Christianity

• 5 Comments

•

From Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12):

Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.

The notion that "authority" was not seen in the the passage until WWII is wrong - especially reading the study notes and commentaries.

There weren't all that many translations:

...continue reading →

•

What I read in Genesis 1 and 2 is that God created male and female differently and He treats them differently and (where instruction is given to specifically men or specifically women) He many times gives them different instruction.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is not mentioned in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 we are told that Adam is given instruction independently of Eve - before she is even created. This infers that Eve was dependent on Adam for instruction. This was before the fall. The first recorded instance of a woman learning from her husband is from before the fall.

Also before the fall - God proclaimed: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Eve was created differently - out of man. Man and woman are created to be two parts of the whole.

In Ephesians, Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) writes,

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

This reference to before the fall comes at the end of one of the longest passages in Scripture instructing (specifically) husbands and wives.

In that last sentence that I quoted, the word for "respect" is φόβος - phobeō. From which we get the word "phobia" - to fear. Strong's also gives the definition: c) to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience

Does the context of the word indicate that wives are to live in "fear" of their husbands, or that they should treat them with deference?

Especially give that a related word, φόβος - phobos is used in the same chapter of Ephesians.

...submitting to one another out of reverence (φόβος ) for Christ....

The "mutual submission" clause. We need to decide whether this statement rules out what follows, or whether this statement is explained by what follows. I believe that the statement is the instruction, what follows is the application.

We see that a general instruction of "submit to one another" is here, but then there are the specific instructions to husbands and wives that are different. Husbands and wives are instructed differently.

Why?

...it refers to Christ and the church ...

•

From "A Defense of Calvinism" by Charles Spurgeon

Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good.

The "T" of Tulip...

Total depravity of man.

It is not that each person is as utterly evil as they could be, it is that each person is born with a sin nature that touches every part of their being. With totality, it is impossible for them to reach out to God, unless the Spirit touches them first. Unless they are called, nobody seeks God.

  • Romans 7:18 - For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
  • Romans 3:10-11 - as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.
  • Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
  • Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
  • (from) Genesis 8:21 - for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth...

Westminster Confession of Faith:

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin,[93] the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually;[94] which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.[95]

I (Ellen) can say that I know that without God speaking to me, I would not run after Him.

•

You know how every once in a while you have a research paper due (that isn't quite printed yet)...and you have an exam coming up...and you have paperwork to do...and...and...and...you just didn't plan life quite right and now you're just a little behind and it just caught up in a not very urgent, but rather annoying way?

And then God says...here.

I had a flat tire this morning. And so I am taking an unplanned day off (because I couldn't get the tire off, but Tom did so he's changing it but in his own time on the way to class) and since by the time I get to work it will be halfway through the day...I'm just going to get my Spanish AND my literature work caught up.

Yes, I'm burning the remainder of my comp time - but that's ok. This is what it's there for.

Thank God for flat tires (sometimes) 😉

•

Sounds like a contradiction? It doesn't have to be.

In the introduction to "The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr", he is called a "pessimistic optimist"- the operative word being "optimist", with the qualifier being "pessimistic".

Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. (Rienhold Niebuhr)

We see both optimism and pessimism in this quote. Phil said (in a rather spirited political discussion with his dad) that democracy is the worst type of government...except for all the rest.

We see optimism in eternity...as Christians we know that eternity with Christ is the ultimate in optimism.

We see pessimism in the present...human beings are sinners. There is pain and trial in this world.

"Men may be quite unable to define the meaning of life, and yet live by a simple trust that it has meaning. This primary religion is the basic optimism of all vital and wholesome human life."

I cannot see eternity, but I trust that God does.

To know that there is meaning, but not to know the meaning...that is bliss (J. Middleton Murray)

Let that rattle around for a while.

The most adequate religion solves its problems in paradoxes rather than schemes of consistency, and has never wavered in believing that God is both the ground of our existence and the ultimate pinnacle of perfection toward which existence tends.

I can relate to that. Surety is a thing of the world - embrace the paradoxes. Finding freedom as a bondservant to Christ.

These paradoxes are in the spirit of the great religion. the mystery of life is comprehended in meaning, though no human statement of meaning can fully resolve the mystery. The tragedy of life is recognized, but faith prevents tragedy from being pure tragedy . Perplexity remains, but there is no perplexity unto despair. Evil is neither accepted as inevitable nor regarded as a proof of the meaningless of life. Gratitude and contrition are mingled, which means that life is both appreciated and challenged. To such faith the generations are bound to return after they have pursued the mirages in the desert to which they are tempted from time to time by the illusions of particular eras.

It is the mystery that gives life meaning.

• 33 Comments

•

And a plea for logical thinking.

The bottom line (one) is:  Is Scripture sufficient?

The bottom line (two) is:  Is Scripture trustworthy?

The text for our Palm Sunday was one that I had not heard preached on Palm Sunday - Acts 14.

(3)So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

(...)

(19)But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

When the truth is preached, people respond. Paul consistently preached the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Here is Acts 16:

(19)But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, "These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice." The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

Paul was a man who preached the truth. Every chance he got, he preached the truth. He was beaten, imprisoned, threatened with death, beaten more, imprisoned more, threatened more.

And still he preached the truth.

He knew that he was going to be martyred

2 Tim. 4:6For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Peter watched James be martyred by Herod.

Acts 12:1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.

and Peter watched. Peter was also threatened and imprisoned.

So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison.

We read of Paul being beaten, imprisoned, beaten more, threatened with death.

We read of Peter being imprisoned after watching James be martyred.

And yet they continued to preach the gospel...even under the threat of death...and the eventually DID die for the gospel; one was beheaded, the other crucified.

And yet...these are the same men who wrote PRIVATE letters to congregations and wrote

(1 Peter 3) Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands (...) Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

and

(Col. 3:18) Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

These are men who suffered and died to preach the truth of the gospel. And yet, in private letters to congregations, we see not one specific instruction to (specifically) husbands to (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about what the authorities would say?

It would seem that men who were willing to die for the truth would be willing to write to congregations in private letters what they were really wanted to teach.

We have the same man who wrote that we ought to obey God rather than man...pandered to the culture and neglected to write that (in the face of impending martyrdom for the truth) (specifically) husbands should (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about the authorities.

These are questions that egalitarians don't appear to like...at least I've asked it a number of times and I don't recall seeing it addressed when I've asked it.

1) Why would the same Pater who said, "We must obey God rather than men!" have obeyed the culture of those same men when teaching the truth of God concerning the submission of husbands to wives?

2) Why would the same Paul who was beaten, imprisoned, and martyred for preaching truth of God in the face of governmental persecution - why would this Paul have neglected a teaching about relationships between husbands and wives out of concern for what the governmental authorities might think?
3) If we believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work"...why did "inspired" Scripture leave out this teaching (unless it isn't really a teaching)?

4) If Paul wrote what God breathed out, why was GOD pandering to the culture?

5) Paul preached Christ crucified (the equivalent of us teaching to follow a common criminal executed by hanging) - why would he have been concerned about what culture thought...when preaching such an UNcultural truth?
NOTE ON COMMENTS: stick to the specific questions or comments will be closed.

Back to the bottom lines:

(one) Is Scripture sufficient?  Or does it leave us on a "trajectory"?

(two) Is Scripture trustworthy?  Or does it leave out specific instructions in order to pander to culture?

•

On this Sunday we look forward to Holy Week; the week in which Christ's earthly ministry comes to its peak in His submission to His Father in the role of redemption.

It was Christ, in His submission, who leads us to eternity.

If we look to the Trinity as an example of submission and authority, we see that there is absolute equality, absolute love, absolute "sent-ness", absolute submission, absolute unity in purpose.

Christ's submission to the Father in no way interfered with His submission to authorities, with His submission to the needs of His followers, with His submission to the sheep He came to find.

And yet, Christ is the ultimate leader...Prince of Peace.

•

1 Cor. 15:24-28 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

This is a fairly short segment in Craig Keener's paper, "Is Subordination within the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context".

Let me remind all reading that Keener is an egalitarian and has no reason to see eternal submission of Christ as a basis for his stand in the gender role conversation. Further, he reminds us that there is no need to accuse either side of heresy or "tampering with the Trinity".

The first segment (John 5) is here.
In this first segment is Scripture, with my comments block-quoted/inset.
1) Christ reigns now.

Christ is currently at the right hand of the Father (which is traditionally, a place of equal power and authority, and lesser rank) - we have a current example of submission.

2) then comes the end, when Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father.

"The end" - this makes this an eschatological passage; one that tells us of the end of history (the future). Even then, the action of Christ is to deliver the kingdom to His Father, not to keep it for Himself.

3) after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

For those who believe that a Christian marriage is an authority structure and that the husband is the authority, this tells us that THAT AUTHORITY WILL END at this point.

4) AFTER destroying the last enemy, the final enemy to be destroyed is death.

That is a comforting piece of Scripture...death will be destroyed.

5) FOR God has put all things under Christ's feet.

God is the One who put Christ into power; Christ's authority (as Christ said many times while He walked the earth) was the authority of His Father.

6) BUT [emphasis mine] when it says äll things are put in subjection", it is plain that the Father is excepted

Scripture is telling us that the Father is NOT in subjection to Christ - the Father is excepted.

7) When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him,

Here is a Scriptural, Biblical example of the FUTURE and ESCHATALOGICAL submission of the Son to the Father.

8) that God may be all in all.

New Advent puts it: The Son also himself shall be subject unto him... That is, the Son will be subject to the Father, according to his human nature, even after the general resurrection; and also the whole mystical body of Christ will be entirely subject to God, obeying him in every thing.

MY QUESTION AND POINT (I think that the question must have gotten lost in the shuffle many times) is that if we have a past, present and future (creative, redemptive and eschatological) example of the Son in submission to the Father...where does Scripture tells us when this submission ends?

If there is no place that Scripture tells us that the submission of the Son ends; that He grasps full equality not only in essence and person, but also in His role in relationship to the Father, then the teaching that eternal submission is false is teaching from silence.

Keener's comments (bolded emphasis mine):

In some sense the messianic king and Son of man must reign forever (Isa 9:7; Dan 7:14; Luke 1:3233), but Jewish people also usually affirmed that God himself would reign more directly in the final time (Exod 15:18; Ps 146:10; Mic 4:7).40 So Paul's first hearers probably would not have found his point difficult to grasp.

Depending on how much weight one hangs on the grammatical details here, scholars debate the extent to which Paul shares with some of his contemporaries the view of an intermediate messianic kingdom. Some believe Christ's reign refers to his present reign concluded by death being placed under his feet at the believers' resurrection (1 Cor 15:25-26), others to a later period based on the succession of "thens" suggested in 15:23-24. In either case, in the end Christ himself will be plainly subordinated to the Father (15:28) in a more complete way than he is before that day (15:27), though he sits already at the Father's right hand (cf. Acts 2:34-35).

At that point, God will be "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). This refers to his unchallenged authority over all else, in this context presumably including the Son. (...)

Despite some thorny questions about the meaning of some of Paul's language here, which we have not endeavored to resolve, this passage appears to affirm the Son's willing and loving subordination to the Father in the future era. For Paul, then, Jesus' deity (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6) is presumably not incompatible with his recognition of the Father's higher rank, even in the eternal future. Paul's wording does not indicate the sense in which the Son submits to the Father-it surely differs from the sense in which the rest of creation submits to both of them (Rev 22:3). But it does suggest that the Father and Son embrace roles that remain distinct in some respects even in eternity.

•

Chapter 3.—What Augustin Requests from His Readers. The Errors of Readers Dull of
Comprehension Not to Be Ascribed to the Author. (from "On the Trinity")

"(...)6. I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some
parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I
have. But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated
into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, whilst I am compelled
to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject (...)