* * *
Oh boy. I did not know this. There is a new ESV Bible by Crossway to be released later this month: Gospel Transformation Bible. Look at this quote:
A team of over 50 pastors and scholars contributed to the Gospel Transformation Bible notes and book introductions.
In the quote above, when it says “50 pastors and scholars,” did it ever occur to you that they could be referring to WOMEN in that number? Whoa, blow me down.
Why would strong complementarian men endorse and contribute to a Bible which has notes written by women in addition to men? Think about it – when you are reading the notes in your Bible, you are being taught. A woman teaching a man through the notes? That’s not going to fly with complementarians, right?
Are these men compromising their strong complementarian standards?
Let’s take a look at who is endorsing this Bible. Are you ready for this – how about Mark Driscoll?!?!
“This is a fantastic tool for Jesus-centered Bible study compiled by a world class team of Bible teachers.”
MARK DRISCOLL, Founder, Mars Hill Church, Resurgence; Co-Founder, Acts 29
And then there’s Carl Trueman:
“Crossway has done a fine job in recruiting an able list of contributors and the thoughtful Christian will find much here that is encouraging, challenging and transforming. I anticipate this will be useful tool for preachers, Bible study leaders, and individual Christians who wish to study the Bible more effectively.”
Carl R. Trueman, Paul Woolley Professor of Church History, WTS
But check this out – CJ Mahaney!!!! So many YRR pastors fawn over Mahaney and highly respect him for his strong stance on compelmentarianism. I’ve heard mention that in Sovereign Grace Ministry church’s membership agreement, married couples sign that they are in alignment with the complementarian view of marriage. So, let’s think this through. He wants all of his church members to be complementarians – and yet he’s okay with women teaching men in the notes in the Bible? hmm
Now this one is one of the bigger surprise endorsements – Owen Strachan, the Executive Director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – you know, the organization that is in existence to remind and interpret for us Biblical gender roles because we can’t figure it out ourselves. Here is Strachan’s endorsement:
“This is a remarkably helpful resource, both an accessible Bible commentary and a theology of redemption. The Word of God is a living symphony, with many sections and parts, and in this unique resource we hear the harmony of salvation.”
Owen Strachan, Assistant Professor of Christian Theology and Church History, Boyce College
Here is a complete listing of endorsements. You will probably recognize more names.
In light of some very strong teachings on women’s roles in the church and specifically who women are allowed to teach Biblically, it was very surprising for me to see that Bruce Ware went even beyond endorsing this Bible – – he was a contributor along with other women. :::::ja’s head is sooooo confused:::::
Bruce Ware, Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is a council member at Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The following excerpt comes from an ethicsdaily.com article which has been removed, but I found the entire original article linked at theopotic musings blog. It is common knowledge that anyone who is a member of CBMW is a strong proponent of complementarianism. You tell me if it sounds like he is agreeable to women in a teaching position over men.
“It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God’s ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as–for the most part, generally this is true–as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man’s position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men,” Ware said. “Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God’s design for her as a woman.”
Kevin DeYoung is another contributor to this particular ESV translation. It took me one minute on Google to find this excerpt written by Kevin regarding men/women roles and teaching:
3. Most importantly, Christians must affirm and teach and model that men and women are different—biologically, emotionally, relationally. There are a lot of passages I could turn to make this point, but I’ll limit myself to 1 Corinthians. Here we see that the husband is the head of his wife (1 Cor. 11:3). We see men have a teaching role in the church that women do not have (14:34). Source
Who can explain this disconnect for me? I’m completely baffled.
* * *
Related link:
Photo credit: Source
I need to give a special h/t to Tony Miano for tweeting about this (you know, that Tony Miano).
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Indeed! hahahahaha, Gary!
LikeLike
“It must be “incredible” always having “the’ answer.”
Yet another mischaracterization.
LikeLike
Gary, I almost spewed my coffee at Starbucks!!!
LikeLike
Eve ADMITTED she was decieved and was sorry for it. Adam BLAMED God and Eve. Maybe that is why we are told that in Adam, not Eve, all die.
LikeLike
A warm welcome to Estelle and boatrocker. Glad to have you join the conversation 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks Julie Anne!
@Gary, Lydia: Curious, isn’t it, how most people gloss over the fact that God honored Eve and revealed her true function as an “ezer kenegdo” by declaring that only HER seed would undo what Adam did?
LikeLike
“True biblical complementarianism is not about winning. It is about mutual submission through some defined structures as both submit to Christ. When the husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church, and the wife respects her husband, complementarianism truly is a wonderful thing.”
Brian, this is doubletalk. If she always must submit to him, solely because of being “he” and “she” and nothing else, it is indeed all about unilateral power. You can dress it up, bathe it, polish it, and put it on a pedistal; but control is still control, and lording over is still lording over. How can any follower of the One who laid privilege aside to die for us refuse to also lay privilege aside? How can they even desire to have final say over another saved adult… and such a ridiculous basis as the flesh? And if it is indeed all about the flesh, then it is a declaration that women are subhuman; there is no denying this. Comps scream they’re being misrepresented, but it’s the logical conclusion of their convoluted and contradictory theology.
LikeLike
Gary,
Paul states that the reason why women are not to have certain authority over a man is because she was deceived while Adam was not. I know that’s going to stick in your craw but it’s right there in Scripture. I also believe Paul was probably addressing a specific issue in 1 Tim.2:12.
RC Sproul describes it well:
“Paul is probably referring to some level of judicial or governing authority. Under the influence of the false teachers, certain women had apparently moved into positions of governing authority within the church, which Paul prohibited.”
LikeLike
Brian: Please see http://bible.fether.net/commentary.php?booky=1Tim
The Greek indicates that the woman Paul refers to is STILL in sin, due to having been deceived. He is NOT saying that all women are deceivable. Are all men blame shifters? Do only men inherit the sin of Adam? You, and so many others, have greatly misunderstood Paul’s argument.
LikeLike
You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.
LikeLike
“You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.”
No, Brian. There is not one shred of scripture specifying what Eve desired beyond “her husband”. He had no authority to usurp. You are reading into scripture.
LikeLike
Paul states that the reason why women are not to have certain authority over a man is because she was deceived while Adam was not. I know that’s going to stick in your craw but it’s right there in Scripture. I also believe Paul was probably addressing a specific issue in 1 Tim.2:12.”
Yeah, Adam sinned ON PURPOSE. And then blamed God and Eve. Great leadership qualities???. Are you also suggesting that all women for all time are “decieved” and men are not? Men are just evil? Are you saying that even the Cross could not overcome the deceiving you claim all women have for all time? You really think this way about your wife? Sad. The determinist god in action, I suppose
Teshuqa was translated as “turning” up until around 1300’s when a monk named pagnino changed it to desire. You can check the history of the translations. Eve “turned” to Adam (instead of God) and because she did that, Adam took advantage and ruled over her. Her big mistake not turning to God for her needs. You guys want to blame women for your own sin of wanting authority and control so badly. Just like Adam.
LikeLike
“Paul is probably referring to some level of judicial or governing authority. Under the influence of the false teachers, certain women had apparently moved into positions of governing authority within the church, which Paul prohibited”
The grammar is singular. A woman. And, Authenteo is only used once and means “domineer” not authority over. Chrysostom used “authenteo” in his homily 10 (?) saying that a “husband should not authenteo his wife”. So we know it is something men should not do either. There goes the authority over argument.
Very old translations often use domineer. Back when women were chattel anyway and not a threat. :o)
LikeLike
Gen.3:16,
“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
The word translated ‘for’ in that verse actually means ‘against’.
Again from RC Sproul:
“The phrase ‘he shall rule over you’ and the parallel wording in 4:7 suggests that her desire is to dominate. The marriage ordinance continues, but is frustrated by the battle of the sexes. The harmony, intimacy, and complementarity of the pre-Fall marriage relationship are corrupted by sin, and marred by domination and enforced submission. The restoration of these relationships takes place through new life in Christ.”
LikeLike
“The word translated ‘for’ in that verse actually means ‘against’.”
False. Utterly false. It means “to” or “toward”. More Orwellian nonsense, turning words to mean their opposites. Quote experts in Hebrew, not Sproul.
LikeLike
Brian Thornton,
I’m new here and didn’t realize “Brian Thornton” and “Five Solas Guy” are one in the same. My remarks on 9/3 at 8:47 p.m. likely were lost in the discussion as you are fielding a lot of questions and comments.
Will you explain the following? If hierarchy, that is complementarianism, is necessary in order to picture Christ and the Church, then how is Christ and the Church actually pictured if complementarianism practically & functionally pictures non-hierarchical mutuality?
Thank you for helping me understand.
LikeLike
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)
I would think the singular nouns would clearly denounce polygamy.
As for American slavery, the Bible clearly denounces every aspect of it.
— Stealing people
— Removing them to another land where their kinsman cannot redeem them
— Slavery for life simply because of one’s color
— Physical atrocities including whipping, rape, mutilation, etc.
— Work without pay
— Clearly an unchristian and ungodly practice that did not take 200 years to realize if one simply read the Scriptures
Now Patriarchy on the other hand does not find this kind of opposition in the Scriptures. I think everyone can relax though because patriarchy is dead in the west. Most homes have no father at all in America. Here we lament the presence of fathers in the home while the rest of America laments their absence. Hmmmmm…….
LikeLike
“Paul states that the reason why women are not to have certain authority over a man is because she was deceived while Adam was not.” Yes, yes, the sons of Adam get all the authority and power because Adam CHOSE to sin, with eyes wide open. Either Paul is an ignorant, chauvinistic, misogynist, or else NT Wright gets it right here:
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
I choose to think that Paul was not an ignorant, chauvinistic, misogynist.
And as an aside, I also observe that John Piper is an intellectual midget compared to towering intellect of NT Wright. Plus Wright gets credit for a large measure of humility, which I perceive to be totally lacking in Piper.
LikeLike
Brian write~
“You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.’
Honestly, Brian–I am beginning to think you throw things out like this just to see what happens. I thought you were a bit smarter…perhaps I have been deceived.
LikeLike
Wesley Roy, what part of “Not so among you” means “except when it’s between men and women”?
LikeLike
boatrocker comp does not equal hierarchy.
LikeLike
Wesley, are you saying that there is no hierarchy between Christ and his church? And if a man has final say over a woman for no other reason than their genders, how is this not hierarchy?
LikeLike
“Honestly, Brian–I am beginning to think you throw things out like this just to see what happens. I thought you were a bit smarter…perhaps I have been deceived.”
It’s interesting to contemplate why Brian keeps coming back. I’m sure he is finding affirmation of some sort here, but how so? A number of possibilities come to mind, but I begin to strongly suspect that all is not as it seems. Maybe (and I did say maybe) he has a secret audience? Maybe he and his friends get together and chortle over just how successful he has been at playing the troll. Maybe he really is a pastor, say of some fundamentalist congregation, and he’s showing the flock how it’s done. Kind of like CON videoing his “evangelistic” escapades to share with the faithful–except that Brian can do it in real time and on the record, no cameras needed.
Well, my specific speculations may or may not be on the mark, but I am convinced of one thing. Brian is finding some sort of affirmation here.
LikeLike
Or, if Brian is playing to some sort of secret audience, maybe maybe he is taking a class of some sort and is fulfilling a class assignment. Or maybe even he is teaching some kind of entry level class, and his activity here is a demonstration. Maybe he is teaching something along the lines of Vision Forum Polemics 101.
LikeLike
Explain this to me boatrocker:
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. (Ephesians 5:23)
LikeLike
Answer my question and I’ll surely answer yours. In fact, had you visited the link I gave earlier to my commentary on the NT, you’d have already seen my answer to your challenge.
So tell me, Wesley: what part of “not so among you” means “except when it’s between men and women”?
LikeLike
Wesley, In that context and time, the word head meant source, as in woman was made from Adam’s rib according to Genesis. The word did not have the meaning of boss or authority. The man’s role in the society of the time was as a provider. The head was thought not to be the locus of reason or rule, but the place where food, water and air entered the body. The locus of rule of the body was thought to be the heart.
LikeLike
Gary W~
I voiced my opinion several threads ago that I believe he is playing us a bit. I even posted an SGM “Bob Kauflin worships CJ Mahaney” song just for him, since Brian was such a huge supporter of SGM…their music, that is.
LikeLike
Diane wrote: “Honestly, Brian–I am beginning to think you throw things out like this just to see what happens. I thought you were a bit smarter…perhaps I have been deceived.”
Go back through Brian’s tweets and blog posts…and keep on going back. You’ll find that Brian is nothing but a small-minded, insecure bigot that can only make himself feel good by attacking anyone that disagrees with him on any point. He even goes after people in the Reformed camp if they don’t bow down to his ideas.
Pretty soon, he’ll get bored here and find someone else to attack.
LikeLike
Arce that is exactly why I said that comp does not equal hierarchy.
boatrocker I think you should check the context. It is not about marriage. If you are going to apply this universally then your employer is going to be pretty upset with you.
LikeLike
Maybe one of the Biblical men here will jump on this opportunity:
LikeLike
Wesley, I do know the context. I was trying to make a point about how internally inconsistent comp is. If, as you insist, there is no hierarchy between a husband and wife, then stop teaching that he has the final say. In a non-hierarchical relationship, nobody has designated final say at all times. Let each one lead in their areas of gifting and expertise, and not treat the other person as a permanent underling. Then I’ll believe you when you say comp isn’t hierarchical.
LikeLike
Brian:
You said:”You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.”
What utter nonsense!! Only in your mind and those that think like you.
LikeLike
Brian:
BTW, men who think like you do obviously feel threatened by women. It is all about power as compared to your insecurity.
LikeLike
A slight diversion for breaking news-
What do you know- Miano put his 4 part series ” Is the Open-Air Preaching Community in a ‘Down-Grade?’ ” back up at his blog! I didn’t see any twitter announcement or anything on FB announcing it’s back up. What changed his mind?
Maybe he had a change of heart, or I exposed him just a bit with my comments at the very “impartial” review of his book article at airo. Or not. We will never know.
Also, just gotta wonder what goes on in the mind of someone who begs for money on FB to make a rap song happen for HIS book Should She Preach? He needs $200 for a rap song? Isn’t anything given freely in this man’s worldview? Can’t the semi-famous Christian artist do it for free? If not, here’s a thought–don’t do it. The world is not one giant MasterCard.
I was under the impression it was a done deal when he announced it on twitter. So…now, people are supposed to fund the rap song for HIS book? I really gotta ask…is that a wise use of donor money? (The answer is no.) I bet he could find a lot of people in his town that could use that $200 he will no doubt receive for,,,oh, I don’t know…food?
LikeLike
boatrocker no home operates with a unilateral last word being exercised by anyone. Nor does any home operate with a flip of the coin for all decisions as egals would have to since no one can make the final call. Homes operate on consensus no matter if they claim to be egal or comp. That is why I keep saying that in theory egal and comp are different but in practice there is not much difference.
LikeLike
Diane – – are you feeding my next Miano blog post?
Did you see the bit about how he’s going to stand between CON and the revilers to defend them? What a big man he is. Wow. I’d like to meet him in person 😉
LikeLike
“As egals would have to”? Now who’s misrepresenting the other’s view?
Egals let each person lead where they are gifted/qualified rather than by fiat based on the flesh. It’s that simple. We only flip coins when there are two equally viable paths on a decision. It’s called common sense.
But comps say that the man, simply for being male, has the final say over the woman. No consideration for gifting or ability, they must first “check under the hood” to see who is the designated decision-maker. The woman, according to comp teachers such as Piper, must never, ever, even begin to appear having authority or final say over the man. That is standard comp teaching.
If you do not believe the man has unilateral last word, then you are not a comp. And if you say there is a difference between comp theory and comp practice, you’re saying comps don’t practice what they preach.
You keep painting yourself into ever-tinier corners, Wesley.
LikeLike
The word translated ‘for’ in that verse actually means ‘against’.
Again from RC Sproul:
““The phrase ‘he shall rule over you’ and the parallel wording in 4:7 suggests that her desire is to dominate. The marriage ordinance continues, but is frustrated by the battle of the sexes. The harmony, intimacy, and complementarity of the pre-Fall marriage relationship are corrupted by sin, and marred by domination and enforced submission. The restoration of these relationships takes place through new life in Christ.”
There is no “for” in the Hebrew. Give us the Hebrew word you are referring to.
LikeLike
“desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household”
Egalitarian women have no desire to take a man’s place as head of household. They seek merely to be equal, not to be under “headship” nor to exercise it themselves.
“patriarchy is dead in the west”
Um, I think not. Patriarchy is still deeply entrenched in our social systems and manifests itself in myriad ways, not least of which is complementarianism.
“Here we lament the presence of fathers in the home while the rest of America laments their absence.”
That’s nothing but a straw man. Who laments the presence of fathers in the home? Only a very fringe group of radical feminists. Society as a whole rejoices that fathers are more involved in their homes than ever. The patriarchy of earlier generations taught men to focus on being providers and disciplinarians, not emotionally connected to their kids. That is changing, and everyone is better for it.
LikeLike
“Now Patriarchy on the other hand does not find this kind of opposition in the Scriptures. I think everyone can relax though because patriarchy is dead in the west. Most homes have no father at all in America. Here we lamet the presence of fathers in the home while the rest of America laments their absence. Hmmmmm…….”
Do you see what you are doing? You are automatically equating “no father” in the home with the ACTION of Patriarchal methods. For the home to be complete it must have a penis in charge of it. As if wife and children are their serfs. Some children are better off without abusive, raging fathers in the home. Some kids are better off without alcoholic negligent mothers, too.
But the truth is much more simple and goes back to creation. For the home to be complete, 2 ADULTS operating as a one flesh union is the model.
Patriarchy is sin. God worked around it, through it and often used it for His purposes. Just like He did lots of sin–such as Polygamy. There is no polygamy in one flesh union. In other words, He used man’s need to feel important and over others for His own ends. Nothing to be proud of, I can assure you
LikeLike
boatrocker I am not worried about corners at all. As I have said the word comp will have nuanced meanings like any other word in the English language. This is not Orwellian double-speak it is reality.
As I said there is not much difference in the two groups. If egals are not flipping a coin for every decision someone is holding the last word. If that person is giving the last word in their “area of expertise” all the time then that is a unilateral last word. So again both are very similiar.
krwordgazer no one is arguing that males and females are not equal just that people exercise complementary roles in life. No straw man at all. It is amazing that it is okay for you egals to argue from an extreme understanding of comp but you cry foul play when some presents an argument of an extreme view of egal. LOL
LikeLike
“boatrocker comp does not equal hierarchy.”
According to whom? I suggested a while back you go and read the Danvers statement and look at the signatories. Then come back and tell us how “hierarchy” of roles is not inherent in it. You don’t get to define comp. They already did that for you. And they added and added and added to it over the years with CBMW, etc.
If you don’t agree with it, fine. Then call it Wesley Roy’s doctrine or something but don’t call it complementarian.
LikeLike
Lydia why is it okay for you to demean men by equating us to a penis but you are afraid that a wife will say I need to make sure this decision is okay with my husband because it will demean her.
Your rape and abuse argument is a straw man. Women rape and abuse their children as well and most fathers do not rape and abuse their children.
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to not share it. I am sure you can understand that and respectfully dialogue considering you are egal……..LOL
LikeLike
Lydia I don’t think I am going to allow you to have the last word on what I can call comp. That would not be egal and I am trying to broaden my horizons.
LikeLike
Wesley, if you think this is all a matter of semantics, then don’t make statements about what egals would have to do; grant them the same appeal to “nuanced meanings” you reserve for yourself. If you don’t believe men and women have “roles” to play, or that men have roles that only appear for all the world to be authoritative over women, then why perpetuate the doubletalk by siding with comp? It is absolutely Orwellian, and absolutely contradictory.
You still don’t grasp the point about “final say”. IT’S ALL ABOUT ONE PERSON BEING SO DESIGNATED, not about one sometimes deciding and the other sometimes deciding. How can you even say that not flipping a coin must mean one designated tie-breaker? Utter nonsense.
There is a world of difference between the two groups, Wesley. This is undeniable. It is only by your insistence that comps don’t practice what they preach that tries, vainly, to erase those differences. They could not be farther apart, and I have run out of ways to get this simple point across to you.
LikeLike
“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. (Ephesians 5:23)”
I suggest you visit boatrockers link.Your big mistake is interpreting Kephale to mean being over someone as in authority. it helps to understand how that word was used in the 1st Century. Not like how we use it today.
This is a huge mistake often made reading 1 Corin 11, too. It does not even follow because “head” (using your interpretation of it) is not used in the chain of importance in that verse. God would never be last in the Greek construct of such a passage. Same for Eph.
LikeLike
Lydia, good point about defining terms. Very similar to a situation in the Calvinism debate: http://www.fether.net/2010/12/01/strike-while-the-irony-is-hot/
Excerpt:
“But that brings up another issue: who officially represents either view? My experience has been that no matter which Calvinist author is cited, the particular Calvinist I’m talking to will deny that the author is representative of “true” Calvinism, or at least their own personal understanding of it. Now I’m all for people having the “sovereignty” to reject particular points of any system, but not for accusing their opponent of misrepresentation or ignorance of their personal beliefs, especially when such deviations from authoritative sources are not stated up front.
Yet at the same time, if one is going to use labels, one should be able to point to some kind of official organizations or authors that define them. Many today do in fact believe that they can wear any label they want while rejecting major tenets of the system that coined it, but that doesn’t make it logical or defensible. That is, while some claim to be Calvinists but deny a defining belief such as limited atonement or hedge on what “inability” means, Calvinism is a system; the system does not exist without all its essential parts, and the TULIP acronym is universally used to define Calvinism or “Reformed” theology.”
LikeLike
boatrocker thanks for your efforts to get me to accept your view of something you do not practice. I would be interested for you to show me the examples of comp marriages that in practice are ran as a dictator would run a country. I think you will be hard pressed to supply them. We are simply arguing semantics. Egals do not flip a coin for every decision and comps ask the husband what to do next in every instance of life. Thanks for the conversation.
LikeLike
“Diane – – are you feeding my next Miano blog post?”
You know, he can beg and beg all he wants to globetrot all over the world to yell at people and if people want to give to that, they will.
But to announce there will be a rap song to accompany his book (because every book needs a rap song) and then beg for the funds on FB is over the top…to me.
LikeLike
“Lydia I don’t think I am going to allow you to have the last word on what I can call comp. That would not be egal and I am trying to broaden my horizons.”
Hee Hee! Perhaps you should take it up with Piper? He had a big part in coining the term. You can duke it out with him mano to mano . :o)
LikeLike
Lydia you are the one arguing for an hierarchy not me. I was clear in one of my previous posts that the husband is not to have a monarch’s heart but a savior’s heart for his family.
LikeLike
Lydia I don’t think I am going to let Piper have the last word either since he is a comp and I am trying to broaden my horizons……..LOL
LikeLike
But to announce there will be a rap song to accompany his book (because every book needs a rap song) and then beg for the funds on FB is over the top…to me.
********
Well, it really is an unnecessary “luxury.” But he doesn’t see it like that because it’s not coming out of his pocketbook. Funny how that works.
LikeLike
Wesley, I was only following your example. The medicine you dispense to others never tastes as good when you take it yourself, eh?
As for examples, Piper has plenty, as do his comp buddies. But at least you still admit that comps don’t practice what they preach. At least not you; the other comps often do. You can ask them yourself. What you will be “hard pressed to supply” is justification for your personal, unique, self-contradictory “comp-lite”. Comp in name only is like wearing a Burger King crown.
No, for the last time, comp. vs. egal is not just a war of words… unless you consider the vitrol of the likes of Piper mere semantics. Try selling that to abused women whose abusers cited scripture as their excuse. And no, no abuser ever quoted egal writings to justify abuse… because they can’t.
Thanks for the exhibition.
LikeLike
“Lydia why is it okay for you to demean men by equating us to a penis but you are afraid that a wife will say I need to make sure this decision is okay with my husband because it will demean her.”
I am an equal opportunity offender! I mentioned vagina, too. I am not “afraid” a wife will say I need to make sure this decision is okay with me husband……I do that very thing quite often because I RESPECT/LOVE my partner and am in a one flesh union with him. (My hub is the one who first mentioned the whole thing is based upon who has a penis and who has a vagina. I stoled it from him!)
The point you do not get here is we are referring to “final say” that is taught in the comp construct.
“Your rape and abuse argument is a straw man. Women rape and abuse their children as well and most fathers do not rape and abuse their children.”
Yes they do as well. Thanks for pointing that out. However, stats tell us fathers do MORE of it than mothers.
“You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to not share it. I am sure you can understand that and respectfully dialogue considering you are egal……..LOL”
Are you not happy I am not deferring to you? I don’t get it. Egals can argue, debate and still remain fully functioning adults.
LikeLike
” I was clear in one of my previous posts that the husband is not to have a monarch’s heart but a savior’s heart for his family”
As should the wife/mom. It is “being” a Christian. It is not about penises and vaginas. And we are not in the 1st Century. I am no longer considered chattel by the laws of the land.
LikeLike
Wes,
Welcome to the jungle…
LikeLike
“Welcome to the jungle…”
….where the predators insist on having “final say”
LikeLike
I guess we can put the comp/egal issue to bed now.
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano 32m
. @jon_michael21 @fergbreen @micahjmurray @BethelRedding Jesus the Creator is not an egalitarian. He is a complimentarian.”
Hide conversation Reply
9:46 AM – 4 Sep 13 · Details
LikeLike
Brian, you came willingly to the jungle . . . . and you stayed. 🙂 LOL :::as she finishes her banana:::
LikeLike
Brian secretly like this nice little jungle.
LikeLike
Gary,
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
man (singular), wife (singular) One Flesh.
You are right, that it isn’t a sin to have more than one wife, because it is not in the Law of Moses restricting it.
Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
If a man have two wives…
But, as Jesus said about divorce, which was also legal in the Law of Moses, that it wasn’t that way from the beginning. This shows that Jesus wants things to be “restored” back to the beginning of man.
Matthew 19:3-5 (KJV) 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
The twain (two) shall become one flesh.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Wesley Roy,
You had said: “Polygamy is condemned in Scripture”
Not according to the Law of Moses
Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
The only restriction was once they get to the Promised Land, that when they appoint a King, then the King cannot multiply wives, but that was only in regards to the King, not the “commoners”.
Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
But, in the context of a verse which comes after chapter 17, namely 21:15, polygamy was not, “how you say…, condemned, no?”
It was lawful, therefore, not a sin.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Brian said:
“RC Sproul describes it well: “Paul is probably referring to some level of judicial or governing authority. Under the influence of the false teachers, certain women had apparently moved into positions of governing authority within the church, which Paul prohibited.””
My response: That would never hold up in a court of law, to wit: probably, some level, apparently. All speculative.
Your honor, I object; speculative. Sustained.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
chapmaned24, good point. Comp is a “between the lines” theology… and about as easy to pin down as nailing jello to a wall.
LikeLike
Wesley, you said:
“As I said there is not much difference in the two groups. If egals are not flipping a coin for every decision someone is holding the last word. If that person is giving the last word in their “area of expertise” all the time then that is a unilateral last word. So again both are very similiar.”
This is all very peculiar to me. Let’s take an example from my own egal marriage. I’m the person who takes care of the finances. I pay the bills, I balance the checkbook, I do the budgeting, etc. That’s my “area of expertise.” This does NOT mean I have the unilateral last word on every financial decision! On the contrary, any major financial decision is something we discuss together, and we do not act until we have reached a consensus. If anything, what this means is that the status quo has the “last word,” because we default to that if we can’t agree. In other words, we do nothing out of the ordinary without consensus. Does someone sometimes give in to the other? Sure– but that’s part of “mutual submission,” and usually the one who gives in is whoever has less stake in the outcome. That’s hardly “unilateral last word” for either of us.
You also said:
“no one is arguing that males and females are not equal just that people exercise complementary roles in life. No straw man at all. It is amazing that it is okay for you egals to argue from an extreme understanding of comp but you cry foul play when some presents an argument of an extreme view of egal. LOL”
The problem is that the very complementary roles that complementarians assign to husband and to wife are not equal, regardless of whether they believe males and females are equal in their ontological nature. And no, this really isn’t just an extreme understanding of comp. There is no complementarian I know of who does not believe that men are in some sense to lead women, and women are not to lead men– and that women are to be restricted in some way or other, while men are not to be restricted. The degrees to which this occurs– the actual on-the-ground practices– differ, some being gentler, some more extreme. But the basic premise is what makes one a complementarian.
LikeLike
Diane – I had to do it:
LikeLike
Brian quotes:
“Gen.3:16, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”So, Brian, what was it like BEFORE Genesis 3:16? Jesus RESTORED us to what it was like BEFORE the fall. So Adam never ruled Eve before the fall, now did he?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Thanks Brian. It is always fun to see those opposed to authority try to exercise it over others.
LikeLike
” It is always fun to see those opposed to authority try to exercise it over others.”
Lol… not one example of anyone here trying to exercise authority (even Wesley claims not to do it). Look in the mirror, Wesley, to see someone who insists that he doesn’t believe in hierarchy yet keeps arguing in favor of a system that does. And if we egals, simply by voicing our opinions, are trying to exercise authority, then what is it called when comps do it? Is this another word game? Or a bona fide double standard?
(no need to try and answer, I’m sure this is getting embarrassing for you)
LikeLike
Brian secretly like this nice little jungle.
Nope, Brian likes being a troll masquerading as a Christian.
LikeLike
Wesley Roy asks Lydia “why is it okay for you to demean men by equating us to a penis”
I’m glad that I am not the “head” of my household anymore (I’m divorced). My ex called me d*ck “head” many times. She acknowledged that I was the head alright.
________________________________
MOD edited.
LikeLike
boatrocker come on …………. LOL. I am a little embarrassed at the references to people a penis or vagina but your disagreement and asserting that your view is the only correct one is not embarrassing–predictable but not embarrassing.
LikeLike
And just so no one here has any doubts as to what I think about Brian and all Reformed/Calvinist people: You are all ____Moderator removed words here ____ trying to malign the name of God and the cause of Christ. You are no more Christian brethren than a field mouse is.
Mod edited this post.
LikeLike
Ha! Wesley, you’re a hoot. Even you know what a ridiculous false charge that is. What’s really embarrassing for you is your attempt at stand-up comedy.
But seriously folks, if Wesley is so intimidated by our rebuttals that he now resorts to blatant lies, the comp side is truly desperate. As if I need to point that out.
LikeLike
And if we egals, simply by voicing our opinions, are trying to exercise authority, then what is it called when comps do it? Is this another word game? Or a bona fide double standard?
It’s just another attempt to get people to believe a lie, and nothing more.
LikeLike
But seriously folks, if Wesley is so intimidated by our rebuttals that he now resorts to blatant lies, the comp side is truly desperate. As if I need to point that out.
There’s no “now resorts to blatant lies”, it’s always been nothing but blatant lies.
LikeLike
Ed: You need to know that every comment of yours is scrutinized by the BGBC Stalker Team for future Impostor Blog fodder. I highly suspect we’ll be seeing your latest comment posted somewhere.
LikeLike
All true, Eric. But entertaining nonetheless. 🙂
LikeLike
Eric, I’m not the moderator here, but it’s my opinion you’ve gone too far. I have friends who are complementarians and Reformed, and they are not lying demon-worshipers. They love God and are sincerely trying to follow Christ to the best of their ability.
LikeLike
Eric said:
“Nope, Brian likes being a troll masquerading as a Christian.”
Someone has anger issues…
I never even knew about this blog until Julie Anne invited me to guest post.
JA and others, I hope you are taking note of the aggressive hatred, and from what side it is coming.
LikeLike
Hey Eric – You’re going to need to take the Calvinism to the Calvinism Free For All thread. And please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks!
LikeLike
I was working on it as you were typing. Duly noted, Brian. Thanks.
LikeLike
Eric said:
“Nope, Brian likes being a troll masquerading as a Christian.”
Someone has anger issues…
Might want to take a look back through your own twitter feed, Brian.
LikeLike
Hey Eric – You’re going to need to take the Calvinism to the Calvinism Free For All thread. And please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks!
Hey, Brian (who defends Calvinism to the utmost by his own admission) brought the Calv argument over here (in a discussion about a Bible translation that is purely Calvinist in nature and production), so I figured this one was fair game as well.
So, it’s ok for the Calvs/Comps to tell people they aren’t Christians because they don’t agree with Calv/Comp doctrine, but not ok for people to call them on their claims. Ok, gotcha.
LikeLike
I wish that they would scrutinize my comedic ability, rather than being fuddy duddies. They have no sense of humor. But, God knows the “inner” thoughts of the BGBC. I know that deep inside, they are laughing their “fill in blank” off, but they are forbidden to laugh. It must be a sin to laugh at funny stuff. God has a sense of humor. He made the giraffe. Let there be…a yellow spotted horse with a big long neck!!!(compliments of Gallagher, the comedian).
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
“So, it’s ok for the Calvs/Comps to tell people they aren’t Christians because they don’t agree with Calv/Comp doctrine, but not ok for people to call them on their claims.”
I don’t recall any Calvs/Comps doing that on here.
LikeLike
It seems like there are nasty statements being made by people on both sides of the comp/egal argument here. Or maybe it’s just me.
Disclaimer: I’m in the egalitarian camp.
LikeLike
*****
Is that happening in this thread and I missed it, Eric?
LikeLike
Thanks for the kind words guys. Your affirmation and gracious understanding is deeply appreciated since that is what this blog is about…….Oh, sorry that is reserved only for folks who agree with you………Hmmmmmmmmm sounding a lot like the guys you are busy exposing as wolves have infiltrated the blog and are using the names of frequent posters to disguise their presence………LOL
LikeLike
I have been reading along this thread and came to this:
September 4, 2013 @ 7:43 am
Brian Thornton said:
“You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.”
God did not say, “Eve, you are going to desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.” It’s NOT there. God didn’t talk about “heads” or “households” in that verse. You are taking your beliefs, and our current culture and words, and reading them back into the scriptures.
What are you saying that God declared would happen?
That men would rule over women? That women would be oppressed up till and including the 21st century (still). That women, children, and people of “other than my” cultures would be oppressed? That men would rule and have advantages over women until Jesus returns? THIS HAS BEEN THE REALITY (for emphasis). What you claim is happening, in fact, hasn’t happened. Women have not taken over the world . . . seems men have had a lot to due with ruling over others throughout history (and I’m not excluding the occasional woman).
Also, I haven’t heard one woman on this thread say that they want to have authority over, or rule over any one. Did you read or see this somewhere? I see that women want equality . . . to be brothers and sisters in Christ with the same Father. A Christian husband and wife are brothers and sisters in Christ first, during marriage, and in eternity (even when marriage is done away with), before they are husband and wife.
LikeLike
The only thing I’ve done here is state in unequivocal terms what has been going on all along being hidden with flowery theological terms.
Uncomfortable? You bet it is. But it’s real and honest, not like the hippy word-dance going back and forth.
Is it ok to be real and honest about how you feel, or are we just going to keep saying the same thing over and over, using different flowery words for a thousand posts, and still get nowhere?
Neither side is ever going to change the opinion of the other side, no matter how politely a discussion goes. Why not just quit the nonsense of pretending, and say what we really feel and mean? It’s a lot more honest than the word games Brian and Wesley have been playing.
LikeLike
It seems like there are nasty statements being made by people on both sides of the comp/egal argument here. Or maybe it’s just me.
It’s not just you, RMR. I’m just trying to expose what is really going on here. Sometimes people have to be shocked and offended to see reality.
LikeLike
This is very important. Where is this coming from? I have never wanted to rule my house and I don’t know any woman who wants to rule their house. I have heard men say this time and again, but I notice it’s coming from men who emphasize that men are the authority in their homes and over their wives. Isn’t that interesting?
LikeLike
I haven’t said I want to rule my house either. Where is this coming from?
Eric disagreeing with you is not word games it is simply disagreeing with you.
LikeLike
“So, it’s ok for the Calvs/Comps to tell people they aren’t Christians because they don’t agree with Calv/Comp doctrine, but not ok for people to call them on their claims.”
I don’t recall any Calvs/Comps doing that on here.
Everything you’ve posted here drips with your air of superiority and condescension, Brian. You care nothing at all about seeking truth, all that is important to you is forcing people to bow to your interpretations. Go back and look at your entire Twitter feed, Brian, and then come back and tell us how Godly and blameless you are.
You and Wesley do nothing but speak to others with smarmy paternalism, because you can’t relate to anyone else as equals.
LikeLike
Eric disagreeing with you is not word games it is simply disagreeing with you.
Ha! You’ve just shown that you haven’t given a whit of acknowledgement to the people who have previously pointed out your word games, Wesley.
LikeLike
@ JA 11:06~
“Diane – I had to do it:
Julie Anne @DefendTheSheep
I see that Street evangelist @TonyMiano is busy at work debating on Twitter while wife works to bring home the bacon = egalitarian? 1Tim5:8”
I don’t know…maybe he thinks since Jesus had women supporting Him, he can too. (Luke 8:1-3). But one of those supporting Jesus was Joanna, who was married. How was she able to do that?
If Jesus is a complementarian…..(I think he meant complementarian)
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano 32m
“. @jon_michael21 @fergbreen @micahjmurray @BethelRedding Jesus the Creator is not an egalitarian. He is a complimentarian.””
(Btw I agree. Jesus gives lots of compliments.)
….then why didn’t Jesus set Johanna straight and get her back home intelligently and joyfully submitting to Chuza? That whole Joanna following Jesus around and supporting Him while married to Chuza can’t have looked too complementarian.
LikeLike
Tony is on his way to become Taliban lite.
Soon his wife and daughters will be wearing a burka.
LikeLike
Eric I am afraid that you have me all wrong. I am adamantly opposed to the paternalism that goes on in America across racial lines so I am very careful not to speak to others in that way. I would assume by paternalism you mean the tongue-lashing that you have been giving out for the last few posts. I don’t think any of my posts exhibit the same attitude.
I have not personally insulted anyone or assumed that anyone’s position would have to arrive at “my logical conclusion” but I have been subjected to it. I have come to expect that in this arena though this should be the last place that it takes place.
Is it a word game when I say that I am Baptist and you realize that that could mean anything? There are nuances and I have simply stated that the same is true for those claiming to be comp. You and others seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that like you do not want to be categorized by some pastor who thinks he is the final authority along with his henchmen, I refuse to let others define me. I will go with the dictionary definition of the word complementary as “completing or supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks”. It is that simple.
LikeLike