Frank

Sorry I had to end my last comment so abruptly, but I had lost track of time when I realized I had to run an errand I could not put off until later. And so I would like to complete the few observations and comments I started to make earlier. But before I do that, I just want to say that in the debate, both Cheryl and Pastor Dave gave solid, rational arguments from Scripture that more than adequately answered Peter Barnes’ ojections to men and women fully sharing in ministry and leadership. And several comments made by Kathy and Paul were excellent as well. I had prayed for you both several times during the conference, that God would give you strength and wisdom in proclaming and defending the truth, and so from the evidence I would say my prayers, and the prayers of others, were answered. And with that, I will move on to my brief observations and comments.

1. Here I wish to make a further observation and comment on Mr. Barnes’s portrayal of Montanism. It bothered me that, by comparing them with certain Gnostic groups, Barnes not only wished to paint the Montanists as heretics but as sexual deviants as well, perhaps implying that any movement that calls for the spiritual renewal and reformation of the Church inevitably leads to heresy and sexual deviance. The Montanist movement was a prophetic movement that began as a call for the Church to return to the Apostolic faith of the NT, both in strictness of doctrine and moral purity of life, living and serving in the fullness of the Holy Spirit as had the NT church, tending to strict views regarding marriage, divorce and celibacy. In fact, it was these very emphases that won Tetullian over to be active Montanist himself. Concerning this, D. F. Wright has written, “Nothing strictly heretical could be charged against Montanism…Although none of its catholic opponents doubted the continuance of prophecy in the church, Montanism erupted at a time when consolidation of catholic order and conformity preoccupied the bishops. The prophets’ extravagant pretensions, while not intended to displace the emergent NT of Christian Scripture, were felt to threaten both episcopal and scriptural authority. Recognition of the Paraclete in the New Prophecy (i.e., Montanism) was their touchstone of authenticity” (“Montanism,” EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY, pp. 733).
   And as Wright also points out, the developing, predominantly male episcopal church was hostile to Montanism not only because women were prominent in this movement, but also because it bodly criticized the church’s accommadations to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, declaring the Church’s need to repent and prepare for the imminent Second Coming. So if Barnes wishes to use Christian history to illustrate his criticism of spiritual reform movements in general, and of egalitarianism in particular, let him do so with thoroughness, honesty and integrity. Indeed, whether we’re egalitarians or complementarians, may we all avoid prejudicial and selective use of historical materials.

2. I noticed, too, in the exhange between between Barnes, Cheryl, and I think Dave, on how the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father is the basis of the permanent subordination of women to men–which, from my own writings and comments on the Trinity I have shared here and on the CBE Scroll, I regard as and condemn as a modern form of Arianism–Barnes revealed either a sloppiness or inconsistency in his thinking about the distinctions between Trinitarianism and Christology.
   a. In an exchange about how this subordination implies a multiplicity of wills among the members of the Trinity, with one having the will of the subordinate Son to the will of the peeminent Father, which implies a difference in Being, leading to the error of tritheism or worse, Barnes countered Cheryl’s cricism with a brief reference to “Monothelitism” to establish his view of unity of substance and difference of will in one person. (Cheryl, if I misunderstood or interpeted what Barnes said or implied in using this argument, I hope you’ll correct me.) Strictly speaking, “monothelitism” is an issue of Christology, not of the Trinity. It was a heresy prodominant in the Eastern church during the seventh century, which taught that Christ had but one nature, a divine nature enclosed in flesh, therefore he had one will. The intial response to this heresy was to argue that in the incarnation, the human and divine natures were fused into a third, resulting in the view that Christ worked a combined divine-human energy. However, seeing the inadequacy of this view, and its complete contradiction to teaching affirmed at the previous Council of Chalcedon regarding “One Person, Two Natures,” Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, called for and organized another Council at Constantinople to resolve this issue, After John of Damascus gave a fine exposition and defense of Christ as one in two natures with two wills, the Creed of Chalcedon was amended to read that Christ not only had two natures in one person, but that he also had two wills, with his human will being subject to his divine will. So this heresy, and the orthodox refutation and explantion of what it meant for Jesus Christ, as God Incarnate, having two natures and how these natures related to one another, neither bears directly on the relationship of the Father and Son within the Trinity, nor on the relationship between men and women.
   b. Maybe because he is so influenced by Wayne Grudem and his heretical view of the Trinity, Peter Barnes has forgotten that while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, in every other way, each is coeternal and coequal in Divine Being. And to so distinquish the Divine Person as to make the Father superior to the Son and the Spirit in will, power, authority and majesty is to fall back into the heresies of tritheism and subordinationism that were condemned by the Eastern Church in 381 A.D. and by the Western Chruch in 382 A.D. And the orthodox position, first set forth by Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian, remains the same, “All the Father is as God the Son is, except he is not the Father; all the Son is as God the Father is, except he is not the Son; and the Spirit is all the Father and Son are as God, except he is neither the Father nor the Son.” But that is all I will say on this for now. And again, if I misunderstood what Mr Barnes meant to say, I hope Cheryl will correct me. Well, now that I have gotten this off my chest, I look forward to Cheryl’s continuing dialogue with Mike Seaver.