Christian Parenting: Training Your Child’s Gender Identity

284 thoughts on “Christian Parenting: Training Your Child’s Gender Identity”

1. B4B –

   Refer to Genesis 3 passage you hate so much. When someone absolutely must make a final decision, God says it’s the responsibility of the husband, along with whatever consequences arise from a bad decision are on him as the one accountable to God for the family. As it was written, so let it be done.

   What is the part you think we hate so much in Genesis 3?

   I hate the part about Eve and Adam eating the fruit that God told them (Adam?) not to eat. It resulted in some dire consequences.

   Thankfully, Jesus has come since then and anyone in Christ is in a new covenant with God. We no longer need to be in bondage to the consequences of the Fall.

   LikeLike

2. Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

   Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

   1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

   That the husband is somehow responsible to God (and thus accountable) for his wife and family is inherent to God having established the concept of ‘headship’. It’s similar to a military commander appointing subordinate leaders who are responsible/accountable to him (the commander) for how they lead. Or the owner of a business appointing employees to positions of leadership who are accountable to him (the owner) for how well thel operate the business.

   LikeLike

3. JA,

   Reference your 12:07, where the meaning is clear it means what the words mean. Sometimes we might need to consult the original language, but in most cases that is not even necessary That husbands are to be servants at the same time they are charged by God to be leaders with authority is plain from the texts in which ‘headship’ is defined and the texts that talk about mutual submission in a marriage. To say that husbands do not have any authority over wives based on the ‘submission’ texts would mean that the passages giving men authority are not true. However since we know the Bible doesn’t contradict itself we are left with husbands as leaders with God given authority AND husbansd who serve their wives.

   LikeLike

4. I don’t have time to dig deep into your passages at the moment, but do me a favor and take a look at Hebrews 13:17. Do you use KJV? That translation says “rule over.” A lot of Christian leaders love to use that verse to imply they get to rule over their congregants. Firstly, any pastor who has a desire to be an authority figure and rule over someone is in the wrong business. The desire should be to guide people to Jesus. They have no business ruling over anyone. I discussed this on my blog on a series where I looked up the original language on my own. But you might not be able to read it if you take the verses in the bible literally that a woman cannot teach a man. What a bummer! Here it is just in case:

   Obey Those Who Rule Over You and be Submissive, Part 1

   Obey Those Who Rule Over You and be Submissive, Part 2

   LikeLike

5. B4B –

   Genesis 3:16 is a consequence of sin, not the original intention of the male/female relationship. The other two verses can be interpreted differently than you do.

   You can choose to read and interpret the Bible like you want. You can make it say anything you like. You can believe that it was written perfectly for us today, in our context. You can believe that the exact words that we see in it today are the words that God intended. You can pull scriptures out of context and string them together as you did above.

   I have stopped reading scripture this way, and I have found that there are some poorly translated words and concepts. I am rethinking and reevaluating everything I have been taught. I never questioned anything; I do now.

   I don’t believe that God intends the husband/wife relationship to function as a hierarchy like in the military or the business world. It is a totally different type of relationship. Neither do I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact like the military or businesses world. I can understand why someone in the military might view personal relationships this way, but many people don’t.

   LikeLike

6. @ Bridget I just have to laugh with the thought that: the husband/wife relationship would function as a hierarchy! That is just ludicrous. What happened to true love?! The Lover and the Beloved?! Since when does marriage have the appeal of a business or the military? Not found in my Bible and not practiced at this house!!

   LikeLike

7. B4B,

   Did you seriously just refer to your wife as a subordinate soldier and employee? And yourself as the military commander and business owner to describe your marriage? Oh my.

   LikeLike

8. “That the husband is somehow responsible to God (and thus accountable) for his wife and family is inherent to God having established the concept of ‘headship’. It’s similar to a military commander appointing subordinate leaders who are responsible/accountable to him (the commander) for how they lead. ”

   So help me understand, B4B – you bark orders to your wife and she says, “yes, sir?”

   LikeLike

9. “Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

   I would recommend a deep study on the word “teshuqa”. The word “desire” was first used in a translation in the 1300’s by a Monk named Pagnino. Before that it was “turning”. As in Eve was turning to Adam (instead of God) and because she did such stupid thing, Adam would rule over here.

   “Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”
   Ya need another word study on Kephale. If the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate “authority over” He would have inspired archon or even exousia. Kephale is often used as source as in the 1st Century people believe the “head” was the source for the Body as in breathing, eating, etc. The husband was the source for the wife because as we all know, she was not going to the Ephesus community college to get a degree to support herself.

   “1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

   If Paul was denoting a chain of command, he got it wrong because God is last? That is not how it works in Greek. It makes total sense if you read it as ‘the source of every man is Christ and the source of woman is man (adam) and the source of Christ is God.

   This passage explains it self further on when Paul talks about man then coming from woman which makes them interedependent. see this verse:

   Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

   And keep in mind the part about Angels which is harking back to chapter 6.
   There is also not “symbol of” in the Greek. Paul is actually saying a woman has authority over her own head. Check it out in the interlinear and stop listening to your gurus. Study for yourself. One day your wife might be changing your depends.

   LikeLike

10. “Bridget I just have to laugh with the thought that: the husband/wife relationship would function as a hierarchy! That is just ludicrous. What happened to true love?! The Lover and the Beloved?! Since when does marriage have the appeal of a business or the military? Not found in my Bible and not practiced at this house!!”

    What happened to ONE FLESH UNION? Is that not possible after the resurrection?

    LikeLike

11. “Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

    Many pastors do not teach any of this in context which is: Follow God’s example and “be filled with the Holy Spirit”. They also try to avoid this one:

    21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

    And submit is not in verse 22, the translators added it.

    If we take their interpretation of this metaphor about LOVE as literal as they want us to then the husband is Christ and the wife the church. But we have no mediator between us and Christ. This is a metaphor about love and being the “source” for love to his wife

    But wait, we know that husbands are actually Brides in Biblical metaphorical language. Perhaps we should take that literally, too?

    But then verse 21 ruins it all for them. :o)

    LikeLike

12. Heb 13:7: KJV ‘rule over’ is ”leaders’ in the ‘ESV’

    hayg-eh’-om-ahee

    Middle voice of a (presumed) strengthened form of G71; to lead, that is, command (with official authority); figuratively to deem, that is, consider: – account, (be) chief, count, esteem, governor, judge, have the rule over, suppose, think.

    Gen 3:16: KJV ‘shall rule over’ is the same in the ESV
    maw-shal’

    A primitive root; to rule: – (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.

    Any way you slice it, there is a ‘role’ given by God to a husband. Husbands can and do abuse it, but it’s there. Our duty (husbands) before God, is to be the best possible leader/ruler we can be with His Spirit living in us, a servant leader.

    The issue of a women teaching men in the church is a bit more difficult. We know that God appointed men to be ‘elders, overseers, and deacons’. (1 Tim 3) The previous chapter speaks of women ‘teaching’ men in the church and forbids it. The words used for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are those used for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ in ;other places (not all but some) .Chapter 2 is laying out a principle of some kind, and chapter 3 is specifically about ‘offices’ in the church. So we fight over it because we are sinful beings.

    Regardless of how well (or not) we exercise what God has ordained, it is His plan. We are to do our best in fulfilling that plan, although it is not laid out in every single detail like a Special Forces ‘A’ Team mission is, with every detail covered.

    Men are appointed by God to occupy certain positions in the church and are to servant leaders in the church, just as they are in the home. There are men who occupy positions on the church they were never called to, men who were called but misappropriate their leadership authority, and men who are called and lead well (as there are in Christian homes).

    God undoubtedly knew we would mess things up, but nevertheless, he designated roles and responsibilities in relationships. Perhaps part of that is so we would in fact ‘live’ in His word in order to fulfill whatever roles and responsibilities he has set up and thus be ‘witnesses’ to the lost world around us of what He can do in our lives, to His great praise.

    The DanDee couple (me and my bride) have not done all things well, but we have been married nearly 38 years now, are a mixed race couple, and as one of those Special Forces types I was gone a lot. If you think I yell’ jump’ and she smiles and says ‘how high’, you are sadly mistaken, and perhaps have trouble with the analogy. I believe I was talking about the concept of authority where there are appointed positions/roles of leadership.

    Anyone who would laugh at ‘heirarchical relationships’ (different roles/responsibilities), as some have, just might be laughing at God, given the nature of the Trinity.

    I am intentionally ignoring other ill advised comments that fail to simply address passages of scripture and talk about them but would rather I sincerely apologize for having used an analogy of the military situation in order to make a point concerning

    LikeLike

13. B4B,

    Did you seriously just refer to your wife as a subordinate soldier and employee? And yourself as the military commander and business owner to describe your marriage? Oh my.

    And you think that’s what the Bible says a marriage should be?

    You either don’t practice what you preach or your wife and kids are suffering.

    Can you give your wife permission to comment? I would like to know if she confirms this is how your marriage operates. I think everyone would benefit from hearing her perspective.

    LikeLike

14. I can’t understand why people use Genesis 3:16 as an example of how the husband/wife relationship should function. That is part of a group of verses that outlined the consequences for Adam and Eve turning from God. How can it possibly be what God intends for a healthy marriage?

    I believe that men and women should be leaders in whatever realm that God has established and gifted them; in families, in vocations, in neighborhoods, in the local church, in charities, in government, etc. All Christians should use their gifts as a blessing. Mothers and fathers should lead their children.

    Wade Burelson just did a teaching on the “authority over” concept we see in the church and Christian families today. It’s not the intent of scripture and not healthy for the Church.

    LikeLike

15. Do I need to explain what an analogy is? Anyone, anyone who seriously thinks I ‘bark’, orders at my wife is completely ignoring what I have said about ‘servant leadership ‘. I’ve heard it said that if you don’t have an argument against scripture you don’t like, attack the messenger. That principle is alive and well Here!

    LikeLike

16. Regarding CBMW’s “woman-as-usurper” interpretation of Genesis 3:16–their view casts the blame for sin, and its effects on the relationship between men and women, squarely on the woman. To suggest that man’s tendency to “rule over” the woman is a response to her challenge to his authority is pretty ghastly. (Hello, CBMW, are we in the middle ages?)
    Wendy Alsup (who identifies herself as a comp) has explored the meaning of Gen 3:16 very ably on her blog. She argues that the womans “desire” for her husband is an idolatrous desire, not a desire to dominate. Here’s the gist:
    “A straightforward reading such as Vos’, Keil’s, and Delitzsch’s, requires no theological backflips. The woman’s root problem is that, even though child birth is painful and the man rules her, she still has a morbid craving for him, looking to him in completely unhealthy ways that do not reflect her status as image bearer of God. The woman wants something from the man that he was never intended to provide her, that he even on his best day is not equipped to provide. He becomes her idol.” http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2012/04/somewhat-scholarly-analysis-of-genesis.html?m=1

    LikeLike

17. Does anyone think Abigail in the Bible committed insubordination to her husband? The Abigail of today would not be a hero, but would be brought up on church discipline in many churches. Here’s her story:

    http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/sapphira-and-abigail-part-1/

    LikeLike

18. Great point Shiloah- “Regarding CBMW’s “woman-as-usurper” interpretation of Genesis 3:16–their view casts the blame for sin, and its effects on the relationship between men and women, squarely on the woman. To suggest that man’s tendency to “rule over” the woman is a response to her challenge to his authority is pretty ghastly. (Hello, CBMW, are we in the middle ages?)

    Seem like women have been getting the blame for all sorts of sin since the garden…

    Does anyone find it interesting that Adam first implied blame towards God for putting the woman there with him? “The woman you put here with me”

    Then he blames the woman: “she gave me some fruit from the tree”

    and then he takes responsibility: ” and I ate it.”

    Nothing new under the sun indeed, has been going on since the beginning of time, lets find someone else to blame for our choices. And to think that Adam wasn’t man enough to tell Eve NO I will not eat… Maybe that is why the fundy’s have to box & label everything, it must embarrass them that Adam wasn’t much of a spiritual leader.
    *sarcasm*

    LikeLike

19. B4B,
    Look, military commanders bark orders to their subordinates. If you don’t think that describes your marriage, or is Biblical, why use military commander/soldier as your example?
    I’m a homeschool Mom, and your attempt at analogy would be marked wrong if I were grading your paper. You admit it is not like what you are trying to describe.

    Sincerely, thank you for clarifying that. If you practice what is called “servant leadership” which is defined as putting self second, then I would say your marriage is actually functioning more as egalitarian. Don’t fall out, it’s okay. Sounds like you do marriage right, at least I hope so.

    I would like to make one important point that, in your zeal, you may not have accounted for. There are men in marriages out there that DO think God’s prescription for marriage is military commander/soldier – with barking orders, harsh reprimands, do as I say, punishment, etc. I think we were all concerned this is what you were doing, it’s the analogy you gave, after all.

    My concern is for those men and the women suffering in those marriages. Affirming this military commander/soldier, business owner/employee marriage is damaging. I don’t think you want to propagate this idea, while not practicing it yourself, to the harm of other marriages and families out there. All I’m asking you to do is think about it.

    LikeLike

20. Whoa, Gail, that was a slam dunk about Adam’s record of blame.

    LikeLike

21. Sorry, B4B. I typed my last comment and then saw your admission of the bad analogy. Would not have mentioned “grading your paper” if I had read that first.

    LikeLike

22. B4B,

    I think you turned a lot of people off with your choice of analogy — at least in part. Comparing a marriage to a military structure or a boss/employee relationship is (to me) very inappropriate. First, the marriage relationship is too different — it’s much more intimate than any of the hierarchies you mentioned. Second, those hierarchies (military and business) are man-made. The Bible gives Christians some guidance in navigating them, but they’re still of human origin. Since you seem to assume that marriage is instituted by God, how much can relationships of human design inform us about it?

    I’m familiar with the verses you refer to, and I’ve often puzzled over them. Their meaning may be obvious to you, but not to me. Apparently others agree with me. It might help your cause if you address the real life experiences of people like Bridget. Her marriage doesn’t seem to run on “husband headship”, but it’s still working and still honouring God. How can that be if your reading of the Bible is the only accurate one?

    (I apologize to everyone if my comments are coming in at odd times. My life is in serious upheaval now, and sometimes it’s all I can do to read regularly.)

    LikeLike

23. Serving – I know you live in Japan and that explains odd comment times, but I’m sorry to hear about your “serious upheaval.” You are in my prayers.

    LikeLike

24. BTW I noticed this sentence from Serving in Japan: “How can that be if your reading of the Bible is the only accurate one?”

    Please take note that this is one of the patterns high-controlling pastors/leaders use with congregants. Their way is the right way and the only way. If your way differs, it is inferior, or altogether wrong in their eyes. There is little humility or room for correction or rebuke in bully pastors. They think their theology is flawless. Hmm, that should signal warning alarms because we all know no one is perfect.

    LikeLike

25. Serving in Japan, I enjoy your thoughtful comments, this one included. Thanks for sharing, so I can be praying for you.

    LikeLike

26. JA & WB: is this another “personal attack”…? this is what I mentioned earlier. Why is this tolerated when B4B, as contentious as he tends to be, calls names too? This is one example. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but this rings of 3rd grade recess antics.

    note: I’m thinking again of the “Sounding Board” – if a piano plays a key, even with the notes off-tune, without the sounding board, one would not know. So the sounding board is needed to permit all notes to ring, so that corrections can be made to ensure the notes are tuned, properly. The analogy does break down, here. How does one tell which is in tune, and which is not. That’s why the player keeps playing.

    So why not all be more gracious to one another? Granted, this IS a tame blog and I appreciate a lot of the discussion, but the snarky comments, laced with sarcasm, and the name calling, however slight, is a put-off. B4B, you happen to be slapping the keys on this pretty hard, but you have merely bumped folks sippy-cups, where what comes out in some cases, is equally wrong. So, I believe we should all take a deep breath and play a tune worthy of our master as we gaze through a glass darkly, having a bit more graciousness toward those we disagree with.

    LikeLike

27. Serving in Japan,

    I will join JA in praying for you today.

    LikeLike

28. Ric,

    I appreciate your comment and your concern that this place remain a grace-filled place. First off, I am certainly not a perfect moderator. I stew a lot about this stuff and I’m thinking about it as I try to decide which avocado is ripe, as I mate 10,001 socks – yes, I think about it a lot.

    I’m not going to be perfect, but there is history here with B4B and I have probably let far more comments remain than I should have. I do not think the push back he has received comes close to what he has dished out, hence the trip to the SSB dog house.

    As far as snarkiness and sarcasm is concerned, if you have read my blog for any length of time, you will note that I snark an awful lot. (A Mom, fellow homeschool mom, can I use “snark” as a verb? :))

    There is a fine line for a moderator regarding personal attacks/snark/sarcasm. Also keep in mind that I think highly of our First Amendment. I personally attacked my former pastor by calling him a wolf and a spiritual abuser, which resulted in a defamation lawsuit. Yes, I used stinging words. Why?? Because I felt he was destroying spiritual lives.

    If you see some unbalance, it’s probably because you are seeing people push back on someone who is behaving like a spiritual bully, just as I was speaking out against my pastor. On a spiritual abuse blog, where people formerly had no voice, could not challenge, could not question, sometimes felt that they could not even think for themselves, I think this kind of response is reasonable. Reasonable does not mean pretty.

    I have a question for you. How do you think Jesus would treat spiritual bullies?

    LikeLike

29. Ric,

    Are you saying that my calling Born4Contention a Calvinist bully is out of line — even though he is a toxic individual, and I’ve only pointed out the truth? (If I misunderstood your comment, I’m sorry.)

    I respect Julie immensely for allowing him to post here, because he would never be welcomed at my blog. He is disrespectful, arrogant, contentious and hence sinful. He doesn’t merely oppose worldviews and theology, he uses nasty, ungodly rhetoric in doing so. So, you’ll have to excuse or forgive me if I don’t sympathize in responding to him in any other manner.

    LikeLike

30. Funny J.A. you should ask that, I was just thinking how Jesus would respond to a spiritual bully… Does Matthew 23 fit the bill?

    13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]b

    15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

    16“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

    23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

    25“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

    27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

    29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    LikeLike

31. Thanks so much to everyone for your prayers. 🙂 I’m grateful for all the encouragement I can get.

    Play friendly, everyone! 😉

    LikeLike

32. B4B –

    I sincerely thank you for your service to me and this country by putting your life on the line for others. It is very commendable. I have a brother who served 20+ years in the Navy. I know the sacrifice that you and your wife have made. Thank her as well!

    As far as agreeing with our government about “when” we should be putting our service men and women at risk, that is another issue which I won’t expound on here 😉

    LikeLike

33. Lydia – You’re right about Piper. His schtick about men protecting is clearly just a lot of talk that doesn’t appeal to men genuinely secure with their masculinity, in my view.

    Serving in Japan:

    Thanks for the comments. You and I have probably been on the same base in Japan. I’ve never served in the military but my parents were U.S. diplomats in Japan so we had base privileges (e.g. the opportunity to shop at the stores on military bases and see military doctors).

    One time I even accidentally ate at the mess hall at Yokosuka Navy base. I thought it was just a restaurant and because I was 19 I looked enough like a soldier that no one asked questions, I guess.

    I remember being perplexed that eggs were 5 cents and coffee was 8 cents when I paid for breakfast. 🙂 There was no sign saying, “mess hall” anywhere.so I wasn’t trying to get an unauthorized cheap meal but that’s how it worked out.

    A 25 cent good breakfast is a nice perk!

    LikeLike

34. “I am intentionally ignoring other ill advised comments that fail to simply address passages of scripture and talk about them . . . “ B4B

    Why are you doing this, B4B?

    We are discussing the meaning of specific scripture, you are doing the same in your comment. You want all of us to heed what you write, but you are going to ignore what many of us write. This seems rude and avoiding the issue. I remember you responding in similar fashion when we were discussing “spanking” of children. Maybe you should just say, ” I believe what I believe and I have no intention of investigating and/or learning anything new about scripture.” That would be better and more honest (from what I see) than you ignoring comments with your dismissive remarks as noted in the quote.

    The very scripture you reference from the ESV is the very scripture that many current scholars have said was translated poorly from the original into King James and again into the ESV. Do you believe that every translation was done without any bias?

    LikeLike

35. Heb 13:7: KJV ‘rule over’ is ”leaders’ in the ‘ESV’

    aMyigd-delhe’ -voomi-caeh eoef a (presumed) strengthened form of G71; to lead, that is, command (with official authority); figuratively to deem, that is, consider: – account, (be) chief, count, esteem, governor, judge, have the rule over, suppose, think.
    ”
    boy, I don’t know who is teaching you but this is so far off base for Hebrews 13, I cannot get over it. Cannot figure out if it is ignorance or you are just desperate.

    The KJV translators laboring under church/state mentality chose the meaning that would best prop up a king who was boss of the church. ESV, same thing because it fits their paradigm.

    The spirit of this passage in context demands (just like in verse 17) that we look at “esteem” as more appropriate in context. The “leaders” in this context are those who ‘have gone before” as in refined in sanctification. (Just a note, Hebrews never clarifies what leaders it is referring to. Never once refers to them as elders, pastors, husbands, etc)

    But your problem is that if it was “rule over” the Holy Spirit would have made that clear with describing these leaders as “archon”. The question you have to ask is spiritual. Why would God put someone in authority over another adult believer who has the same indwelling Holy Spirit? Do these “lesser believers” need an earthly authority? OR, is the author telling us to look to those who have gone through the fire and let them “persuade” us as examples? (see v. 17 in Greek)

    People like you who are so desperate for some “position” or “role” (which is what actors play) use scripture as a club to beat others into submission to them. It is a huge sin trap for you. Most men like you are forced to marry someone who is not real sharp and has to be a doormat for them to feel important. Your need to be in charge is very telling. It is not from Christ because HE was never like that and you cannot make that argument from what is written about Him and from His words in the Gospels. Always interpret the metaphors, etc in the Epistles through the lens of Christ.

    LikeLike

36. “B4B, you happen to be slapping the keys on this pretty hard, but you have merely bumped folks sippy-cups, where what comes out in some cases, is equally wrong. ”

    Ric, Should commenters here not consider this to be “snarky”? :o)

    Funny how that works.

    LikeLike

37. Ric, what you may have failed to notice is that a certain commenter here is usually the first to attack and insult. And he particularly loves to attack and insult the women who comment here. He has a long history of that, going back to before you started commenting. So what you are witnessing is people pushing back and saying no, you can’t get away with that behavior. He has refused to show an ounce of compassion or consider any viewpoint other than his own. I know that I am tired of being attacked by him and quite frankly I have a strong fear reaction when his comments appear. I was abused by a college roommate who acted much the same way and it takes everything I have to overcome those memories when our contentious commenter shows up. It helps a lot when other people stand up to him, whether its Julie Anne, Craig, Ed, Eric, Bridget, William, Janna or anyone else.

    LikeLike

38. Ric, you said:
    “B4B, you happen to be slapping the keys on this pretty hard, but you have merely bumped folks sippy-cups, where what comes out in some cases, is equally wrong. So, I believe we should all take a deep breath and play a tune worthy of our master as we gaze through a glass darkly, having a bit more graciousness toward those we disagree with.”
    Ric, This is not a sippy-cup issue and I find that analogy condescending. B4B (and many other church folk) set up commander/soldier, business owner/employee marriages as Biblical. Dan may have reneged on it, but I’m not so sure.
    Ric, Your marriage may be great. Thank God. But there are many Christian marriages that operate under B4B’s “Biblical” description, with horrible, even criminal results. Is that sippy-cup to you? It is irresponsible & uncaring to appear indifferent on this. I stand against propagating this model.
    Dan, It surprises me that you are in a mixed-race marriage. It’s ironic that Dee ran house without you for much of the time, sounds like she handled things. Do you see yourself? You are not what you claim you stand for. I would think you would have understanding & compassion, considering your life experience. Your actions of choosing outside your race, and marrying a capable woman, and your wife being in charge all seem those of an enlightened man. Is it possible you are throwing the best of you away for “doctrines of men”?

    LikeLike

39. JA – thank you for your input. I do, as others have commented, have a lot of respect for you and what you are doing with your blog, especially for standing up against your former church! Amazing amount of effort! Thank you!

    I’m hoping to make an appeal for, us, to consider that our responses to one-another should be laced with the same Spirit that dwells within each one of us, even those who tend to be caustic.

    You asked, “How do you think Jesus would treat spiritual bullies?”

    That is a good question. Jesus prayed for his enemies, the biggest bullies of all, “please forgive them, they no not what they do.” We see Jesus giving living water and healing many. We see Jesus responding deliberately, unwaveringly truthful, howbeit respectfully to pharisees, tax collectors, and the rich. Most of what we see Jesus doing is captured in this, “love your enemies, give water to them, and pray for those who despitefully use you”. What this does not mean, is silence – I agree with you. Jesus confronted those who needed confronted, and made an example to the common people. His words, from a Holy God, were deliberate and exacting. I doubt we (yes, me too) have that same enlightened perspective on the hearts of man, even B4B (of whom I’ve made many direct appeals – yes, without his response, SGM.)

    There are those who claimed to act like Christ in their conduct, but using the temple with the money changers as their model. Or like Paul, but Paul said to “follow/imitate me as I follow Christ.” Even Paul clarified that sometimes, his words were his own opinion, not that of the Holy Spirit.

    There is much that can be debated in these comments, but I’m reminded of Christ’s example in many areas beyond the money changers, all the way to the Cross. We are called to carry our Cross, to die daily, to give the benefit of the doubt, to speak graciously, love one another, etc. These things can be abused, hence your blog, but they are still characteristics of a Christ follower. So, these things may mean to make a direct and very honest inquiry and challenge to folks like B4B, even to send him to the dog house. Or to take on an abusive Church, even as you have done (Bravo Zulu). However, we are also reminded that folks like B4B, without more direct knowledge of his life, are our brothers and sisters. If we treat our brothers and sisters with disdain and disrespect, even those who have abused us, then we are not much different than those in world and how they do things. — B4B – This is primarily for you, SGM —

    I don’t mean that we (you or anyone) cower or pull back from a good discussion, or argument. But that you (we) proceed head-long tackling the hard issues and points of abuse noted in the church – this is done too little in my estimation (in the Church). I don’t mean that we become pansy people unwilling to cross examine false doctrine, or accept abusive legalistic theologies that enslave our brothers and sisters. Often, its the enslaved who are making the arguments for the chains they wear. Calling them names won’t help them see the confines of their own doctrinal misunderstandings. Calling them blind, deaf and dumb (seen in other places), may shout out the obvious, but does little to woo them to a better understanding and freedom of the Word — and the world is watching us treat these folks horridly (in those cases). Proclaiming the “woes” on our brothers and sisters is a scary thing in my estimation; doing this as if the ground wouldn’t open up and swallow us like it did the Israelites in the desert. I’m not suggesting we don’t call out abusive doctrine and practice. I say, we call out abusive doctrine and practice and provide a defense for those things. That we engage one another, even as you do quite well on this blog, and prod folks to support their claims, and hopefully, turn their hearts back to the Master as our Chief example and the pure simplicity in the Word. I do see a lot of that here, thank you all.

    Hopefully I’ve answered the question… my heart yearns for us (Christendom) to live with each other in a way that pleases the Lord. My observation of what you are doing, JA, and many others on this blog, is definitely within that context. Please forgive me for conveying that you are not doing enough. I was concerned that policies were being enforced only against the blatantly caustic while others were permitted to do the same things that person was doing; I thought the dog house was a good example to set, and B4B definitely deserved it.

    WB – it was the changing of B4Bs name to “Born4Contention” that I meant to contend. Also others have done it similarly. Suggesting he is a “bully,” however, is certainly warranted – no reason to bring Calvin into it.. 🙂 Folks can be bullies from any persuasion.

    JA – this is what I was thinking, that all on the blog should follow the same rules. In Christ, I think we can, even as tough issues and abusive practices of churches and their members are identified and revealed, and many are warned and hopefully protected from falling into their influence.

    LikeLike

40. lydiasellerofpurple
    July 20, 2013 @ 11:05 AM

    said —->
    “B4B, you happen to be slapping the keys on this pretty hard, but you have merely bumped folks sippy-cups, where what comes out in some cases, is equally wrong. ”

    Ric, Should commenters here not consider this to be “snarky”? 😮 )

    Funny how that works.
    <—-

    I didn't consider it snarky, as you suggest, but an analogy describing the way I've observed reactions on the blog. I apologize that it came off that way. Yes, I (we all can) do the very thing we are trying not to be.

    btw: the sippy-cup analogy is one used often in my community of brothers for things that "bump our cup." Having 9 children, I've seen a lot of spilled milk. 🙂 The analogy contends that there are things that hit our sippy-cups, often uncontrolled circumstances, suffering, or merely excuses we make, that cause milk to be spilled, but just a little – drops. The milk, being unhelpful reaction and sin (potentially) to the circumstance or issue, within us; things the Lord is sanctifying us from. So yes, the action against the cup may indeed be wrong, but in another way, helpful as its revealed something within us that we need to take to the Father, who graciously forgives us, and heals us.

    This is why I didn't consider it a snarky address, but again, my apologies if it came off that way.

    LikeLike

41. A Mom,
    I apologize. I’m not defending B4B’s philosophy one iota. I don’t like his heavy handed philosophies nor the manner that he promotes his very strict sounding theology. I appreciate that we all come form various backgrounds and circumstances and do not intend my analogy to be applied carte blanche to every single reader, for every single circumstance. Again, I apologize.

    LikeLike

42. A Mom, you said,
    “there are many Christian marriages that operate under B4B’s “Biblical” description, with horrible, even criminal results. Is that sippy-cup to you? It is irresponsible & uncaring to appear indifferent on this. I stand against propagating this model.”

    No. Not at all. Where there are horrible circumstances, those need corrected (since this is a blog, correcting B4B’s strict interpretations of practice and churches that have the same is definitely warranted); absolutely. That’s why JA created this blog. Where there is criminal activity, that needs reported and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; absolutely. Jesus came to set the captives free, not enslave those that believe in His name.

    LikeLike

43. Ric said:

    JA – this is what I was thinking, that all on the blog should follow the same rules. In Christ, I think we can, even as tough issues and abusive practices of churches and their members are identified and revealed, and many are warned and hopefully protected from falling into their influence.

    Again, thank you for your concern. You spoke what you felt needed to be said and I appreciate that. I do understand what you are saying, but am not convinced that we need to change any rules here. Actually, I do not have a list of rules. I just go by what feels right, sometimes after time and prayer. The other day I kept a comment in moderation for 12 hrs before finally releasing it and adding a moderator note to it.

    This place needs to be a safe place and sometimes that means it’s a safe place for people to vent even ugly stuff. Sometimes people cross the line.

    Wasn’t it last week someone felt he crossed the line and then came back and apologized? If I would have removed that comment, we wouldn’t have seen how God worked in that person’s life privately and then sweet humility in his next response as he asked for forgiveness. I don’t want to interfere with something like that.

    So what that means is that perhaps it is a test for us all to extend grace when others respond harshly instead of reacting. Isn’t that what the Body of Christ should be doing, anyway? We don’t need to be correcting each infraction. That smells too much like my old church.

    What I see here is raw and real. I don’t want to lose that. Let’s let others have the freedom to decide for themselves how they will respond to comments. I don’t want to police that.

    I do think we need to move on from this topic. It seems like you’ve challenged me on this a few times. You can be sure I’m thinking about your words when I see stinging comments. You may or may not like my moderating and you’ll have to decide what’s best for you.

    Thanks again, Ric.

    ~JA

    LikeLike

44. Hi Mandy.
    I agree with you, and I do understand. Standing up against him is the right thing to do; standing up against anyone trying to exploit others is right. I’m not suggesting that that stop.

    I’m surprised that JA has allowed him to be moderated, much less remain a part of the SSB (of which I commend JA for her patience and longsuffering). When sitting at my computer and reading the posts, I have a hard time with folks mocking and calling others names, attacking others wives with statements like, “Most men like you are forced to marry someone who is not real sharp and has to be a doormat for them to feel important” — why is B4B’s bride being attacked – is that warranted? WOW. – calling his wife, “not real sharp.” ugh. I’m having a hard time with that.

    Those things and name calling, I remember a for him from one of the writers, “B4BS”. This goes beyond “pushing back”, I think.

    LikeLike

45. JA ( July 20, 2013 @ 12:46 PM) – thanks for considering my words.

    LikeLike

46. Ric, Thanks for the clarification. I’ve seen the results of military-style roles in marriage, and they’re not pretty. Children are harmed as well. Which is another reason why it matters.

    LikeLike

47. A Mom,
    Amen!

    LikeLike

48. At 12:04 PM Mandy observes that the one I have identified as CongenitallyPredisposed2Conflict “particularly loves to attack and insult the women who comment here. He has a long history of that. . .” I am mildly embarrassed that I missed this little detail, although I have been amused that B4B, for whatever reason, has declined to take me on directly.

    Well, if Mandy’s observation is correct, and I am sure it is, there are certain things that come to mind that I would like to say, certain adjectives I would like to apply to B4B. In deference to Ric, however, I will stand down.

    LikeLike

49. Why are you doing this, B4B?

    I figure the guy’s just cruising around looking for a fight.
    And if there’s no fight underway, he’ll start one.

    LikeLike

50. My 23-yr old son No.2 Boy Child loves the color pink. It’s his favorite color. I found this out last spring. He wouldn’t call it salmon. He’d love a pink shirt and when I find one, I’ll get it for him.

    I understand 100 years ago, Pink was considered a VERY masculine color. Worthy of Driscollian Real Manly Men.

    LikeLike

51. Dear Janna,

    Thanks for your reply, and your story. However, I should probably clear something up: I’m not in the military. In fact, I’m not even an American. I chose my online name to reflect that I see myself serving God here. And not as a missionary either (yet), but as a simple English teacher. I doubt I’d have what it takes to be a soldier — in fact, the job I have now is more than I can handle, hence the aforementioned “upheaval”.

    Just so you know, you’re not the first to assume I was in the military. Someone else on the Wartburg Watch did the same a while back. It’s a reminder that I may need to choose a new nickname, just to avoid that kind of misunderstanding. I’ll think on it. 😉

    Sorry for the mix-up, folks.

    LikeLike

52. This is the first group of ‘professing’ Christians that I have ever come across that flatly denied that God ordained roles, responsibilities, etc. At least there was an admission that God did indeed speak to Adam and Eve very clearly about consequences of the Fall and responsibilities were given to each that in fact meant that Adam had authority (and responsibility before God implied) over Eve. It just cannot be denied.

    However to say that the husband/wife relationship God put in place then only applied to the first couple cannot be supported Biblically unless everyone born after them was somehow in the same state before God as Adam and Eve BEFORE the Fall – a position which must be assumed to make the claim that we don’t need structure with roles and responsibilities. A study of the nature of “Fallen’ humanity screams otherwise. Such a study changed a lot of my ‘theology’.

    That’s all I have to offer. I could again offer a boat load of scripture to support that, but it would probably be called man made doctrine. Instead I would encourage an in-depth study of the Bible concerning the state of man after the Fall, nothing more.

    So that’s about it, friends. I have offered scripture concerning issues discussed in this post – even the original languages in which some things were written. It has been rebuffed. I am certain that when we are in fact genuine Christians God works in us to desire and do what pleases Him. (Phil 2:13) Therefore I choose to think that Christians who have been in here will be eager to test everything by scripture, as did the Bereans.

    LikeLike

53. there is great hope found in Romans… http://tinyurl.com/n4l3dc4
    I’m thankful for the many studied Christians on this sit…

    LikeLike

54. ” A study of the nature of “Fallen’ humanity screams otherwise. Such a study changed a lot of my ‘theology’.”

    Misanthropes come off with a very different interpretation of “fallen” humanity than normal people do.

    LikeLike

55. At 5:27 CongenitallyPredisposed2Conflict states, “This is the first group of ‘professing’ Christians that I have ever come across that flatly denied that God ordained roles, responsibilities, etc.” He is careful to put the word professing in quotes, thereby communicating his accusation that those of us who disagree with him are not really Christians. As I recall, B4B has made a big point of not judging others hearts. There is a Biblical word, spoken by Jesus Himself, for people who preach one thing while doing just the opposite. Because B4B may need a hint, the word I’m thinking of begins with the letter H.

    LikeLike

56. Gary W. You don’t miss or forget a thing!

    LikeLike

57. Serving in Japan – I love your nickname. I met my wife in Japan, was married there, and served there in the military. Met many Japanese, missionary, military, and civilian Christians – both serving with the military and with civilian companies – some teaching English. We even both left the same abusive church there (not the one we were married in). We miss Japan tons! My wife’s parents are from Texas and Minnesota; we both traveled to the orient to find each other. 🙂

    Maybe to continue your vision in your nickname, you could just add, “Civ”, as in Civ Serving in Japan? Everyone associated with the gov’t whether civilian or military should, get it, mostly that you are not military. Just a thought.

    LikeLike

58. Re: CongenitallyPredisposed2Conflict at 5:27: At least there was an admission that God did indeed speak to Adam and Eve very clearly about consequences of the Fall and responsibilities were given to each that in fact meant that Adam had authority (and responsibility before God implied) over Eve. It just cannot be denied.”
    B4B’s writing can be rather opaque, but I assume he is referring to Gen. 3:16b, where God says to Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” B4B, surely you have stumbled onto truth when you say God was speaking about consequences of the Fall, but you go quite beyond what is written when you add the part about responsibilities being given to each, meaning that Adam had authority over Eve. No such thing can be derived from this text. If you have Scripture that actually uses the word “authority,” and that Adam was granted “authority” over Eve, please tell us what it is. I am convinced you cannot do it.

    Eric Fry observes that “Misanthropes come off with a very different interpretation of “fallen” humanity than normal people do.” I do not know you well enough to say that it applies to your actions or character, but insofar as what you appear to believe and teach is concerned, Eric could as easily have said “MISOGYNISTS come off with a very different interpretation of “fallen” humanity than normal people do.”

    LikeLike

59. I could have used “misogynists” but that isn’t a completely accurate descriptor. Misanthropy covers it completely because it’s a pervasive spite for any person that doesn’t accept the uber-Calvinist concept of the nature of the depravity of post-Edenic man. The common tactic to deflect from this deep-seated anger towards others is to try and deflect from it with claims of loving God and His truth (as interpreted by the uber-Calvs.) more than people or their rights to have differing opinions and independent thought.

    Richard Beck hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote, “When you hear a person say that they love God more than people they are preparing to hurt someone.” The uber-Calv fundamentalist argument posits God as the only object worth loving as the low view of people hinders the ability to love one’s neighbor in a healthy manner.

    Of course, when we take a psychological look at the implications of “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”, self-hate at any level damages one’s ability to love unconditionally and have relationships based on equality and mutuality.

    LikeLike

60. “Most men like you are forced to marry someone who is not real sharp and has to be a doormat for them to feel important” — why is B4B’s bride being attacked – is that warranted? WOW. – calling his wife, “not real sharp.” ugh. I’m having a hard time with that. ”

    Ric, I am putting down my sippy cup (smile) to respond to this because I wrote it. I have a ton of experience with B4B types as I was in the comp world for ever it seems putting on conferences and hosting the big names. Now, I can tell you they go out on stage and present the stuff the B4B drinks in and thinks is the correct interpretation. (Nevermind all those one anothers in there)

    Here is what I learned after 20 years on the comp front line:

    1. There is the comp celebrity wife who is Patton backstage. Everyone close to the power knows she IS the power but everyone pretends it is not true. They go out on stage and talk “roles” but don’t practice them in the comp business. The people close to them think this cognitive dissonance is normal.

    2. There is the comp celebrity couple who function as egals but preach comp as if it is salvic. (Comp at one time was a huge money maker in conferences, books, etc) Yet they live out a marriage of mutuality. But there is no money in mutuality and they would get no speaking gigs or book deals.

    3, There is the comp couple where the wife is an author, has a PhD, travels the world speaking to women on how to be a comp wife urging them to stay home and be a homemaker. No one in the audience sees a problem with her words vs her situation. (wink)

    The funniest thing in the world is to listen to a pastor pontificate about the roles and rules of compdom then try to convince everyone his wife is brilliant, strong, , etc because he “allows” her to be those things.

    My guess is B4B is like most men who pontificate on the rules and roles in marriage….they talk a good game but it is not how it really is at home.

    Besides, one of the people who coined “complementarian” was Piper and we all know how “manly” he is about protecting children first with his support for Mahaney. The more they talk the more it becomes obvious it is about elevating men because they are insecure about themselves. Otherwise, there would be no need to make this issue one nor teach it as salvic.

    These guys are all talk. All hat and no cattle as John Wayne would say. :o)

    LikeLike

61. However to say that the husband/wife relationship God put in place then only applied to the first couple cannot be supported Biblically unless everyone born after them was somehow in the same state before God as Adam and Eve BEFORE the Fall – a position which must be assumed to make the claim that we don’t need structure with roles and responsibilities.”

    Just a note on this that is interesting. One of the problems the Danvers Statement people had was the man/woman relationship BEFORE the fall. Therefore their had to be interpretations and teaching showing an authority given Adam over Eve BEFORE the fall. So many different variations have come from this as there are too many to get into. However, It was not long before they started messing with the Trinity to try and map a pecking order in the Trinity teaching ESS. Grudem tried very hard to teach that “God submits to us when He helps us” in one of his books…..they had a real problem with “one flesh union”, you know.

    But this was all cultural relativism. The Danvers Statement was a reaction to culture when women were getting too many financial rights and getting uppity. Long before that, no one had a problem with the relationship before the fall because it had no bearing on life here. Even up to the 1960’s a newly widowed woman had to have clear legal rights to get money out of her “husbands” bank account before “his” will was probated.

    Danvers has caused some very real problems that will be with us for a long time. It is not good theological scholarship but that is because it was written as a backlash to the culture. For those of you who think it is good scholarship biblically, I highly recommend RK MacGregor Wrights response written back in late 80’s. If you can find it. He is Reformed, btw.

    What Danvers and most of comp teaching really does is teach the sin of the fall as virtue. Your wife is also your sister in Christ, believe it or not.

    LikeLike

62. Lyidasellerofpurple – – anytime you want to write a guest post on this comp topic, let me know. Wow. You are blowing me away with this crazy stuff.

    LikeLike

63. Please help me out, lydiasellerofpurple – – -what is ESS?

    LikeLike

64. Eternal Subordination of the Son, Julie Anne. See these for further explanation:
    http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/02/ess-a-new-doctrine/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinitarian_agency_and_the_eternal_subordination_of_the_son_an_augustinian_
    http://www.theopedia.com/Subordination_of_Jesus

    LikeLike

65. This gets a little convoluted, but at http://tinyurl.com/lkvptrn Denny Burk favorably reviews Stephen Wellum’s review, which review discredits Millard J. Erickson’s book, which is apparently critical of the newly formed doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) within the so-called Godhead. It seems the complementarians have had to revise generally accepted understandings of the Godhead in order to credibly argue for their version of the headship of husbands. I’m fairly certain B4B is guilty of having referenced this newly invented doctrine, although maybe it was somebody other than B4B. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

    My main point is that Denny Burk seems to lean towards an acceptance of the idea of the Eternal Subordination of the Son. Therefore, I am suspicious. I had best let lydiasellerofpurple tell us what ESS actually is.

    LikeLike

66. You’re right in your basic assessment of ESS, Gary W. From the first link I posted by Curtis Freeman (which was originally on Wade Burleson’s blog) : “Beyond the question of the orthodoxy of ESS, which is still very much in question, I am suspicious of the not so subtle political agenda of ESS which is attracted to Trinitarian theology, not as an account of the life in which we live and move and have our being, but as an argument that underwrites complementarian views. I am just as suspicious of those who use Trinitarian doctrine to support the complementarian social agenda as those who engage in social Trinitarian speculations to underwrite feminist convictions. Miroslav Volf, one of our best Free Church theologians on the Trinity, has called for caution in the use of such speculative Trinitarian theology which can easily be co-opted by ideologies of the right and the left. His cautionary word seems wise regarding ESS. I am suspicious that the real energy behind this new ESS doctrine is really a thinly veiled attempt to elevate complementarianism to de fide orthodoxy, so that complementarian gender relations are set forth as the only acceptable model for Christians and that egalitarianism is heresy equivalent to denying the Trinity. This utilitarian use of Trinitarian doctrine is (in my opinion) based on dubious scholarship and bad theology.

    I share the goal of helping our wider Baptist family retrieve the wisdom of the vast storehouse of orthodoxy. As bad as functional Unitarianism is, however, the possible embrace of a semi-Arianism masquerading as orthodoxy used for political ends may be even worse.”

    LikeLike

67. Eric Fry,

    Thanks for the good information. What I know about ESS has been learned in the last 2 hours, with the bulk of what I have learned having come from you. This from Curtis Freeman is really scary: “I am suspicious that the real energy behind this new ESS doctrine is really a thinly veiled attempt to elevate complementarianism to de fide orthodoxy, so that complementarian gender relations are set forth as the only acceptable model for Christians and that egalitarianism is heresy equivalent to denying the Trinity.”

    Never mind that, before they can accuse others of heresy, they must first change the doctrine of the Trinity, thereby making themselves the real heretics.

    LikeLike

68. Gary W. – – That really is frightening – to change a doctrine to support an agenda which suppresses the value of women.

    LikeLike

69. Good resources guys. People should try and read some so they won’t fall for the “Lesser Jesus in Eternity past and future”.

    Another great resource on this doctrine can be found here:

    http://www.mmoutreach.org/trinity.htm

    One reason why Cheryl Schatz did this video is because she has a ministry to the Mormon/JW cults. She recognized it right away when guys like Bruce Ware and Denny Burk teaching it (without calling it ESS) and since she has done yeoman’s work on the Trinity for her cult ministry she was able to really spell it out. She uses audio clips from many of these guys and shows how they re interpret scripture to make it fit.

    Another resource is Kevin Giles. .

    One of the things that blew my mind in his book is he shows Bruce Ware taking a quote from Athanasius and editing it to make it fit the ESS doctrine! Bruce Ware is a PhD scholar/professor at SBTS! I mean you really have to do your homework to listen to these guys as they have no shame at all.

    One thing they do is completely mangle Phil 2. Another foundational verse they use is 1 Corin 11. I kid you not. A passage on head coverings proves Jesus is subordinate in Eternity past and future. (BTW: They never tell you where the Holy Spirit is in the pecking order)

    This ESS had a big run for a while but they have backed off a bit. If you stick around long enough it is always something to prop up human authority over others in the Body/marriage. CBMW is reinventing themselves and took a lot of this stuff off the website. They had to. Too many people were seeing how Mormonistic much of it was as they got so legalistic about gender roles. They even had an article at one time musing about gender roles and a wife’s submission in eternity! That is pure Mormonism. Not to mention Piper’s articles on women giving driving directions. (She should always do it so it does not appear she is “teaching” the man)

    One of the things that has really hurt comp doctrine is the rise of the internet. People can now find great scholars with differing interpretations like Gordon Fee, NT Wright, etc. And we have access to Greek, interlinears, etc. Times are a changing! And some of the sisters are finding out they are FULL co heirs of Christ. That they, too, can share the truth of Christ to anyone anytime anywhere. Praise God!!!

    LikeLike

70. Guys, ESS is hard to articulate because most of us would agree that Jesus gave up His glory to come to earth and was submitting to the Father during his incarnation. The problem is they take this to apply to eternity past and future. Making Jesus a “lesser” God. Their arguments are basically trying to make anything but ESS as heresy.

    Here is a debate that includes Grudem/Ware against Tom McCall/Keith Yandell

    http://www.henrycenter.org/media/?id=154&type=video

    The reason this made such a big splash is because false teaching always has SOME truth in it. ESS falls apart unless one leans toward determinism which teaches that God planned everything including the fall before He created man. ESS was really most popular in the Reformed world.

    Just a note: Another reason why this was believed by so many is that they do not understand that in 1st Century Jewish context, a “Father” sending a son to do business was considered exactly like doing business with the Father. You can see the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus in John 5 because calling himself the “Son” meant he was equating Himself with God.

    ESS makes a mockery of the sacrifice on the Cross for us. If Jesus was not fully God in the Flesh, this is a problem. It was not voluntary. And all of this mangling of the Trinity to prop up human authority in the Body and marriage. It really is insidious. I fear for them.

    LikeLike

71. oops, I have another comment in moderation because of all the links. I messed up one link and the whole book shows up!

    LikeLike

72. Oh, I almost forgot…the ESS guys teach that Jesus (eternity past and future) is ontologically equal but not equal in “role”.

    Sound familiar?

    LikeLike

73. good guy Eric Fry,

    Wow. Your 7:49 comment, You hit a homerun and I learned something new. Misanthropy! Pocketing the Richard Beck quote.

    LikeLike

74. I need to go to bed and read this whole thread with a clear head. Good grief, I didn’t know I’d have to learn new doctrine. I cannot believe all the stuff I’ve learned in one year here and blogs. I never knew that Christianity had to be so complicated. Whatever happened to child-like faith? Can’t we just stop there?

    LikeLike

75. Julie Anne,

    These CBMW and other fundamentalist types are no doubt O.K. with child-like faith. It’s just that they they expect us to have child-like faith in them and their theological opinions rather than child-like faith in Jesus.

    LikeLike

76. Gary,

    Maybe I placed in quotes because if it was me who ‘professed’ but denied what is plainly in Scripture that I would doubt my own profession. That I might doubt some in here might be true, but I really don’t know, I am confused about it because I have never any who professed Christ to deny these things.

    LikeLike

77. Julie Anne wrote: ” I never knew that Christianity had to be so complicated. Whatever happened to child-like faith? Can’t we just stop there?

    You’d think that it would be that way, but the sad news is that the grown-ups always have to spoil things for the kids. Not content to just let the kids run around and throw a ball, the grown-ups have to make sure everyone plays by the rules. Offsides, illegal motion, illegal formation, etc., the ‘grown-ups’ have to make sure the kids are under control and following the ‘rules.’

    If theologians simply debated these things among themselves, and kept the simplicity of the Gospel as the basis for congregational life and practice, we probably wouldn’t be having discussions on spiritual abuse within churches. But church has become about power and exclusivity, and has been for a very long time, so we have all these people claiming that these points of doctrine are of primary importance in determining ‘true faith’.

    This ‘true faith’ has to be kept pure, and anytime we use a purity metaphor, it comes from the psychology of disgust. We innately find contaminants in our food disgusting, and when we extend the concept of purity/contamination to other areas of life, we find ourselves being disgusted at people, not contaminants. Here’s where we get a serious conflict with Christ’s example of hospitality and welcome when we begin taking a view of people and their ideas as things to be excluded to prevent the contamination of our doctrinal purity.

    In Mt. 9:13, Jesus told the Pharisees, “Go and learn what this means, “I DESIRE MERCY, NOT SACRIFICE.”” Yet we willingly sacrifice people on the altar of our correct doctrine daily, and the body of Christ becomes more and more fractured. We force people to sacrifice their consciences to assent to doctrines in order to be accepted and included. We preach incessantly about grace, yet we refuse to practice it at the most basic level when we do these things. Francis of Assisi is credited with saying to “wear the world as a loose garment.” Perhaps we should also apply this to our churches, especially in light of seeing the worldly desires of power and control manifested in those who claim to be servants of God.

    Mercy, not sacrifice. A lens of grace rather than a lens of sin with which to view our brethren. When people try to twist long-held doctrines to further an agenda of control and power, how can we reconcile the sacrificial lens that casts people as sinners for simple disagreement with the lens of grace that lets us embrace each other in mercy and sing together, “Just As I am”?

    Richard Beck uses Mt. 9:13 as a motif in his book Unclean. In the few years since I’ve first read it, I’ve tried to use this verse as a guide when I examine myself and my doctrines. It’s probably the deepest and longest lesson in the Bible, and I’m convinced it’s the one that matters the most.

    LikeLike

78. B4B has indeed bought into the ESS heresy. On 7/20 at 5:14 AM he states, “Anyone who would laugh at ‘heirarchical relationships’ (different roles/responsibilities), as some have, just might be laughing at God, given the nature of the Trinity.” Funny thing is, back when I called him on confusing what is “Biblical” with what is only theological, his rejoinder had something to do with the doctrine of the Trinity being Biblical. So, on the one hand, he claims to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, while on the other hand he has bought into a heresy that proclaims Jesus to be, not just submitted to, but subordinate to the Father–much like the Arian heresy that was discredited some 1600 years ago.

    Well, if the wife is subordinate to the husband, as Jesus is subordinate to the Father, I wonder what these complementarians do with the fact that Jesus informs us that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18b, ESV). I guess all complementarian men who wish to exhibit their true Godliness are called upon to humbly cede their supposed authority to their wives.

    LikeLike

79. Eric Fry, regarding yours of 5:20,

    Profound.

    LikeLike

80. Lydia, Love this discussion on ESS. Gary W and good guy Eric Fry, you too (hope you’re okay with that knickname). ESS topic – Very enlightening. And scary. When you put the whole picture, pieces together, it is sinister. Man, this blog is a powerhouse of information.

    Julie Anne, You are an awesome moderator, BTW. My respect for you just grows. And you are interested in how doctrine/belief contributes to wrong actions. The lawsuit helped with that? Is dear Hannah also partially to thank for your perspective?

    good guy Eric Fry said,
    “we willingly sacrifice people on the altar of our correct doctrine daily, and the body of Christ becomes more and more fractured. We force people to sacrifice their consciences to assent to doctrines in order to be accepted and included. We preach incessantly about grace, yet we refuse to practice it at the most basic level when we do these things.”

    Your words bring healing to many. The hurting need words of healing from true Christians.

    LikeLike

81. ‘Mercy, not sacrifice. A lens of grace rather than a lens of sin with which to view our brethren. When people try to twist long-held doctrines to further an agenda of control and power, how can we reconcile the sacrificial lens that casts people as sinners for simple disagreement with the lens of grace that lets us embrace each other in mercy and sing together, “Just As I am”?”‘

    Eric, this whole comment was quite good and beautiful. You have great insight. I think I’ve read through it 3 times now.

    LikeLike

82. Gary W. said:

    Well, if the wife is subordinate to the husband, as Jesus is subordinate to the Father, I wonder what these complementarians do with the fact that Jesus informs us that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18b, ESV). I guess all complementarian men who wish to exhibit their true Godliness are called upon to humbly cede their supposed authority to their wives.”

    HA – good point in your last sentence. That’s a great verse to call into question the validity of that newfangled doctrine. Thanks!

    LikeLike

83. B4B, I understand your confusion. I was in your place last year when I first found The Wartburg Watch. All of these things I was learning about the scholars that my church had almost idolized, these concepts that sound great on paper and can almost be justified through the Bible – Dee and Deb brought to light that these concepts and leaders are proving to have disastrous consequences in real life. I got to the point where I didn’t know which way was up. There are a couple of key differences though. I did not publicly doubt anybody’s faith or insult them for choosing to believe differently. I did my own research. For every post I read on TWW, I found another 5-10 articles to both back it up and to disagree with it. That is my training as a historian. Somewhere in all of that research there is a middle ground. Except that we are dealing with human lives, beautiful wonderful humans who are suffering because of the application of these doctrines. I cannot and will not ignore the suffering of any person and I will always choose to take them seriously. I know where you are coming from because I was there too just a year ago. Please listen to these stories with an open heart, dig beyond the words that assault your beliefs and show compassion for those who have suffered in ways you can never begin to imagine. Tell them that their stories matter, that when doctrine hurts people it is not okay. Tell them that while you may disagree with them, you will not add to their pain. I can personally attest to the fact that when someone is deep in the valley of despair, all they want to know is that they are loved and that they are heard.

    LikeLike

84. Gary, Eric, A Mom, Lydia, and Julie Anne, I am learning so much from all of you. This conversation is why I love coming here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.

    LikeLike

85. A Mom said:

    Man, this blog is a powerhouse of information.

    I know, right??”” (as my kids say) Any ideas on how to preserve these great comments would be great. I hate to see such great stuff lost in the comments. One idea is to post them in a new post so that it is searchable in the title search so that others can benefit when trying to find information.

    A while back, there was a great comment written by the ex-wife of a pedophile. She had so much good information and advice and encouragement, I copied her words into a new post, used a good searchable title and I’ve seen quite a few hits on that post because of searching key words in the title.

    Anyway, I could easily do that. I’m open to ideas.

    LikeLike

86. Gary W., A Mom, Julie Anne, you’re all too kind. I’m just a pretty ordinary guy trying to do the best I can when I can muster up the strength to do so. But making those mistakes, and learning some wisdom from them, is all just part of being perfectly human (see what I did there? 😀 ), so I try to not beat myself up too much most of the time.

    A Mom’s comment @ 6:01a made me think of Psalm 51. How many sermons and lessons have we all heard (and even a song, for the old Church of Christers) on vss. 10-12 ? 10Create in me a clean heart, O God,
    And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

    11Do not cast me away from Your presence
    And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

    12Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
    And sustain me with a willing spirit.

    Why would anyone that has all the right doctrinal answers and practices want or need to ask that of God? For someone that’s got it all going on, it seems a bit like asking for more icing on your cake.

    But when David was begging God to do these things, he was feeling the full weight of these words: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
    A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” – Ps. 51:17

    The Hebrew word translated as ‘contrite’ here actually means crushed and bruised. Perhaps it is only by this pain, and keeping the memory of this pain that we can truly this gifts we ask in vss. 10-12. Perhaps remembering this pain, and being grateful for our healing is what helps give us the wisdom to practice mercy, not sacrifice.

    Wouldn’t it be great if we all, including our celebrity preachers, could constantly keep in mind that the broken and crushed hearts that we are to sacrifice to God is our own hearts, and not the hearts of the victims and others…

    LikeLike

87. “Anyway, I could easily do that. I’m open to ideas.”

    They could be cross-posted to a message board thread. Comments that bring out topics that are related but different from the original blog post (I’m thinking about ESS) could have their own topic threads started.

    On the blog, splitting off a comment or two into its own post and discussion would work well.

    LikeLike

88. A Mom said: “Julie Anne, You are an awesome moderator, BTW. My respect for you just grows. And you are interested in how doctrine/belief contributes to wrong actions. The lawsuit helped with that? Is dear Hannah also partially to thank for your perspective?”

    Thank you. Yes, Hannah is very much a part of this process. Keep in mind we were entrenched in the Homeschool Movement and so when Hannah decided to move out on her own, that was not in our plans. I’m sure you know that the Homeschool Movement model is young adult daughters remain in their parents’ home until they are matched up in courtship and then, eventually marriage. So, they go from parents’ homes into their husband’s home – ya know – always having that umbrella of “protection” over them. I’m shuddering as I’m typing this – that umbrella of protection really could be changed to umbrella of control. But that’s a different subject.

    Anyway, this was the plan for many years. Hannah “spoiled” that plan by moving out and then we were convinced that it was caused by her rebelliousness (our pastor contributed to that thought). We were likely supposed to shun her (in fact my husband did for 6 months). I couldn’t. I called her within that first week even though it was so painful. We cried a lot, we got angry, even hung up on each other, but we plowed through very intense pain to get to what we have today which is absolutely beautiful. But it tore me up. I was a mess of confusion at that church. I thought about the daughter who was missing from the pew that our family filled. I cried each and every week, sometimes sobbing at church. Good grief, just thinking about it brings me to tears.

    It was after we left and I started thinking about the impact of that church/pastor beyond my family. I visualized each family (easy to do – it was a small church) and took a good look at the young adults and their lives. I had never seen such confusion and bad fruit coming from one church.

    Being in the military, we were exposed to a lot of churches and kept up with a lot of people, so the bad stats I was seeing from BGBC were alarming. It caused me to question, “what was going on at this church that caused so much rebelliousness and confusion for young people?” The so-called rebelliousness was really them acting out in anger due to spiritual abuse and the super controlling environment they had to live under.

    That alarm and anger and immense sadness and loss of these young people was what originally caused me to write my first negative Google review.

    So yes, Hannah’s leaving has caused me to do a lot of soul searching. The chain of events has been fascinating. However, the hard part is the story is not over. The residual is unbelievably painful.

    LikeLike

89. ESS is scary. There are some articles at the Under Much Grace website re: ESS as well:

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/#uds-search-results

    Just do a search on ESS.

    LikeLike

90. “Tell them that while you may disagree with them, you will not add to their pain. I can personally attest to the fact that when someone is deep in the valley of despair, all they want to know is that they are loved and that they are heard.Tell them that while you may disagree with them, you will not add to their pain. I can personally attest to the fact that when someone is deep in the valley of despair, all they want to know is that they are loved and that they are heard.”

    Bravo, Mandy!!! Beautiful!

    LikeLike

91. “Gary, Eric, A Mom, Lydia, and Julie Anne, I am learning so much from all of you. This conversation is why I love coming here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.”

    Mandy, I feel like I’m in the spectator seat except for the fact that I have the keys to this place. I am learning along with you. I’m shaking my head at how much stuff I’m learning. I don’t know if my brain has the capacity to stuff more in there – lol.

    LikeLike

92. “Perhaps it is only by this pain, and keeping the memory of this pain that we can truly this gifts we ask in vss. 10-12. Perhaps remembering this pain, and being grateful for our healing is what helps give us the wisdom to practice mercy, not sacrifice.”

    Yes, yes!! Love it.

    LikeLike

93. Oh, thanks, Monique. I should have figured Cindy would have something at her blog, Under Much Grace. You can get lost on her blog. She has so much info posted there. Cindy really understands abuse systems and the doctrines/ideologies that create environments of abuse. What a gift she has given us by her research.

    LikeLike

94. Mandy, I am learning so much, too.
    Like ESS. Eternal Subordination of the Son, the title itself told me it was wrong. I know Jesus is not below or subordinate. He is fully God, manifest in the flesh. God is not subordinate to anything. Then commenters discussed it’s history, reason behind the subordination, the background, etc. It is very manipulative & sinister. Basically, it seems an individual’s belief was applied to the Bible. And then individuals taught it came from the Bible, that it is “Biblical”. Twisting scripture. That is evil. This topic & it’s implications would make an awesome post.

    And Pat vs. Comp. Was very muddled on the differences, but I knew both were bad. But then I was prompted to look into differences. Learned a little. Then Lydia, Barb O, and many others provided information from the Bible about marriage, going back to the original words to determine meaning. Such good stuff.

    I have been paying attention to word meanings and to the words themselves a lot more. The leaders have become master manipulators with words. They are selling and drilling words like Biblical, ESS, Comp into our heads. When the words & whatever is attached to them take up residence in our minds, they eventually get the farm. Church often functions like a business, IMO.

    The reason, it seems, for leaders to create these “doctrines” is to establish and maintain a dictatorship of power and control. If the majority follow and somewhat agree, they have accomplished their goal. And there will be casualties. Jesus is the authority. He declared us free. He is our authority and master. None other.

    LikeLike

95. Julie Anne, here is an idea on how you (or anybody) can preserve comments in a form that is fully searchable, although not within WordPress itself. Start by subscribing to the free version of Evernote at evernote.com. Create a file folder, what Evernote calls a Notebook into which you will copy blog articles, complete with comments. Also download Evernote’s free Web Clipper extension. While I suppose the procedure may differ from browser to browser, in Firefox I am able to use the Web Clipper button to upload a blog article and comments into Evernote’s cloud service. I can either upload the entire web page or else just a highlighted/defined portion of the text. Whatever is uploaded is fully searchable.

    Now for the really interesting part. The Evernote folder/notebook into which the blog article-with-comments is uploaded can be shared with the world (or with only specific individuals). You simply designate the appropriate folder/notebook as publicly shared, and you make it’s link available. Anybody and everybody with the link (which could be posted on your blog) can view your uploaded articles/comments, and they can also do word searches that cover both the articles and the comments. Viewers who also have Evernote accounts can elect to download the searchable articles/comments into their own Evernote databases for offline access. You can give viewers editing privileges if you wish, although I don’t expect this would be advisable.

    Now the scary part. Anybody with an Evernote account can do this with or without your permission. I have done all of this with a few of your posts just this morning (except that I’m not making my folder/notebook public).

    There would be some maintenance. Comments posted after an article has been clipped to Evernote will not appear Evernote. The article with newer comments would need to be uploaded again, and the prior version would need to be deleted. This glitch is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the links in the live article/comments make the trip into Evernote, including the number-of-comments-balloon link, so it is easy enough to do a search from within Evernote, then access the blog itself to check for new comments.

    I have done a bit of research, and I believe that, with the exception of being able to grant editing privileges, all of this will work with a free Evernote account. I have the paid version ($5/mo or $45/yr), so you wouldn’t know for sure until you actually experiment with a free account.

    LikeLike

96. Maybe I placed in quotes because if it was me who ‘professed’ but denied what is plainly in Scripture that I would doubt my own profession. That I might doubt some in here might be true, but I really don’t know, I am confused about it because I have never any who professed Christ to deny these things.”

    Do you mean we “deny your interpretations”?

    What I am hearing from your comments is a system of religion. Christianity is a relationship. A relationship is much harder. It is a lot harder to abide in Christ than it is to follow a systematic religion of rules and roles. That is why Islam has become so popular of late. People gravitate to rules, roles and lists of what to believe or what to do. These bring some security and thinking one is pious.

    Scripture says God IS Love. That is profound. Not that He is loving or He loves. HE IS LOVE. Knowing Christ eventually changes our hearts and causes us to love others. Not present them with rules and roles to follow. Lack of love in the heart causes murder, strife, hate, controlling others, etc.

    (This does not mean God is not also Justice, Mercy and Wrath but we have to take responsibility for the Wrath which are consequences for denying Him)

    LikeLike

97. “Gary, Eric, A Mom, Lydia, and Julie Anne, I am learning so much from all of you. This conversation is why I love coming here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.”

    Thanks Mandy. It is only because I was in the evangelical circus ring for a long long time. I finally decided at one point it was time for me to personally know Jesus and not what some guru told me. I wanted to cut out all the white noise al around me with this guru this and this guru that. What a life changer! I highly recommend it. Ironically, Most Churches are not a good place to learn about Him or know Him personally. However, I do go to church now but I have some criterion so I don’t have to check my brains at the door to attend!

    LikeLike

98. “I have been paying attention to word meanings and to the words themselves a lot more. The leaders have become master manipulators with words.”

    Good word! This is key. Word meanings are redefined without you being told so you think you are listening to the traditional accepted definition when you are not.

    Some words that have been redefined and you must get clarification on:

    Gospel (How can you have a “Gospel marriage”? The definition of the Good News?
    Sovereignty of God (controls every molecule all the time. Foreordains all actions?)
    Grace (unlimited or limited?)
    Biblical (Are they literalists who take metaphors literally?/ Redemptive Historical, Grammatical Historical? Do they read it with the Augustinian/Calvin filter of the determinist God?)
    Free Will (Calvinist claim free will but mean only free will to sin)

    There are more but my mind went blank.

    LikeLike

99. Wow! This conversation has gone far since last evening. I’ve learned and read at many of the above suggested sites over the past two years. I did some reading on ESS. I didn’t think much of it when I first became aware of it in a conference where Bruce Ware was teaching on it but, after some study, I find it a pill I will not swallow.

    B4B has a way of disappearing from the conversation after he leaves one last dismissive comment. Is this his usual pattern?

    LikeLike

100. B4B,

     Thank you for the comment you addressed to me at 5:03 AM. You are clearly and sincerely surprised that some of us, including myself, do not see what you take to be the plain meaning of much Scripture. You clearly have a high view of Scripture. It may surprise you to hear that I too have a high view of Scripture. By way of full disclosure, you might think me wobbly in that I perceive a need to take into account that there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which error has crept into the text as it has been handed down over the centuries. Also, I have relatively low faith in any of the English translations. Just by way of explaining, my dissatisfaction with the English translations began a few years ago when I went to look up the Greek for “office,” only to discover that there is no such Greek word. My concern has only increased as I observe all the ways in which the translators’ theological presuppositions seem to get written into their translations, which then begin to look more and more to me like mere interpretative commentary. I’m not expecting you to buy into any of my concerns. I’m only trying to explain where my thought processes lie.

     Still, even with texts where I have no basis for suspecting textual or interpretative corruption, one reading often appears to you to be the only plain and unambiguous sense, while some of us simply cannot see what your are seeing; and we maybe sometimes even see the very opposite of what you see. Well, about a decade ago I likely would have been seeing much the same things in Scripture as what you are seeing, and I would likely have been as convinced as you now are of the rightness of my understanding.

     Here is what happened: Toward the end of June of probably 2002, somebody prayed over me to the effect that I would be able to take Scripture at face value, without addition or subtraction, without any theological or other interpretive lens. I received this prayer and have been getting in trouble, especially with pastors, ever since. Inasmuch as Holy Spirit has been the prime mover in the process, it is difficult to articulate, or even know, what all has taken place. However, one of the first things that seems to have happened is that, when I would read the Bible, I quit trying to think how a particular passage fit into or supported what I had been taught. This wreaked real havoc on much of what I previously took as dogma, including, just by way of example, the notion of a pretribulation rapture.

     Now when I read Scripture, it is as though I have a piece of paper on which I draw a line down the middle from top to bottom. On the left hand side (and I continue writing figuratively) I write down what Scripture says, and nothing more. On the right hand side, I write down the inferences I think are appropriate, or the things other people say the passage means, or anything else that is supposedly indicated by the passage but which is not explicitly stated. Subject to such caution as may be indicated by possible textual or translation problems, the only thing I fully accept is what is written down on the left hand side of the sheet of paper. All else is and remains subject to testing. All else must fit in with all other Scripture in a manner so that the pieces of the Scriptural puzzle fit together in a manner that is comprehensive, consistent and coherent.

     This is now way overlong. However, if you are interested, I could attempt to show you how this all works with a specific example. I would suggest that you select a passage where it appears you and I are deriving opposite, or at least irreconcilable, conclusions from the same verse or verses. The weekend is almost over, and I would like to get out for a bit, so it might take me some time to get back.

     LikeLike

101. Gary! We have followed a similar path except I prayed fervently my man made filters would be removed so the Holy Spirit could illuminate truth. Often that took me on a journey to dig deep.

     What blows my mind about your comment is one of my first digs was on the word ‘office’! I was stunned it was not in the Greek. (Found quite a few things added by translators like “Symbol of” in 1 Corin 11 and submit in Eph 5 22, etc) That took me on another journey where I learned we have gifts and functions in the Body. Not offices and positions. But what do we expect from Kings/Rulers who owned the translation? I also did quite a long study and research on Hebrews 13:17 in context because so many authoritarian pastors were using it as a club and let’s face it, it does not fit what is taught in most of the NT. Now that was interesting. What a horrible translation!

     LikeLike