I never cease to be amazed at what they mine out of the Titus 2 verse. They can provide a list a mile long of rules and roles out of one verse!

From the article: “However, I cannot follow him in his halting manner over what he admits to be the very clear teaching of the Word of God. Should we not delight in all the truths of the Word of God?”

They set up these straw men all the time. If we do not interpret these secondary doctrines (which are not so clear) just like them then… we do NOT delight in the truths of the Word of God. That is the message they are so desperate to get people to believe. It is such an insult. It would never occur to me to say that comps do not delight in the Word of God because they interpret a few proof texts incorrectly! I think what they do on this is very cruel because they are speaking oftheir brothers and sisters in Christ when they make statements like this.

“Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. ”

This is the key! The difference between Wallace as a comp and CBMW. CBMW is trying to make their doctrine key to salvation. Wallace recognizes it is not. That is the disconnect.

Praise God for Dr. Wallace and his honesty.

“PS> I also appreciate the ministry of Paul Washer and John N. who were a part of the True Church Conference. ”

I do, too. Which is why that extra step they taught in Matthew 18 broke my heart.

” I also would have said something here.  It was because of a similar teaching which resulted in me not even being taken before the deacons or the church and being expelled in the privacy of the pastor and his group of elders.  In case any of you are wondering what I was expelled for, it was for calling the pastor to repent for subverting the gospel message he was preaching in outreaches. My other sin, and I have this in writing, was “rebellion to authority”…..of the pastor, of course.”

I was not expelled but had something similar happen and it was over horrible  sin in the camp of elders! They did not want it to be public.  So, I am attuned to any false or extra biblical teaching on this subject. Having a title conferred on one by other men yet having no fruit is not what scripture was talking about. Elders are the spiritually mature and would be very humble.

I was also very concerned about the extra step they added in to Matthew 18 at the True Church conference. I was a bit saddened to see Washer make such a big deal about elder rule in his 10 Indictments of the church sermon to even imply that not having elder rule means it is not really a church. There are plenty of churches without official elder boards (which look like fortune 500 boards) but have ‘elders’ who are spiritually mature and do care for our souls and for scriptural  truth being taught. They just do not seek power over others. They ‘oversee’ with love and humility.

“I would have said a word or 3 if I had been there.”

I was watching on the internet but I would have said something, too. But then, I do not think they would take kindly to a woman correcting them. :o(

I have learned a lot from these pastors but it only goes to show we must all be Bereans no matter who is teaching. These particular folks are real big on elder rule.

“hmm… this is an interesting thought: since the body of Christ is not divided, I wonder if such a thing were to happen today, if one local congregation shouldn’t be disciplined by another healthy congregation?  ”

This is exactly why we have so many denominations. Could be for rightly or wrongly disfellowshipping, disagreement on doctrine or discipline gone awry. Still, true believers are ONE Body even if in different denominations.

A few thoughts about Paul using his authority. We see this displayed in Philemon, too. However, Paul ‘appeals’ to Philemon but tells him he could use his authority to demand it but does not. My take is that his authority to demand such a thing is based on the Word and what is right. Not on Paul having earthly authority over Philemon but I am open to being corrected on this if I am wrong and it can be shown by scripture..

Just a side note on Matthew 18. A well known large reformed church in the South had a big conference on ‘True Church’ discipline last year. I was appalled that no one spoke out about the step these well known preachers added to the Matthew 18 process. The step they added was to take it to the elders of the church BEFORE they took it to the whole church. We can debate all day on whether that is wise or not but the fact is they added the step in and taught it as if it were there. And no one said a word.

“For some reason those who are now finding their way onto my blog have tripled since August.  This is especially of interest to me because of what happened to me in August with someone very intent on making sure that people stay away and not read what I have to write on the issue of women in ministry.  What some meant for harm has been turned around by God to bring a blessing so that the message is getting out using this little insignificant blog.”

Praise God! (I had not thought of that) I hope they know that questions and comments are welcome here and it is a safe place to question and disagree. That has been one of the things I have loved most about your ministry…. the way you approach controversy with humility and love even in the face of unbelievable attacks. The goal is truth of scripture not winning an arguement. Several of us regulars have disagreed on interpretations of secondary doctrines but know that iron sharpens iron.

And those of us who have witnessed the unfair attacks on you, know that you gone to great lengths to pursue peace and understanding while standing firm on truth.

Paula, Good point.

We must take into consideration that KJV translators were laboring under a church/state mentality.

Cheryl, one reason you may not have gotten a posted question about Hebrews is because most of us have studied that passage in depth. I have a series about it on my blog that goes into this verse in depth.

Also, taking that verse into context with all of NTscripture negates the ‘authority over’ translation. If we are to believe other passages about ‘not lording it over’, etc., then it cannot mean what it has been translated to mean. Another interesting point about this passage is that the word ‘elders’ is not in the passage.

Here is an excerpt from a blog series http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/elders-rulers-or-servants-part-2.html  I posted a few years back on this verse:

“Now, go through the verse and pick out the word “elder.” If you cannot find it in the verse, look for it in the context. You are right! It is nowhere to be found. Is it not strange that the main text to which those who advocate “Elders Rule,” does not even mention “elders”? It is assumed beyond a shadow of a doubt that verse 17 is talking about elders. Then, it is welded into a law of God that this verse gives elders the authority to rule over the congregation.

Two other verses in Hebrews 13, verses 7 and 24, are very similar to verse 17. It is unclear who the Hebrew writer had in mind. Verse 7 reads: “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith.” Notice the past tense treatment of “had the rule.” Verse 24 states: “Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints….” It is very possible that those “that spake unto you the word of God” were the first to preach the gospel to them, including the apostles themselves.

Robert Milligan, a great scholar of the nineteenth century, published a commentary on Hebrews in 1875. Commenting on verse 7 Milligan wrote:

“Remember them which have the rule over you: Or more literally, Remember your leaders (hegoumenon) who spoke (elalesan) to you the word of God; carefully considering the issue of their manner of life; imitate their faith. The reference is to such men as Stephen, James the brother of John, and other faithful preachers of the Gospel who had formerly proclaimed to the Hebrews the good word of God…”. (Commentary on Hebrews, p. 375}.

Milligan did not understand these verses as granting authority to groups of elders in congregations as is conceived in the twentieth century. He did see that among groups of Christians there were those who would be respect-fully followed as spiritual leaders, among which would be preachers and teachers of the word of God.”

“They sought to reform the RCC when they should have abandoned the whole thing and went straight back to the Bible.”
Amen! But since it was tied directly to government power that did not happen. There were still some faithful hiding out, refusing to have their infants baptized or be a part of the ‘state church’.
“Everyone is so obsessed with power and authority that I think either sects will split and destroy their earthly towers of sand. Then people will go back to the Cross without the baggage.”
I hate to say this but I really do believe that as the economy tightens and money dries up, there will less for the institutional church. I think this will change the dynamics in that more people will start to question what they are really supporting. As a matter of fact, many are doing that now and leaving the institutional church and finding other ways to ‘assemble’ with other believers.

Billy Graham said she was the best evangelist in the family. :o)

A reaction like this was most definitely planned in advance.

What is even more confusing is how they have institutionalized the church with such things as ‘offices’. Seriously, who were the pastors of the churches at Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, etc., just to name a few.

Think about ‘pastor’ in today’s sense and then try and answer that question. Was there only one church in Ephesus? What was considered a church in the NT? A gathering in the homes? Did each one have a pastor leading it? How often is the term ‘pastor’ even used in the NT?

If elders were so important then how come ALL the Epistles were not addressed soley to elders of those churches?

Some things just do not add up.

CBMW quote:”They will see in the example of Christ, as never before, the beauty and glory that inheres in gracious, selfless submission. With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not. Rather, such relations will bring to each true joy, and to God, more glory than before.”

Here we go again with creation order. Start with a wrong premise and end with heresy.

1. They started with this focus on women, their subordination and roles. That is being refuted with scripture. So they…

2. Use the same teaching on creation order to teach a hierarchy and chain of command in the Trinity resulting in a ‘lesser’ Jesus even though they claim Jesus is God they contradict that with what they teach about Jesus.

3. Now they are suggesting that creation order means that there is subordination of women in heaven…which means that we will have a layer between us and God in heaven, too! I guess the women will be hanging out with the subordinate Jesus?

1 is a difference of interpretations

2 and #3 is heresy

The progression is clear. And for ONE reason: Earthly power and authority over others in the Body. Exactly what Jesus taught against for the Body.

I listened to the DVD last night as it came in the mail! Wow, great job. Lorri is excellent (I had not heard her teaching before) and I could have listened to another hour of the attributes of ‘God’ (Godhead). It was so uplifting and I was praising God and worshiping Him as I listened.

I cannot thank you guys enough for making this DVD that is so clear and simple to follow…and backed up with nothing but the Word. Unlike those teaching these false doctrines who sound like they are discussing the minutia of how many angels can dance on a pinhead with lots of big seminary words. One would think that the Lord could not teach the average Joe through His Word listening to these guys.

I was also a bit surprised to see that Ware is using 1 Corin 11 as his foundation for the eternal subordination of Jesus Christ. Once again, we see Kephale being interpreted as meaning ‘ruler and authority’ when it does not mean that at all. Starting with presuppositions that are not true and ending up with Jesus as eternally subordinated.

I have found I can trust little that comes from SBTS anymore. They seem to have an agenda and it is not about elevating our Savior.

I just ordered my copy!

When I first really understood what was being taught in this passage I was floored. Most of our churches are doing just the opposite!

We have much to fear from not understanding this passage correctly as we are silencing over half of all believers as a command from God!

BTW: Our SBC seminaries are allowing women to learn. That is good but it is also hypocritical in a way. They will take their money but not allow them to use their gifts in a meaningful way even outside the Body. The firing of Dr. Klouda is evident of this. And she was only teaching male students Hebrew. First they take her money and award her a PhD. Then they hire her to teach Hebrew. Then she has excellent reviews and then is fired for being a woman because the new president Paige Patterson says she is not allowed to teach male students.

“Our inconsistencies in this area do challenge our witness as the Church universal to the world.”

Absolutely. How would a female unbeliever who has not been filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore ‘truth’, see the difference between Christianity as taught by the masculinists and Mormonism? Or, JW?

They wouldn’t.

“The Judges were all sent to deliver Israel from their enemies.  This means that it was impossible for Deborah to be a judgment against Israel when she was sent to deliver Israel.”

Cheryl, this is so clear in scripture and any attempt to paint Deborah as a judgement upon Israel is adding to the Word.

I also agree with you about Barak. He was not being weak. He was recognizing God’s provision.

The Isaiah 3 passage and the Psalms 68:11 passage were  huge indicators to me that translations have been tampered with by male translators with an agenda. It is criminal.

I would like to study more on how the LXX was used in the NT. I found some sites that give all the passages from the LXX quoted in the NT. I have not had time to go through and see which ones are quoted by Jesus …yet.

But, it is obvious that many in the early church would have understood Gen 3 from the LXX translation which is much different than what we read in our translations. It is a very interesting topic that I would love to delve into deeper.

“The world sees our inconsistencies and we bring dishonor and shame to Christ when we remain inconsistent.”

YOu know, I have never thought about it like that before. It is a chilling thought.

I am still not clear on her definition of feminism and exactly what she is recovering from and thinks is a rejection of God’s authority.

Cheryl, This is excellent!

The Danvers Statement was a response to the CULTURE. CBMW has been culture driven since day one. This latest position, with Palin, is more of the same: A response to the culture of Obama.

“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”

But this position is not consistent from a creation order standpoint because of Deborah and others since Israel was a Theocracy. Civil and spiritual were not separated in Israel. So they really are not being consistent when they use creation order.

“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.”

Don, Now I am really confused. If they use creation order as a basis for hierarchy, how could they NOT be inconsistent about Palin?

“It will be interesting to see how CBMW responds to that question.  So far they have said:
This helpful question raises a complex issue requiring specific application of the principles expressed above.  Gender Blog is pleased to be part of this dialogue and plans to address this question in the near future.”

LOL. It should not be complex as they have been touting this stuff for 25 years yet they cannot directly answer the question? They must have a committee working on this one. Or perhaps they drew straws. :o)

They need to be careful or we might just see a rush of comp wives running for office!

Sorry to be a blog hog but I have to ask one more question. How would CBMW feel about Palin leading a prayer group or bible study with her male staff?  Could she be VP but not lead a bible study in her own office?

Another reason CBMW has been inconsistent is because some of their contributors, such as Russell Moore, have been publicly advocating more Patriarchy. He has written that complimentarianism  is too wimpy.

And Don, you are right. If they are going to use creation order to prove hierarchies, then their support of Palin is going against their own teaching. Palin says she is a Christian and Christians do not have realms of civil and spiritual. They are Christians all the time.

Gushee asks:Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?”

Boy, this question cuts to the heart of it. If her husband is her authority then, in effect, HE will be VP our our nation… unelected…according to the doctrine taught by CBMW.

How does CBMW respond to this question?

Never mind…it is the author’s initials, right?

What does BDAG stand for since it is not in the title of this book.