Search — Theology Explorer

Filter results by source database — Scripture Commentary, Theology, Mike Winger, or Pulpit. Click a tab to narrow to one database.

...more

All (218) Mike Winger (218)

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Mike agrees women are not inferior persons but argues that submissive roles and inferior personhood are not the same thing — children submit to parents, employees to bosses.

Mistake #4: Rebutting Groothuis's syllogism

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis submission vs. inferiority personhood

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Rebuttal: women's submission is not permanent — it is limited to this life, and Christians should not view this life as their permanent state. Most Christians permanently submit to elders anyway.

Mistake #4: Rebutting 'permanent'

eldership duration of submission eternal perspective

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Rebuttal: women's submission is not comprehensive — Groothuis claims there is 'no area in which a woman has any authority, privilege, or opportunity that a man is denied,' which massively overstates complementarian claims.

Mistake #4: Rebutting 'comprehensive'

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis Discovering Biblical Equality comprehensive submission

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Groothuis's argument only works against an extreme form of complementarianism that most complementarians would also reject — it attacks a straw man.

Mistake #4: Straw man critique

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis straw man argument relational submission

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Rebuttal: women's submission is not ontologically grounded — it is not rooted in women's nature making them inherently submissive.

Mistake #4: Rebutting 'ontologically grounded'

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis ontological grounding nature vs. assignment

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Even if Groothuis is right philosophically, her conclusion explicitly blocks Bible reading — she says there can be 'no biblical or theological warrant' for women's submission, which pre-determines what the Bible is allowed to say.

Mistake #4: How Groothuis's argument bypasses scripture

bypassing scripture biblical authority Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Barr uses the story of a rude complementarian male student to overrule Russell Moore's distinction between pagan patriarchy and biblical complementarianism.

Mistake #5: Barr's story overruling theological argument

story-driven theology Beth Allison Barr The Making of Biblical Womanhood

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Mistake #6: Thinking submission is inherently evil — submission was not a bad word in biblical culture, though it is in modern culture.

Mistake #6: Submission is inherently evil

submission cultural assumptions 1 Pet 5:5

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Linda Belleville is so opposed to submission that she argues nobody had authority in the early church — not even Jesus or the apostles.

Mistake #6: Belleville's extreme position on authority

Linda Belleville submission authority in the early church

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Three commitments: (3) Mike will not be 'God's PR department' — he will not avoid truths or fail to confront false beliefs to make Christianity palatable.

Three things Mike will NOT do in this series

God's PR department biblical submission intellectual honesty

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Introduction to part 2 of Women in Ministry series, framing it as a month-long research project engaging deeply with egalitarian views.

Series introduction and framing

women in ministry complementarianism egalitarianism

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Overview of Genesis 1-3 as the focus of this video, covering the fall and creation and what they say about men's and women's roles.

Series introduction and framing

Gen 1-3 creation and fall

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Definition of complementarian and egalitarian positions in the debate over women in ministry.

Framing the two sides of the debate

women in ministry complementarianism egalitarianism

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Both egalitarians and complementarians agree that Genesis 1-3 is theologically foundational for understanding male-female relationships.

Establishing common ground between the two sides

Gen 1-3 Discovering Biblical Equality Mary Conway

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

The general complementarian approach sees Genesis 2 showing husband's leadership role, confirmed in Genesis 3; the egalitarian approach says authority only appears in Genesis 3 as part of the curse.

Overview of the two interpretive frameworks for Genesis 2-3

male authority Gen 2 Gen 3

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Three-section outline: Genesis 1 (foundational, little disagreement), Genesis 2 (longest section, most debated), and Genesis 3 (the fall and the curse).

Video structure overview

Gen 2 Gen 3 Gen 1

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Genesis 1:26-28 read and analyzed: the Hebrew word 'adam' refers to mankind (male and female), not just the male.

Genesis 1 analysis -- the creation passage

adam Gen 1:26-28 mankind terminology

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Male and female are both made in God's image -- the highest statement about human value, foundational to the debate.

Genesis 1 analysis -- imago Dei

image of God Gen 1:27 human dignity

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Dominion in Genesis 1 is given to both male and female together -- the first mention of human authority in the Bible includes women.

Genesis 1 analysis -- shared dominion

Gen 1:28 dominion shared authority

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mary Conway's argument that all plural imperative verbs in Genesis 1:28 include both man and woman with no restriction on any activity, including dominion.

Egalitarian argument from Genesis 1

Discovering Biblical Equality Gen 1:28 Mary Conway

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's application: limiting women to housework wrongly restricts the dominion mandate of Genesis 1; women should be inventors, farmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc.

Practical application of Genesis 1's shared dominion

dominion mandate women's roles women and work

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Analysis of Titus 2:5 'working at home' -- the Greek word means carrying out household responsibilities, not being restricted to the home.

New Testament cross-reference on women and work

Titus 2:5 women and work Titus 2:5 oikourgos

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Biblical examples of women who worked outside the home: Proverbs 31 woman (entrepreneur), Lydia (businesswoman), Priscilla (tentmaker).

Biblical counter-examples to women-only-at-home view

Prov 31 Lydia Priscilla

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Women in Luke 8:2-3 financially sponsored Jesus and the disciples, proving they had significant independent means and worked beyond the home.

Biblical counter-examples to women-only-at-home view

Luke 8:2-3 Luke 8:2-3 Mary Magdalene Joanna

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Historical context: work often happened at home throughout history; the modern commute-to-work model is recent and should not be read into ancient texts.

Historical lens on 'working at home'

Titus 2:5 women and work Titus 2:5 historical context

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Genesis 1 focuses on humanity's relationship to creation; Genesis 2 focuses on the relationship between man and woman, especially husband and wife.

Transition from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2

Gen 2 Gen 1 dominion vs. marital roles

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Reading of Genesis 2:7-25 with key observations: Adam made first, given commands alone, names animals alone, Eve made from Adam's rib.

Genesis 2 reading and initial observations

creation order Gen 2:7-25 adam naming animals

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Philip Payne's egalitarian argument: 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' emphasizes shared essence and kinship, never subordination.

Egalitarian interpretation of Genesis 2:23

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ Gen 2:23

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's rebuttal: 'bone of my bones' denotes familial connection but says nothing about authority being present or absent, shown by 2 Samuel 5:1 and Judges 9:2.

Evaluating Payne's 'bone of my bones' argument

Philip Payne bone of my bones 2 Sam 5:1

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Two types of egalitarian arguments for Genesis 2: negative case (refuting complementarian points) or positive case (Genesis 2 rules out authority differences).

Framework for evaluating egalitarian arguments

Gen 2 negative vs. positive case egalitarian hermeneutics

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Payne's second argument: the man (not the woman) leaves father and mother, which implies equality rather than male authority.

Egalitarian argument from Genesis 2:24

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ Gen 2:24

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

The real point of 'leaving father and mother' is that the marriage relationship takes priority over the parental relationship.

Mike's interpretation of Genesis 2:24

Gen 2:24 marriage priority family unit

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Payne's third argument: father and mother sharing authority over the son before he leaves shows egalitarian parental authority.

Egalitarian argument about shared parental authority

Philip Payne Gen 2:24 parental authority

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Payne correctly refutes a bad complementarian argument that God naming the human race 'man' (adam) in Genesis 5:2 implies male leadership.

Payne identifies a weak complementarian argument

Philip Payne adam Gen 5:2

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Introduction to Tom Schreiner's six reasons from Genesis 2 for Adam having a leadership role, from 'Two Views on Women in Ministry.'

Transition to complementarian case from Genesis 2

Tom Schreiner Two Views on Women in Ministry Gen 2

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 1: God created Adam first, then Eve, significantly later -- this implies leadership through primogeniture.

Complementarian argument #1: creation order

creation order Tom Schreiner Gen 2:7

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Phyllis Trible's argument that Adam was a sexually undifferentiated 'earth creature' before Eve's creation, not male -- from 'God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality' (1978).

Egalitarian counter-argument to creation order

Phyllis Trible God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality ha adam

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's refutation of Trible: 'adam' is never used as 'earth creature' in Hebrew; in Genesis 2 it always refers to a male; and Genesis 2:23 ('ish') proves Adam was already male.

Refuting Trible's sexually undifferentiated adam theory

adam Phyllis Trible Gen 2:22-23

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Trible's influence: her arguments are borrowed by Payne, 'Discovering Biblical Equality,' Tucker and Liefeld's 'Daughters of the Church,' and other egalitarian works.

Trible's scholarly influence despite flawed arguments

Philip Payne Discovering Biblical Equality Phyllis Trible

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Primogeniture in Hebrew culture: the firstborn had greater authority; older people had more leadership -- this cultural context is key to reading Genesis 2.

Cultural background for Schreiner's creation order argument

creation order Gen 2 primogeniture

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Egalitarian pushback: animals were made before Adam in Genesis 1, so creation order doesn't imply authority -- Mike's response: Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts, and primogeniture only applies among humans.

Egalitarian counter-argument to primogeniture

creation order Gen 2 Gen 1

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Linda Belleville's argument: Genesis 2 speaks of order and source, not authority -- Mike's rebuttal: these aren't mutually exclusive; primogeniture is precisely about order implying authority.

Egalitarian counter-argument from Belleville

Linda Belleville Gen 2 order and source

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Craig Blomberg's quote: ancient Jews accustomed to primogeniture would likely have seen Adam being made first as a sign of privilege.

Complementarian scholarly support for creation order argument

Two Views on Women in Ministry primogeniture Craig Blomberg

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mary Conway's counter-argument: biblical exceptions to primogeniture (Jacob, Esau, Joseph, David, Ephraim, Manasseh) show the Bible doesn't care about birth order -- Mike's rebuttal: exceptions prove the rule.

Egalitarian counter-argument on primogeniture exceptions

Discovering Biblical Equality Mary Conway primogeniture

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Conclusion on primogeniture: early readers of Genesis would very likely have understood Adam as having higher authority due to being made first; Genesis 2 is the rule, not the exception.

Mike's tentative conclusion on creation order

Gen 2 primogeniture original audience

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

1 Timothy 2:12-13 as New Testament commentary on Genesis 2: Paul draws on Adam being formed first as relevant to male-female relationships.

NT support for creation order argument

creation order 1 Tim 2:12-13 Paul

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 2: God gave the command not to eat from the tree to Adam alone, not Eve -- Adam had to relay it, placing him in a teaching/leadership role.

Complementarian argument #2: command given to Adam alone

Tom Schreiner Gen 2:16-17 command to Adam

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 3: Eve called Adam's 'ezer' (helper) -- complementarians argue this implies subordination, but Mike finds the egalitarian rebuttal strong on this point.

The 'ezer' (helper) debate

Tom Schreiner ezer kenegdo

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Linda Belleville's argument: every other OT use of 'ezer' has no connotation of submission; God himself is most commonly called 'ezer' in Scripture.

Egalitarian case that 'ezer' doesn't imply subordination

Linda Belleville ezer Hos 13:9

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Egalitarian overreach on 'ezer': Belleville claims it implies 'help that only God can provide' -- Mike refutes this with Ezekiel 12:14 where 'ezer' refers to military helpers.

Egalitarian overreach on the meaning of 'ezer'

Linda Belleville ezer Ezek 12:14

← Prev Page 1 of 5 Next →

Mike agrees women are not inferior persons but argues that submissive roles and inferior personhood are not the same thing — children submit to parents, employees to bosses.

Rebuttal: women's submission is not permanent — it is limited to this life, and Christians should not view this life as their permanent state. Most Christians permanently submit to elders anyway.

Rebuttal: women's submission is not comprehensive — Groothuis claims there is 'no area in which a woman has any authority, privilege, or opportunity that a man is denied,' which massively overstates complementarian claims.

Groothuis's argument only works against an extreme form of complementarianism that most complementarians would also reject — it attacks a straw man.

Rebuttal: women's submission is not ontologically grounded — it is not rooted in women's nature making them inherently submissive.

Even if Groothuis is right philosophically, her conclusion explicitly blocks Bible reading — she says there can be 'no biblical or theological warrant' for women's submission, which pre-determines what the Bible is allowed to say.

Barr uses the story of a rude complementarian male student to overrule Russell Moore's distinction between pagan patriarchy and biblical complementarianism.

Mistake #6: Thinking submission is inherently evil — submission was not a bad word in biblical culture, though it is in modern culture.

Linda Belleville is so opposed to submission that she argues nobody had authority in the early church — not even Jesus or the apostles.

Three commitments: (3) Mike will not be 'God's PR department' — he will not avoid truths or fail to confront false beliefs to make Christianity palatable.

Introduction to part 2 of Women in Ministry series, framing it as a month-long research project engaging deeply with egalitarian views.

Overview of Genesis 1-3 as the focus of this video, covering the fall and creation and what they say about men's and women's roles.

Definition of complementarian and egalitarian positions in the debate over women in ministry.

Both egalitarians and complementarians agree that Genesis 1-3 is theologically foundational for understanding male-female relationships.

The general complementarian approach sees Genesis 2 showing husband's leadership role, confirmed in Genesis 3; the egalitarian approach says authority only appears in Genesis 3 as part of the curse.

Three-section outline: Genesis 1 (foundational, little disagreement), Genesis 2 (longest section, most debated), and Genesis 3 (the fall and the curse).

Genesis 1:26-28 read and analyzed: the Hebrew word 'adam' refers to mankind (male and female), not just the male.

Male and female are both made in God's image -- the highest statement about human value, foundational to the debate.

Dominion in Genesis 1 is given to both male and female together -- the first mention of human authority in the Bible includes women.

Mary Conway's argument that all plural imperative verbs in Genesis 1:28 include both man and woman with no restriction on any activity, including dominion.

Mike's application: limiting women to housework wrongly restricts the dominion mandate of Genesis 1; women should be inventors, farmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc.

Analysis of Titus 2:5 'working at home' -- the Greek word means carrying out household responsibilities, not being restricted to the home.

Biblical examples of women who worked outside the home: Proverbs 31 woman (entrepreneur), Lydia (businesswoman), Priscilla (tentmaker).

Women in Luke 8:2-3 financially sponsored Jesus and the disciples, proving they had significant independent means and worked beyond the home.

Historical context: work often happened at home throughout history; the modern commute-to-work model is recent and should not be read into ancient texts.

Genesis 1 focuses on humanity's relationship to creation; Genesis 2 focuses on the relationship between man and woman, especially husband and wife.

Reading of Genesis 2:7-25 with key observations: Adam made first, given commands alone, names animals alone, Eve made from Adam's rib.

Philip Payne's egalitarian argument: 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' emphasizes shared essence and kinship, never subordination.

Mike's rebuttal: 'bone of my bones' denotes familial connection but says nothing about authority being present or absent, shown by 2 Samuel 5:1 and Judges 9:2.

Two types of egalitarian arguments for Genesis 2: negative case (refuting complementarian points) or positive case (Genesis 2 rules out authority differences).

Payne's second argument: the man (not the woman) leaves father and mother, which implies equality rather than male authority.

The real point of 'leaving father and mother' is that the marriage relationship takes priority over the parental relationship.

Payne's third argument: father and mother sharing authority over the son before he leaves shows egalitarian parental authority.

Payne correctly refutes a bad complementarian argument that God naming the human race 'man' (adam) in Genesis 5:2 implies male leadership.

Introduction to Tom Schreiner's six reasons from Genesis 2 for Adam having a leadership role, from 'Two Views on Women in Ministry.'

Schreiner's point 1: God created Adam first, then Eve, significantly later -- this implies leadership through primogeniture.

Phyllis Trible's argument that Adam was a sexually undifferentiated 'earth creature' before Eve's creation, not male -- from 'God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality' (1978).

Mike's refutation of Trible: 'adam' is never used as 'earth creature' in Hebrew; in Genesis 2 it always refers to a male; and Genesis 2:23 ('ish') proves Adam was already male.

Trible's influence: her arguments are borrowed by Payne, 'Discovering Biblical Equality,' Tucker and Liefeld's 'Daughters of the Church,' and other egalitarian works.

Primogeniture in Hebrew culture: the firstborn had greater authority; older people had more leadership -- this cultural context is key to reading Genesis 2.

Egalitarian pushback: animals were made before Adam in Genesis 1, so creation order doesn't imply authority -- Mike's response: Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts, and primogeniture only applies among humans.

Linda Belleville's argument: Genesis 2 speaks of order and source, not authority -- Mike's rebuttal: these aren't mutually exclusive; primogeniture is precisely about order implying authority.

Craig Blomberg's quote: ancient Jews accustomed to primogeniture would likely have seen Adam being made first as a sign of privilege.

Mary Conway's counter-argument: biblical exceptions to primogeniture (Jacob, Esau, Joseph, David, Ephraim, Manasseh) show the Bible doesn't care about birth order -- Mike's rebuttal: exceptions prove the rule.

Conclusion on primogeniture: early readers of Genesis would very likely have understood Adam as having higher authority due to being made first; Genesis 2 is the rule, not the exception.

1 Timothy 2:12-13 as New Testament commentary on Genesis 2: Paul draws on Adam being formed first as relevant to male-female relationships.

Schreiner's point 2: God gave the command not to eat from the tree to Adam alone, not Eve -- Adam had to relay it, placing him in a teaching/leadership role.

Schreiner's point 3: Eve called Adam's 'ezer' (helper) -- complementarians argue this implies subordination, but Mike finds the egalitarian rebuttal strong on this point.

Linda Belleville's argument: every other OT use of 'ezer' has no connotation of submission; God himself is most commonly called 'ezer' in Scripture.

Egalitarian overreach on 'ezer': Belleville claims it implies 'help that only God can provide' -- Mike refutes this with Ezekiel 12:14 where 'ezer' refers to military helpers.

Bible Link Settings