“I don’t think he is an idiot. I think he is a very smart man. However all of us are capable of being blinded by our own agenda. I think he wants to believe what he does despite the evidence to the contrary. The sad thing about an agenda is that when one holds so tightly to their own agenda and becomes willingly blind to anything that would threaten that agenda, there isn’t much hope of changing that mind.”

I don’t think he’s an idiot either. And if he is WILLINGLY blind because he wills to believe something despite the evidence to the contrary, then it is because his desire is corrupt which then plays out in his so-called “scholarship”.

Grudem has got to be corrupt or an idiot.

“Grudem is pretty sly.”

BAM! You can bet he is…

I think I remember reading awhile back, Grudem’s explaination for the contradiction is that women can prophesy but not interpret or judge (so that the judging of prophecy is a job of the flesh – the male gender).

I see what you are saying, Cheryl that men and women are different biologicaly but not in terms of characteristics, but question:

“However once again I will emphasize that men and women typically have more or less of the characteristic by gender. To say “Male pride” one gets the picture. Males struggle with an ego issue far more than females do on the average. Also compassion is far more naturally high in a female than in a male.”

How can we know that what we see as typical today and in history, in people is not just “programming” and people defining themselves by culture?

And (so-called) “male pride” could just be a result of the fall (due to biological differences) or learned behavior/cultural programming.

I donno, I lean with nuture since most people are followers. We have biological differences but the’ve been distorted by the fall…

“Ooohh! 1 Peter 3 – I can’t wait. I have lots of thoughts on Sarah calling Abraham “lord”. I am sure that is part of what you will be covering.”

Ooohh! Hahaha! Can’t wait to hear em, gengwall! lol

And since there are no verses…:

A woman should…BUT, I do not permit a woman to…FOR Adam was…AND Adam was not…; BUT the woman IS…BUT she will be saved…if…

This is more clear:

11A woman should…12BUT, I do not permit a woman to…13FOR Adam was…14AND Adam was not…; BUT the woman IS…15BUT she will be saved…if…

“Doug: Verse 12 starts with “but”, verse 13 with “for”, verse 14 with “and” and then verse 15 starts with “but”. It does seem like these verses are all connected together.”

There’s 5 conjunctions total. There’s one more “BUT” in there! There’s “and” plus “but” in v14. It’s important because the second conjunction of v14 contrasts Adam’s past with this woman’s present state.

11A woman should…12BUT, I do not permit a woman to…13FORAdam was formed…14AND Adam was not the one deceived; BUT…the woman… 15BUT she will be saved…if…

Haha! I just finished reading “Are women the enemy?” That was cool. 🙂

http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2009/06/are-women-the-enemy.html

“Are women the enemy?
When I wrote 42: There are no ladies in our Church some people were unhappy about my standing against Mike Seaver of Role “Calling” see for example this comment by Tom.

But now I have found a much older post by Mike: Role Calling: Semigalitariansim: The Church’s Undercover Enemy it dates from September 2007…”

truthseeker,

On your “clear as mud”… hehe

What’s the basis for their teachings in church and in home?
What IS the fundamental, very bottom? The bottome is that “Adam was created first then Eve.” It (creation order) is the very reason why Paul meant “women” when he wrote the singular “woman” in 1 Tim 2. This is because “Adam was created first in Eden, then Eve” means that only males are to teach, and have authority (be leaders) in church buildings. It is also the very reason why Paul meant “authority over” when he wrote that the husband is the “head of” the wife. See how easy it is to see that creation order means those two things?

Male dominance in the church and home, like when wearing wearing 3d glasses, appear out of those words we read on creation order. No, it’s not secret knowledge at all not with mud in the eye!

I would like to dialouge with Mike if he does decide to show. Hopefully he will.

While waiting, if anyone is interested, Denny Burke is making “alphabet soup” on his post, “Scot McKnight’s Question about Headship” at his blog.

18, Hahaha, Paula! ROTFL

“The notion of ‘mild’ compism being any better than hard-core is a misnomer, too. Oppression is oppression, no matter how thin the slice. “Would you like a thick or a thin slice of poison with your ice cream, ma’am?” Just give me the ice cream.”

Agreed.

Like I will forever keep saying, “give me the facts and PROOFS”! Hehe, cause they have none.

Here’s also what I’m saying:

The restraints put on women, by comp theology, WHAT ARE THEY? Opinions, presuppositions, assumption, supposed implications, interpretations, etc! Isn’t it kind of strange that those are what the restraints actualy are? Take off the restraints and the women become free.

If women knew that such is all they were restrained by, how easy it would be for them to become free, if they desired to be.

I would BET that if the majority of women really knew the difference between comp theory (opinions, supposed implications, presuppositions, assumtions etc) and biblical facts and proofs, that they would fall off the comp wagon like flies because they would KNOW that they are free from comp restraints since God’s teachings are not dependent on man’s theories but rather his written word.

I do not know where this comment belongs.

When are we going to start holding complementarians accountable for making it clear to their listeners, and comp scholars, for making it clear to their followers, that their beliefs and teachings are not facts and their theology is unproven as it is unprovable?

I think that if women within comp churches who are unaware of the facts knew what they are or if they were educated better as to what is an interpretation, a fact, evidence, proof etc, that they would be FREE to choose what they would like to believe, options being, either biblical facts or comp theory.