Tag Archives: Christianity

•

We all have one - a heart that is steeped in rebellion. Reformed theology calls is "the total depravity of man".

We see in in children; for many of them "mine" and "no" are among the first words they use.

We see it in teenagers when they learn that they have wings and start to use them - many times in rebellion instead of freedom.

We see it in adults when we observe the "nine you're fine, ten you're mine" rule of speed limits.

I see it in myself. I sleep with a CPAP and I hate it. Most mornings I wake up with the mask laying next to my pillow and a vague recollection of ripping it off my face in the middle of the night. Why? Because I DON'T LIKE IT!

We see it rebellion against parents, against government, against laws, against doctors, against physical limitations.

And it all stems from a rebellion against God.

John Piper writes: When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.

Total depravity does not mean that all people are as bad as they could be - it means that every part of every person is steeped in original sin. Our minds, our will, our emotions, our body - everything. It is all affected by sin.

Scripture tells us of the nature of man.

The heart is deceitful

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

People are slaves to sin

Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

There is nobody who is righteous.

Romans 3: 10-12 "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

We do not accept spiritual things

1 Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

We are dead in sin

Eph. 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ

and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (v.3)

Why are we all thus?

herefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (Romans 5:12)

• 35 Comments

•

A wife is compared to the bride of Christ - the church. A wife is instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. In that same parallel, the husband is to model the love for his wife after the love that Christ has for His bride, the church. We have a wonderful privilege and responsibility to reflect that to the world.

Our Christian marriages should point people straight to Christ! If people don't look at our marriages and see them reflect Christ and the church, we are failing.

If the world looks at our marriages and sees anything less than a sacrificial love, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees a husband putting himself before the needs of his wife, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees the wife with anything less than the willing and loving submission that the church has for Christ, we are failing.

And...we are failing.

That is why the gender debate matters. The statistics say that Christian marriages are as likely to fail as secular marriages (I have my doubts about the questions asked and think that more should have been asked that would "unskew" the numbers)...but the numbers are not good.

Why is the divorce rate so high? Just like in Jesus' time...hardness of hearts. On the part of both parties.

If the love/submission is modeled on Christ and the church...if the love is modeled after Christ and the submission is modeled after the church - it is the model of Scripture. Each puts the other first, in a way that reflects Christ and the church.

We are the shadow; the mirror. How do we reflect Christ to the world?

• 1 Comment

•

From GetReligion:

"God does not answer our prayers. Jesus is not the saviour who saved the world by dying for our sins. Simply put, Christianity is “love one another.” Gretta Vosper, founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and a minister in Toronto, believes that the church, as we have built it and known it, has outlived its viability." (Amazon.ca)

Mollie (GetReligion) notes:

Lewis provides many details of what Christianity without Christ looks like. Vosper does not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the miracles and the sacrament of baptism. Nor does she believe in the creeds, the presence of Christ in communion or that Jesus was the Son of God. There’s more:

In With or Without God, her book that was formally launched this week, she writes that Jesus was a “Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team.”

The Bible is used in her services, but it gets rewritten to be more contemporary and speak to more people. Even the Lord’s Prayer — also known as the Our Father — does not make the cut because it creates an image of a God who intervenes in human existence. And then there is the “Father” part that is not inclusive language and carries with it the notion of an overbearing tyrant who condemns people to hell.

Again, I am reminded of the words of Reinhold Niebuhr when he described the creed of liberals : "A God without wrath brought man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

And yet...this is the goal

“The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy. It is likely that as we watch Christ and Yahweh tumble to the ground, we will completely outgrow the need for an external God. We, women are going to bring an end to God. We will change the world so much that He won’t fit in anymore.”- Naomi Goldenberg (feminist) - emphasis mine.

• 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 →

• 7 Comments

•

A comment by minnowspeaks (an egalitarian):

"Then as now my greatest difficulty is with the notion that a loving Creator would purposely gift His creation in a certain way only to insist His creation NOT use the gifts. Such a notion goes against my belief in a loving God as well as the idea that our gifts are meant for the edification of the whole."

1) Complementarians do not deny that all members of the bride of Christ are gifted OR that they should be able to use their gifts within Scriptural limits.

2) Why is it that if a woman cannot use her gifts to teach or lead men, you do not consider her to be using her gifts?

possibilities:

...continue reading →

• 29 Comments

•

No...that's not my question, but rather the question on ""Parchment and Pen."

"Why is it okay to think that men know so much, have so much insight, are so sensitive to all the nuances of a particular Bible passage that they can teach women in a way that women are able to learn and understand week after week but the insights and sensitivities of women are so inferior that men could/should never learn from them? Or how is this not what is being said?"

Since this is not what is being taught by most complementarians, it might be useful to note that complementarians are not monolithic (just as egalitarians are not).

It might also be useful to note that most complementarians do not teach that women are not insightful, that women are not sensitive to Scripture or that women are inferior.
Most complementarians do not teach that "men could/should never learn from them?"

From "The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:"

"Listen to how John Piper and Wayne Grudem summarized this answer to this question. "When Paul says in I Timothy 2:12, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,' we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to teach what is good, then they can train the younger women. And he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to her son and grandson. Proverbs praises the ideal wife because she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction on her tongue. Paul endorses women prophesying in a church and says that men learn by such prophesying. And that members should teach and admonish one another with all wisdom as you sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. And then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquilla's side correcting Apollos. It is arbitrary to think that Paul has in mind every form of teaching in I Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are in such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches and a fig tree teaches and suffering teaches and human behavior teaches. If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching, the best clue is by coupling teaching with having authority over men. We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching in leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore, we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for that office."

Also from CBMW:

Also, I see no need to go be­yond Scripture, which does not prohibit (permits but does not mandate) prayer or testimony by a woman in the con­gregation nor forbid her interaction on biblical truths in a private conversation with a man (as Pricilla and Aquila with Apollos in Acts 18:26).

From another article by Wayne Grudem on CBMW:

Now regarding the question of women in the church, what actions should we put on this scale? On the left side of the scale we can put verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul prohibits a woman from teaching or having authority over men. Since I think it is very evident from the context that Paul is talking about the assembled congregation in this passage (see 1 Tim. 2:8-10; 3:15), and he is giving principles that apply to the entire congregation (see 1 Tim. 3:1-16), I think that the left end of the scale prohibits women from teaching or having governing authority over the whole congregation.

What shall we put on the right end of the scale? Here we would put verses such as Acts 18:26, where, in a less formal setting apart from an assembled congregation, we find that Priscilla and Aquila were talking to Apollos, and "they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately." This situation is similar to a small group Bible study in which both men and women are participating and in that way "teaching" one another. Another verse that we can put on the right end of the scale is Titus 2:4 which tells the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children..."

We see from these writings that an across the board prohibition of women teaching men is not what is being taught. Rather it is the teaching that complementarians believe that Paul is teaching that women should not teach the congregation at large, or have authority in that context.

• 3 Comments

•

What is the difference between a "ruler" and a "leader"?

Short and simple (and leaving a lot of blanks)

  • A ruler can lead from anywhere. Front, back, middle. As a participant or not. "do this and I'll have coffee" is an option. A ruler is more forceful (sometimes of necessity, sometimes out of character)
  • A leader gathers information (this is not ruled out with a "ruler") makes a decision based on the input of others (also not ruled out with a "ruler") and states a goal. The attitude is "Let us ALL go in this direction - I'll be the first to step out."

A leader is (by definition) a participant in the achieving of the goal. A ruler may or may not be.

What is the difference between "having authority" and "taking authority"?

There is a line from "Braveheart" the movie. William Wallace says,

"he is not my king." The interrogator tells him (not a direct quote), "oh...he IS your king. Whether you accept it or not makes no difference, he IS your king."

"Having authority" means that...well...the authority is inherent in your position, regardless of whether or not those you have authority over accept it or not. The authority is sometimes God-given, sometimes government-given, sometimes "other"-given (organizations, etc.) The proper attitude toward a person who "haves authority" is an attitude of submission.
"Taking authority" (to me) means that submission is not freely given, it must be taken. Sometimes this is because it is an illegitimate authority, or that a legitimate authority is being abused. Sometimes it is because the legitimate authority is being ignored.

Whether or not the king in Braveheart "had" a legitimate authority, he "took" authority over William Wallace because of Wallace's refusal to submit.

So we see that one does not exclude the other (the king with a legitimate authority "took" authority over Wallace".

On a board of directors there is a legitimate authority in the elected chair. The chair has the authority to lead the meeting in an ordered manner. When a person present attempts to hijack the meeting, the chair also has the right (and responsibility) to "take authority" and get the meeting back on track.

The person who is the "hijacker" is "taking authority" (or attempting to), but they do not "have" authority from a legitimate source. Regardless of the attempt (even if successful) people are free to follow (or not) the source of an illegitimate "taken" authority.

Bottom line?

In my ideal world, leaders would be more plentiful than rulers.

In my ideal world, "taking authority" would not be needed. If those under a person who "has" legitimate authority willingly submitted to that authority, there would be no need for the "taking" of it.

• 2 Comments

•

(With the name removed to make things interesting...but those who know...know)

"...is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible when he takes Paul's 2,000-year-old words as proof for all time that the Supreme Being --!(#%&#)@*$(&%--.

"It's the same process of logic that leads to supporting slavery," -$*@$&%- said, noting that the apostle of Jesus also did not oppose slavery.

"It's important for people to understand that the holy scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding,"

Not applicable for all time, same process that leads us to supporting slavery.

Question: is this an egalitarian supporting women in the pulpit? Or an Anglican supporting homosexual marriage?

• 10 Comments

•

I'm still reading in Genesis 1 and 2.

I read that man was created first - there is an order that humans were created in.  Whether that means anything may be debatable.

I read that it was to the man that God gave the directions to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (in the more detailed account in Genesis 2) - before the woman was even created.  Scripture does not record that the woman was present to receive the instruction.

I read that Eve was not present when Adam had the responsibility of naming the animals...she had not been created yet.

I read that when God declared, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", it was before the fall.

I read that when the serpent approached Eve, it was a very familiar approach..."Did God REALLY say...?"

(Around here we call them "serpent questions":  "Does the Bible REALLY say...?"  or..."Does it REALLY mean THAT?!?!"  or..."Does that REALLY apply to us today?"  Serpent questions.)

I read that after the fall, it was Adam that God questioned.

The all-knowing and all-seeing Creator of the universe would have known exactly what had happened...yet he went to Adam first.

In Ephesians 5, when Paul writes the segment of instructions to husbands and wives, (wives submit, husbands love) and refers to what God declared BEFORE the fall: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
I believe that the inclusion of the one-flesh declaration from BEFORE THE FALL into the "wives submit - husbands love" instruction, God was instructing His bride in the redemptive love of the bridegroom for the wife who lovingly and willingly submits to Him.

I believe that before the fall, Adam was created first, Adam received the instruction not to eat of the tree, Eve was created as a suitable helper (complementary even).  I believe that the order in which things happened was recorded that way for a reason - the husband leads, the wife helps.

I believe that part of the curse was that no longer would a wife tend to lovingly and willingly submit to the leadership of her husband.  Evil had crept in.

I believe that after the fall the temptation would be for a husband to deal harshly with his wife, denying her the love that she desires.  Evil had crept in.
I believe that Christ offers us the opportunity:  to reflect Christ and the church.

"The mystery is profound..."

I believe that in Christ, husbands have the privilege and responsibility of loving as Christ loves the church.

I believe that in Christ, wives have the privilege and responsibility of submitting as the church submits to Christ.

I believe that the wife has been the "helper" since the creation account.  That has not changed.  Woman is still the "suitable helper".  Complementary.  Half of the one-flesh.

I believe that the whole of Scripture leads to a reading of the husband as leader.  That has not changed.

From before the fall, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

From the writing of Paul's instruction to wives and husbands, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Wives submit, husbands love.

• 2 Comments

•

Jay Adams calls "apologizing" the world's unsatisfactory substitute for forgiveness.

"uh...sorry"..."that's ok." That is apology and it's not repentance, and it's not real forgiveness.

There is another question that parallels "what is forgiveness".

What does forgiveness DO?

What makes "forgiveness", "forgiveness"?

Is it a feeling? No - Scripture says nothing about "feeling" forgiving. Scripture tells us to forgive.

Eph.4:32 tells us, "...forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."

The "as" gives us a model. Strong's gives the definition

1)according as
...a)just as, even as
...b)in proportion as, in the degree that
2)since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
3)when, after that

What does Scripture tell us about God's forgiveness of us? Does He simply sit in heaven and "emote"? No, He gives us a promise.

Isa 43:25 "I, I am he who blots outyour transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins.

Jer 31:34b For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

If forgiveness were merely a "feeling", we could not rely on this promise.

If forgiveness were merely "forgetting", it would not be a purposeful relinquishing of the debt. I can "forget" my keys. But the Almighty Creator of the universe cannot forget anything. It is a commitment to not recall, not bring it to remembrance, not to bring it up, remind, mention or record the offense.

If I make that promise to forgive - to not bring it up again - and I do, that is breaking a promise. I went through a really rough time with my daughter a couple of years ago. That which was done is no longer between us - and the repentance/forgiveness process works.

We went through this book. I DID bring it up again and my daughter (as my sister in Christ) reminded me of the promise. I had my own repenting to do. The process works.

Forgiveness is a promise.