tiro

I think a heretic was originally one who differed from the accepted and Pope authored doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. Thus a protestant is considered a heretic. Thus Luther was considered a heretic … but only by the Catholic church

Those who think they are the ones to establish the acceptable doctrines for the body of Christ in general, are then making themselves the Popes of the church in general with full rights to call anyone who disagrees with them a heretic. Of course this is ludicrous, arrogant and divisive.

An individual denomination can, if they wish to be popish, decide what the acceptable doctrines are for their denomination. Anyone of their denomination who did not accept them could be called a heretic and ostracized. But it would be improper to call those of other denominations a heretic since they are outside the ‘authority’ of that denomination. However, most churches today recognize that with so many denominations, it is foolish to think non salvic and debatable subjects can be required beliefs to hold over all Christians. Who is to decide? Christ has already decided what is required for salvation. We are foolish to go beyond that.

Don,

‘We saw the same reaction with the US slaveholders in 1850s.’

Do you have any recollections about how the Baptist Church recovered itself after losing the slavery war.

And BTW I was absolutely floored that Mere Christianity allowed such horrific slanderous words to remain on their comments.  Its one thing for forums like CARM or CW (although equally wrong) but for a much more public community representing a Christian magazine, to be so blatantly unChristian in their dialogue is putting out a really bad example for the public view.

It is good to remember that Stinson is one of the original group that coined the term ‘complementarian’ and started CBMW. He has a vested interest in his pocketbook as to what he says, promotes and writes on the CBMW Blog. He is going to toe the party line, and since he created the party line, he knows it well. And we might also remember that he had to be pretty convinced within his own thinking that he was correct in his Biblical doctrines regarding men and women in order to start such a really rather radical group. Such a person likely will not even give a 10 second consideration to an opposing view. 🙂

They’ve made gender hierarchies one of the most important aspect of being a Christian. What that says to me is that special privileges given to some may be equally important in their thinking with the honor we are to give to God.

Dangerous thinking.  🙁

Randy Stinson was one of the founders of CBMW.  I’ve had my run ins with him in those years.  I often found it confusing that he both enjoyed his harsh words toward non comp women, and also enjoyed complementing them for “taking it like a man”.  There was a dark side to it all.

my prayers are with you.

I think one thing we forget about these first (repeat FIRST) humans whose name was collectively ‘human” (which infers a closeness we don’t understand), is that they had little knowledge of anything and no knowledge of the difference of good and evil. They had little experience of life and no experience of evil, except in the hard lesson of the woman dialoguing with the serpent.

That is not a question of no brains but of inexperience which they both shared. They were in the process of learning via their choices.

Cheryl, excellent job on this one. The angle of who gave permission settles it well.

And Don, I think it is a huge point that GOD named them both Adam in the beginning. Because God named them both Adam, it is kind of like two people having the name of Terry/Terrie.  When the name is called they both respond. God also designated gender/sex and gave it a name: male and female, masculine and feminine, man and woman.  These were things that God did, not the first human.  And then there is the point that the name of Adam given by God is the same kind of name that the first human followed suit to give to the animals; it was the name of their race or kind, ‘human’. So when God called out ‘human’, they knew he was referring to them, not any of the other created creatures.

Whether the man followed suit and called the first woman “woman” because God gave him the example in the animals or because God presented her as “woman” (from man) is difficult to decipher. But I don’t think it matters much in the grand scheme of things and making it into a point of authority as the hierarchalists do is really fantasy ridiculosity also known as selfish wishful thinking, perhaps even the beginning of a psychosis.  🙂

Sorry to change the subject…..

but has anyone ever heard of the prophetic ministry of Clint Glenny of Word of Grace echurch ministries.  Has supposedly been ministering to leaders around the world for 25 years.

Ruud pointed this out for us on the Equality Forums.

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/06/cause-of-abuse.html

Suzanne’s Bookshelf is commenting on a recent sermon by Bruce Ware that is phenomenal on its blame towards women for marriage failures and even for the abuse they suffer at the hands of their husbands.

the hierarchy movement that has downgraded Jesus to the God who had to have permission to create the universe because he does not have ultimate authority.

Great description! 🙂

Cheryl wrote:

the fact is that “taking authority” over a wife against her will is abusive even if it is done with a belief that one is doing it as a loving act.

The way that the hierarchalists get around this is to tell their women that they HAVE to give their husbands and sometimes all hierarchalist men (only those who believe like they do) authority over them. If they do not do this, then they will be in sin. In this way they can say they have been given the freedom and right to take authority over their wives, thus they are in the right to do so. This is in principal the same as BDSM only the wives have no “safe” word when it gets to be too much. So, the teaching in itself is abusive. But women who are caught up in it have difficulty seeing that as they focus on wanting to be good Christian women.

Amazing. Matt is really really reaching on this issue.

Do you have a link for the entire interview.

Wonderful news about your house and your DVD being used in a seminary. Awesome.

God is good!

I would love a peek at that too!  <>

🙂

They will do as much limiting as they can get away with. Notice they waited until Patterson won his case. So we can see this is not about integrity and honest exegesis.

That is the way bullies operate. They will keep bullying until the abused stand up and tell them to stop. Then its no fun anymore. It’s all about them and what they can hoard for their personal benefit. Think of the Pharisees.

I noticed Diane left a note on CARM she wanted me to call into the radio show. She’s so afraid to ask me herself. 🙂

OK, found them. 🙂 I meant the date, the 19th. 🙂

Nice new tool.

something is wrong. I cannot find any comments beyond the 19th. They are showing up under the comments stream, but not under the actual posts.

If Adam had been given an authority that allowed him and only him to carry sin into the world, first it would be stated clearly.  God doesn’t try to confuse us about important things.  Then it would seem reasonable, that just like God kicked Adam out of the garden for misusing his privileges, God would have removed that supposed authority.

The fact that both the man and the woman suffered the same results for their sin, death (which ballooned into a myriad of other results), really belies any supposed special privileges for Adam.

He has to make you the enemy to have any credibility.

And that about sums it up, Lin.

I think when God calls a person, He calls only that person. And needs only that person’s agreement. I’m not aware of God checking with anyone else when He called a person for His purposes. It is to the benefit of any others that they get with the program, and God is gracious and merciful enough that He is willing to help them do that. The idea that a husband must approve God’s decisions is treading dangerously. Male or female, the other spouse may wonder if their spouse is getting things right, which is why praying to God to find out is the answer. We are not to place our trust in the arms of flesh, but God only.

The gender hierarchalists based their belief of husbandly authority to approve a wife’s calling on Numbers 30. They use the Scripture inaccurately. Numbers was about young women making covenants to the temple. Young men and women could make a covenant of some sort to live in the temple and serve there for years. I don’t know the details. I do suspect that some young wives (remember they married them off at 13ish) did this in order to escape a marriage they didn’t want. But at the time, all of this was done for protection of women and to continue a way of life. Women were needed to bear children and lots of them. At any rate all of that has no relevance to God calling someone into any sort of ministry. God comes first before all our dreams and desires. His ways are best for everyone.

I’ve been observing also. It is interesting how much some patriarchalist gender hierarchalists remind me of the Klu Klux Klan. 🙁

Thank you very much. 🙂 I really appreciate that.

Do you have a reference for the statement on Jewish men who are circumcised going to heaven always. I’m doing a study in Romans and would love that information.

Thanks

Good word. It has always been inspiring to me that Mary was willing to be used of God in whatever ways He wanted. She trusted God in a deep way. She understood that she was to have a personal one on one, face to face relationship with God. She was after all, human… created in God’s image.

Those who teach that a woman needs approval of a man in order to believe correctly, make decisions, make plans or goals, etc. are essentially saying that women are less human than men. They are saying that only men can have a face to face confrontation with God, whereas women must have that relationship filtered through men.