the authority of masters over slaves, etc.), he is NOT talking about relating to those worldly authority structures– he is talking about how Christians “in Christ” should relate to one another. Christian-to-Christian relationships, then, are to be characterized by mutual submission in which those in power lay down their power, and those who are not in power are elevated. Christian relations to the world, and Christian relations to one another, are different. This does not mean they are contradictory with one another. In one passage husbands and wives, masters and slaves, who are all assumed to be Christians, are told to “submit to one another.” In the other passage wives and slaves, who are assumed to be living in a hostile culture, are told (along with all other Christians who are “sojourners” in this culture), to submit themselves to the governing authority of husbands and masters just as Christians submit to all worldly governing institutions. If the husband is not Christian, he cannot be expected to let go of his cultural privilege and lay down his life, submitting even to death, for his wife. If the master is not Christian, he cannot be expected to “treat in the same way” their slaves as their slaves have just been told to treat them. Therefore, this kind of mutual submission is not mentioned in 1st Peter.
Going on to your last question:
“Which leads us back to my question, but let me rephrase it for you: For any command given – it is a transcendent principle being applied to a specific context. How do you distinguish between the transcendent principle itself and the particular adaptation of the principle to the present context? And, as a sub-question – how do we tell this without forcing our own present cultural biases onto the text.”
It is of course always difficult to avoid forcing our own present cultural biases onto the text– whether they are biases that come from modern secular culture, or biases that come from modern Christian counter-cultural responses. But I would say that the best way to distinguish between the transcendent principle and the adaptation of the principle to the present context, is to study to learn about the original context. An understanding of the original context will help us understand original authorial intent– and when the authorial intent is God-inspired, understanding that intent will lead to an understanding of the transcendent principle.

To NN – regarding 353– I agree that the two passages convey different principles, but not that they are contradictory. But I don’t have time to detail my reasons for this just now. I’ve got to go to work. I’ll get back to you later.

BTW, a closer look at the Ten Commandments shows that we DO interpret it by taking into account the cultural/historical understandings of the time. For instance, when it says “You shall not make for yourselves any graven image” — even though no one in our culture (to my knowledge) actually carves idols and bows down to them, we still consider the Commandment applicable today. We simply follow the principle that we don’t worship an image of anything created by giving it more importance than God in our lives– even though the current “images” that people tend to worship nowadays bear no resemblance to the ancient idols carved from wood.
We do this in order to keep the Ten Commandments fresh and applicable to our lives today, rather than relegating “you shall make no graven image” to the distant past.

Clarification: when I said,
“We’re against the concept of authority being read into a passage where the author wasn’t talking about authority at all” — I meant that authority was being assumed,, and thus the point of the passage was Christian relationships of mutual submission within those assumed authority structures– thus, authority was not the point, but mutual submission was; and the concept of mutual submission is essentially an anti-hierarchical concept.

NN wrote:

“And this brings us back to the question: How can you tell? When Paul says “all christians should submit one to another” you say ‘that’s a transcendent truth of the christian faith” when he says to exactly the same group “wives submit to your husbands” you say ‘well, that’s just a result of the culture that he was speaking to.’”
I certainly never said that “wives submit to your husbands” was just a result of the culture. Wives should submit to their husbands in the same way all Christians submit to one another. Said submission does not convey authority. Complementarians so often seem to think egalitarians are against wifely submission. We aren’t. We’re against the concept of authority being read into a passage where the author wasn’t talking about authority at all.
I thought I made it clear how when you take the cultural understandings into account, it becomes clearer to see what the author actually meant. It’s puzzling to me that though you say you understand what I’m saying, your response shows that we still aren’t connecting. There is no need to ask “how do you tell?” Once you read each passage with a mind to finding the principle being conveyed, “how do you tell?” becomes a moot point, because once cultural understandings (in EVERY passage) are taken into consideration, the actual truth principles being conveyed can be seen, and those principles are what we’re supposed to be following in the first place.
As far as cultural bias is concerned– I think many of us as Christians need to understand that that we may have counter-cultural biases– that is, that we may not understand that certain aspects of modern culture are actually in tune with, and historically rooted in, Christian principles, and that in our rejection of “the world,” we may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Full female equality is one of these areas, in my opinion.

NN said:
“With regard to your dispute of the logic chain of (239) – your position falls within the scope of possibility 2 – you claim that the instruction was specific to the culture and not universally applicable.”
Well, sort of– but I don’t think you are entirely getting my point. I didn’t say the instruction, by being specific to the culture, was therefore not universally applicable. You seem to be thinking inside a kind of box where it has to be either one or the other. I think it’s both. The Bible by its very nature is both culturally specific and universally applicable. The trick is not to say, “Which one is this particular passage?” but to say, “What is the timeless truth being conveyed in this passage that was written from within a specific cultural understanding?”
NN continues: “However, I presume that you grant that some instructions are universal and transcend ANY cultural institution:
e.g. God exists, man is sinful, all men are instructed to repent from their wickedness and seek God through the atoning work of Christ, etc. Since you have sought to answer this, ask yourself this question: How can one tell the difference? Let us presume that Paul gave instructions which were specific to the culture and are no longer directly applicable to our culture and also that he gave instructions which were universal and transcend any specific culture. How can one biblically tell them apart. ”
You’re right that if you try to separate them out– “this one’s no longer directly applicable, but this one is”– you can end up with a very inconsistent hermeneutic. Some people take THIS passage as timeless and THAT passage as not applicable; and other people take the first passage as not applicable and the second passage as timeless; and there is often very little rhyme or reason as to why.
Scot McKnight, in his book The Blue Parakeet, offers an alternative: Read the entire Bible with a view to authorial intent and the cultural understandings of the original writer and the original audience, and then– rather than dismissing any of it as no longer applicable– use those understandings to try to find the timeless principle within every passage.
The thing is that pretty much every book of the Bible begins with some kind of statement along the lines of “this is the message that came to such and such a person during such and such a period of time, in such and such a place.” I submit that those are not there just for extraneous detail, but that God inspired them to be there just as much as the rest of the Scriptures– and He did it for a reason. That reason was to alert the reader that each message was first of all a message to a particular people, bound within a certain time and place– and that therefore we should pay attention to those specifics in trying to understand the passage.
Now, when it comes to those truths that are related to the eternal nature of God, or to humanity’s relationship with God– such as sin, repentence, atonement, obedience– because the topics themselves are eternal and God-related, there’s going to be far fewer humanity-related cultural assumptions that need to be taken into account. This is why it’s far easier to ascertain the timeless principle being conveyed. But when it comes to human relations (such as marriage), those historical/cultural understandings become much more important. In any event, if we always take into account the cultural/historical settings in which the various books of the Bible were written, our hermeneutic becomes much more logical and consistent– we needn’t worry about “when does this apply to me and when doesn’t it?” Instead we ask “What is the truth principle being conveyed by this passage?” And then we apply that principle to our own lives.
I can even give a Scriptural foundation for this type of Biblical interpretation, for Paul himself used it. He said that when the Law said “Do not muzzle the ox while it’s threshing the grain,” it was not the time-bound specifics of the ox and the grain that were important– it was the timeless principle being conveyed that “a laborer is worthy of his wages.” If the Scriptures themselves espouse this principle-approach hermeneutic, I think it can be considered a safe hermeneutic to use.

So– having previously given an answer to NN’s post #239 which he said he wouldn’t proceed without, and now having expanded on it– does that satisfy you, NN?

I answered #239 – finding fault with NN’s assertions that Paul’s teaching tells the husband and the wife different things, and these differences have to be either “purely prosaic” or “only cultural,” or “a universal part of the created order,” as follows:
“NN– the principles of the Scriptures are timeless. But there are cultural assumptions being made all the time by the writers and original readers of the text, who shared understandings that we lack. The question is not, “are the instructions only cultural?” but “how would these instructions have been understood in their original culture?” I maintain that these instructions, in their original culture, would have been seen as instructions to husbands to lower themselves from the elevated position their culture gave them, and to raise their wives up as full equals in Christ.”
The reason the apostle makes no reference to a particular culture is that the cultural norms were assumed by the apostle and his readers. If I tell a friend who lives across town that I’m coming over to her house, I don’t need to mention I’ll be driving my car. She and I both already assume this. Someone in a later century, who doesn’t understand our culture, might think that because I didn’t mention a car, it means I walked. But such an assumption would be erroneous, based on not understanding what my friend and I take for granted.
Male authority over the female was assumed by Paul and his readers– but should that assumption be considered part of the timeless, universal truth he was conveying? Or do we, as modern readers, need to take the assumption into account so that we’ll understand what Paul’s readers would have understood?
If male authority in the culture is taken as assumed, then the different things Paul told men and women make sense in that culture as changes to that state of affairs. Kenneth Bailey says in Jesus through Middle-Eastern Eyes, “An innovator in any age must deal with tradition. Some things are omitted. Some things are endorsed and left unchanged. Still others are revised through the introduction of new elements.” (p. 107) Paul’s writings do NOT show the endorsing of the traditional idea of marriage in that age by leaving it unchanged. Instead, he takes the traditional view of marriage and OMITS what would have been the expected, direct instruction regarding husbandly authority — speaking instead of the husband’s role as nurturer and provider for the wife. Then he REVISES the traditional view of marriage through the introduction of the concepts of mutual submission and husbandly emulation of Christ (not in taking authority over the church, but in laying down His high privilege and giving Himself up for her).
In other words, there is a fourth choice that NN overlooked– the idea that differences in Paul’s instructions are not to be disregarded as “only cultural,” but ARE to be read in terms of what they meant in that culture, before we try to apply them to our own.

NN– the principles of the Scriptures are timeless. But there are cultural assumptions being made all the time by the writers and original readers of the text, who shared understandings that we lack. The question is not, “are the instructions only cultural?” but “how would these instructions have been understood in their original culture?” I maintain that these instructions, in their original culture, would have been seen as instructions to husbands to lower themselves from the elevated position their culture gave them, and to raise their wives up as full equals in Christ.

I agree with Gengwall and Tl. When Jesus is referred to as our “Brother,” does that put brothers in authority? What about when He’s referred to as the Lamb who “opens not its mouth”? Was that an authoritative role? Clearly not every role Jesus takes is a role of authority.
I’m not disputing Christ’s authority, nor the validity of authority in general. But when Christ and the church is discussed in Ephesians 5 in the context of marriage, what action do we see Christ taking towards the church? Giving her commands? No. Leading her? No. Submitting even unto death, in order to make her “glorious”? Yes.
Husbands are told to emulate Christ in submitting even unto death– not in having authority.
Authority in the New Covenant is not given in a blanket fashion by God to all who are born to a certain condition. It is by calling of the Holy Spirit.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dave.
I have no problem with the idea that authority should exist, and that authority in Christianity is to look and act differently than authority in the world. What I deny is that authority of husbands over wives (or masters over slaves) is God’s plan for Christian relationships. Instead, I see the Scriptures acknowledging that according to the systems of the world at that time, husbands had authority over wives and masters over slaves– but that Christian life was to be distinguished instead by the mutual submission of each Christian to one another as equals before God (this set the stage for the systems of master-over-slave and husband-over-wife to pass away– and also for the parent-child relationship to change such that children were no longer seen as extensions of their parents, but as able to have callings of God in their own right– thus empowering children to grow in autonomy as they grew in maturity). Authority within the Christianity (such as Paul’s apostolic authority) comes from the calling of God alone, and is not according to the flesh– and those called to such authority are to be characterized by their servant hearts. Christians are still to submit to the authority structures of the world, but to see themselves as “in the world, but not of it.”

Tiffany– our last two posts “crossed in the mail,” as it were. But with regards to the Old Covenant– I note that the priests and Levites, while chosen by birthright, never had governmental power, but only power over Temple-based worship. Also, I’m sure you’ve noticed that God never wanted to give Israel a king to start with– and before kings, judges ruled not according to any birthright, but according to His calling.
Even with the kings, God made it clear that if a line of kings continually rebelled against him (which included mistreating the common people, which God clearly speaks out about throughout the Prophets), then God would remove said kings from power, birthright or no birthright. Even David’s line lost its right to act as kings after the Exile– until Jesus came along to take up the throne which God intended to be His all along.
No, I can’t see God’s actions under the Old Covenant as being about establishing authority-by-birth. I see God rather as moving the people gradually away from that mindset, though the mindset is a natural part of human society.

Correction to above– I maintain that God never mandated in the New Covenant kingdom that anyone have authority based purely on birth. The New Covenant represents a step forward from the Old in terms of where God was leading His covenant people– into greater justice, freedom and grace.
(And sorry for the backslashes — the system did that because I made a mistake when first submitting the comment!)

A few thoughts on the authority issue:
“All authority which exists is established by God.” Yes, no doubt we need government, for without it, as Hobbes said, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” But I would submit that in recent times, in free societies, authority structures in the world much more closely resemble the way Jesus said they should be in the kingdom of God, with no one lording it over anyone else and everyone having equal status before the law. Why? Because we finally recognized and understood that authority in the hands of fallen humanity is prey to oppression of the weak by the strong. God, while accommodating His message to the world as He found it, set up the Law to contain some checks and balances– most notable being that the judges (and later the kings) were under the law themselves, rather than being able to consider themselves above it; and also that priestly power and governmental power were separated and not both held by the same person. Modern society has expanded these checks and balances– and also brought into the social structure something that both Jesus and Paul taught as the norm for the kingdom of God: that no one should have inherent authority over another based on the flesh (their birth), rather than on their calling, character and qualifications.

And yet much of the Church still insists on reading flesh-based authority back into the very Scriptures which, understood in their original historical/cultural context, were clear messages that authority in the kingdom was based on the callings of God and not to be flesh-based, for He said He would poor out His spirit on all flesh, on His sons and his daughters– and that husbands were to lay down their worldly authority over their wives and raise them up, just as Christ raised up the Church to rule beside Him. The result in modern society is that the message of the gospel is hindered, for the world sees such authority now as fundamentally unjust. This is the very scenario that Paul was trying to prevent in Titus 2, when he advised women and slaves not to rebel against the then-current social structures, that the “word of God be not blasphemed.” The gospel is “blasphemed” among unbelievers now for the inherent injustice of male authority over the female in marriage and in the church. I am convinced that such was never Jesus’ idea, nor was it Paul’s, or that of any writer of the New Testament. Male authority over the female was a part of the culture, which those in the kingdom were to rise above in the dignity and equality they gave slaves, Gentiles– and women.
So– applying this to what Tiffany said:
“Likewise complementarianism does not equal the wife forsaking who she is, what she loves, her desires and hopes and calling from God to submit to someone who has decided he is God’s oracle for the family and that only he hears from God.” —
The problem is that when husbands have this authority-by-birth, and no checks or balances on how they are allowed to exercise it, then each wife is at the mercy of her own husband’s benevolence or tyranny. A lot of them choose to exercise tyranny, and a wife has no recourse, for the Church so many, many times only emphasizes her submission and does not address the husband’s issues at all– for is he not the authority in his own home?
I maintain that God never mandated that anyone have authority purely on the basis of who they were born as. Those who exercise such authority based on their supposed birthright, may or may not have any character or ability to be gentle, sane, godly leaders. This is entirely a worldly institution which God’s word (while working within the institutions of the societies within which it was spoken) works to circumvent on every level.

All of this stuff about the brain controlling the body is imposing our modern understanding on Paul, who had no such understanding. To him, according to the way things were understood then, the heart was the seat of the will, mind and emotions. The head was the source of life for the body, that kept it functioning. It was not considered to be the control center for the body. Obviously no such “head-controls-body” metaphor for husband and wife was meant by the original author or understood by the original audience.
As for the Levitical priesthood and such– NN, show me where God carried forward such choosing-according-to-birth into the New Covenant. please. On the contrary– the Book of Hebrews specifically tells us that the New Covenant supercedes the Levitical priesthood, and Galatians says God chooses “the child of the promise,” not the “child of the flesh” to be Abraham’s seed.
The whole “Our birth is not accidental, therefore I’m born to rule over my wife, but I must understand that this is an obligation and a responsibility, not a privilege” is nothing more than the old “noblesse oblige” idea. I would like to know why the failed idea of “noblesse oblige” as being biblical or Christian, must continue to be carried into the husband-wife relationship when it has been discontinued in all other understandings of New Covenant human relations.

NN,

You have not addressed the issue I raised at all, which is this: How is any authority based on the flesh (accident of birth) compatible with Christianity at all? Are we a kingdom of priests? Or are we a kingdom of priests and their wives?

NN said:

“let us say that two christian’s are both serving in the coast guard and are in disagreement over the best course of action to take. The higher rank gives an order than the lower rank does not think is the best idea. Should the lower ranking officer follow the order (as is required by their relationship as officers in the coast guard) or does their relationship as christians change this? Or when a father tells his son something that his son disagrees with – does this mean that the son is free to disobey his father? (that would certainly change my perspective on some rebellious actions of my teenage years…)”

With regard to this kind of comparison, or to an employer-employee, or policeman-citizen, or any other such comparison– here’s the difference.
My employer has authority over me in a limited sense, based on the fact that he is the one paying me, and I am the one doing the work for which he is paying me. But if I meet him at the grocery store after work, he has no authority over me. He can’t tell me to buy one product and not another, he can’t tell me to come back to the office and take a letter. And his authority over me is not due to his nature or my nature, but only to the contract we entered into. He was not born to bosshood, and I was not born to employeeship. If this were a feudal society, that would be the case– but in a free economy, it is not so.
A coast guard officer has limited authority over his subordinate based on their association in that organization. Once the subordinate has finished his tour of duty, the officer has no authority over him. And the authority is not inherent to the officer, but is a product of his training and appointment as an officer. He was not born with the right to be an officer.
A policeman has authority over a citizen only while that policeman wears the badge. If the policeman is fired or quits, he has no authority. And the policeman’s authority is based on his training and expertise, not on anything inherent within himself. He was not born a policeman, born to be in authority over those who were born private citizens.
But in a complementarian marriage, the husband has authority over his wife at all places and at all times. She has no choice in the matter– her only choice is whether or not to get married. If she does marry, the question is not if she will be under authority, but only whose authority she will be under (who she will marry). If I started my own company and hired employees of my own, there could be a case in which my employer might work for me and call me boss. But in marriage, there is no case in which it is possible for their roles to be reversed. She MUST marry into the subordinate role. And her husband’s authority comes not from training, but from something inherent in him at birth. By being born a man, he was born to be in authority in marriage, and by being born a woman, she was born to be under his authority.
So– in what way is that comparable to any other authority structure in a free society? Other than the parent-child relationship (which the child gets to grow out of, while the wife never does), a free society does not allow for authority-by-privilege-of-birth. We have no aristocracy, no divine right of kings, no white masters and black slaves, any more. We don’t because these privilege-by-birth relationships were eventually understood to be fundamentally unequal.
Even so is the authority-subordination model of marriage fundamentally unequal. Giving lip service to its equality will never make it so.
People used to think that God granted kings divine right; that God created the aristocracy to rule the peasantry; that God gave the white race supremacy over the black. These used to be vehemently upheld by those who used scripture to support their position– but no more. These things were eventually seen to be contrary to the Biblical picture of the kingdom of God, where we are all equal in His eyes. Scriptures about men and women that are interpreted in contradiction to this basic principle that all who are in Christ are “kings and priests,” need to be re-evaluated.

I suppose many complementarians would say that women are free to use their gifts as long as they only use them for the benefit of children and other women– that women may be called to teach, but only to teach other women, or children.
Hmm. If this is true, then perhaps God has forbidden men to hear truths He has gifted women to share with their sisters! Perhaps it is men who are deemed unworthy by God to receive the ministry of women, which is intended only for other women and for the children!
But would men stand for this for one moment? Would they allow that God might have mysteries of His Kingdom that He deems men unfit to hear, and thus He graces only women to speak them, because He will only allow women to teach women and children?
What, then, happens to the “one another” of 1 Peter 4:10? Is this another case when (as some complementarians claim) “one another” actually means “some to others,” as in Ephesians 5:21, where “submit to one another” only means, “some [those in the subordinate states of slavery and femaleness] submit to others [those in authority over them]” and not “ALL submit to ALL others”?
Thank goodness we still have Paul’s words that the gifts are “for the common good”! Because if not, it seems that we women would be able to make a good case for OUR special privilege, to share with one another and with our children, secrets of the Kingdom that mere men may not hear!

Waneta, I know a woman who with her husband was called to a foreign land– and it was as you say, that everyday living took 5 times the labor that it takes in the US or other first-world nations. But there was this difference– their US money also had considerably more spending power, and there was an abundance of poor citizens who were eager to be hired to help. They ended up with a maid, a cook and a gardener. I think it’s true that if the woman and the man don’t BOTH feel called, there can be a real problem. But when both do feel called, AND when the everyday work isn’t considered to be the wife’s role alone– it can be tremendous!

Mark said:
“A free choice has to be free from external forces does it not?”
No. A real choice can be made even when there are external forces. What you are talking about is a choice made in a vacuum. That is not possible. That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as free will. You say our choices are bound by our desires, as if all we ever have is one desire, rather than an abundance of overlapping and conflicting desires, which is the human condition. Among all the desires, the non-coercive “draw” of God is one. (“If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw ALL men unto me.”) I cannot believe that God is so short on finesse that He cannot pull gently enough to make it possible for us to resist.

Now– I hope you will excuse me, but I’m not going to go through a whole defense of free-will doctrine. You are asking me questions and bringing up points you already addressed with Cheryl, and she answered you with Scripture. You haven’t accepted her answers, so why would you accept mine? Frankly, I’m not really interested in convincing you to abandon your reformed theology. I simply wanted to respond to your misstatements about what Arminians believe.

I’m not interested in accepting your reformed theology. I don’t find your points logical, and I don’t think they take all the Scriptures into account– such as when you ask me to read Roman 6:15ff and ignore the context of Romans 6:11, which I earlier pointed out.

However. This isn’t a salvation issue, so there’s no reason why we can’t agree to disagree. I just prefer you to be accurate in your representations of the other side of the issue.
Thanks, and God bless.

Mark said:

“So the definition that Arminians often give for free-will is a nonsense statement. Our will is never free in that sense. We always choose what we desire. So this is the important part, since the Bible declares that out nature is sinful. That is, our desires are sinful. Unlike Adam and Eve, we are born with a desire that is sinful, so therefore we will choose or will from our inmost desire- sin.

That is why the Bible speaks about needing a new heart. God gives us a new heart, so that our desire might change from sin to him. So the questions arises does God give this new heart to all people. The Arminian says yes, the Calvinist no. So therefore the Arminian needs to show from scripture, where it is that God gives this new ‘will’ to all people. Some say at birth, some say later on. ”

Arminians don’t believe this. Where are you getting your information?
Arminians don’t believe that God gives a new heart to all people. Arminians (in general) believe that when God “draws” someone, God enables that person to make a true choice. The sinner’s desire is bent towards sin; God provides just enough power to pull, but not to coerce, the sinner temporarily away from that bent. Suspended during the drawing process between the sinner’s desires and God’s, the sinner is in a state where he/she CAN choose.

Once the choice is made for God, the person’s nature is changed by regeneration of the Holy Spirit. But STILL there is no coercion– God’s power sets us free; it does not enslave us to doing God’s desire. Otherwise how could the regenerate person still be tempted? James 1:13-21 says that we are tempted when our evil desires drag and entice us. James is addressing “dear brothers” when he says this. Then he says the “dear brothers” should get rid of “the evil that is so prevalent, and humbly accept the word planted” in them. The believer, though he/she now has a bent towards God’s will, must CHOOSE to walk in it. Galatians 5 says that “it is for freedom that Christ made us free.” We are not robots. We were enslaved to sin without hope; but God’s work in our lives frees our will. Romans 6:11 says we must count OURSELVES slaves to righteousness; God does not enslave our wills to Him as they once were enslaved to sin. We can still have confidence that He who began the good work will complete it, but God has made us sons, not slaves.

1 Cor 14:26 – “When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation . . .”
The passage says anyone can teach in the church– not just men, and not just elders. And yet MacArthur says you have to be both and elder and a man. And, oddly enough, he is both– so that the power gets concentrated conveniently in his hands.

Hmmm. Something smells.

Cheryl said:

“. . . the false idea that God designed men and women differently in that one was designed to rule and the other was designed to be ruled. It is a myth and is not Scriptural.”

I keep wondering if they see that this is the same argument that the aristocracy used to use in saying they were meant to rule the peasants. The same argument that white people used to use to say that they had a special ability to rule the other races. The same argument that bolstered the “divine right of kings.”

It’s just the same old, tired power-seeking that has existed throughout human history. It’s of the world; it doesn’t belong in the Kingdom of God.