D-Blog Under Construction

Question #8 for Stuart

2009-04-13T04:00:00.000-07:00

Stuart, my last answer lets you in on the direction of my last 3 questions, so let me simply ask these questions in the order I intend without much ado.

Eph 1:3-14 makes it clear that those who are redeemed by God were "predestined" and "chosen" to receive "the gospel of [God's] salvation".

How should we understand God's action as the one who predestines, the one who chooses?

For your sake, in order to deal with the passage in question, please use up to 1000 words. Please do not use the extended words to editorialize on the rest of the debate; please use it to make as clear as possible your view of what Paul means by saying God has "predestined" the saints and has "chosen" the saints to be redeemed and saved by the Gospel.

Answer #8 for Stuart

2009-04-12T16:00:00.000-07:00

You can find the definition of faith I would advocate here, and the definition of good works I would advocate here.

Scripture makes the distinction that good works are a necessary consequence of faith [Jam 1:22-25]; good works do not earn anyone anything. We are in fact indebted to God that we can do the works we may do [Eph 2:10].

So the answer to your question is Scripture makes the distinction between faith and good works, that faith is before good works, and both are a gift of God.

That said, with only a few more questions and answers to go, I want to remind you and the readers what the thesis we have been dealing with here is.

For someone to say that the doctrine of limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense.

So far, what we've seen is that Pastor Wood has affirmed that not all people are saved; he has affirmed that God only saves those who have faith; he has affirmed that atonement at the cross removes the debt of sin on those form who the atonement is made. There is only one attribute of calvinistic limited atonement which is left for Pastor Wood to affirm: that God Himself wants those who are saved to be saved, and it is because of His decree that it is so.

In that, I suggest that there is not much left for Pastor Wood to agee with. And if he agrees with that last bit of Biblical truth, he himself will have affirmed limited atonement. And in that agreement, he will have proven my thesis: it is nonsense to say that limited atonement changes the Gospel. You cannot affirm the effects or the need for the Gospel without affirming limited atonement.

Question #8 for Frank

2009-04-10T06:26:00.000-07:00

We have seen that Orthodox Lutheranism and five-point Calvinism have two contrary definitions of Christ’s atonement. From this, they also derive two contrary definitions of the Gospel, only one of which is true and saving (Galatians 1:6-9). There is agreement that the Gospel is received by repentance and faith, but the definitions of repentance are quite different. In regards to justification, Orthodox Lutheranism sees repentance as the result of the preaching of God’s Law, by which one is made to feel the terrors of conscience concerning his sins. This, in and of itself, does not save anyone, but leads one to faith in the Gospel, which indeed does save.

While repentance and faith have a necessary relationship, they also have distinctions that clearly can be defined apart from one another. How do you define faith, and why do the Scriptures contrast it with works (Romans 3:27-28)?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Response #7 for Frank

2009-04-09T06:42:00.000-07:00

If someone were to ask me, how do I know I am saved, I would say, “because God’s Word says that Jesus Christ died for my sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). My faith and hope rest completely upon the objective and verifiable Word of God (Romans 10:17). If someone asks you the same question, you say, “because I have repented”. Your faith and hope rest ultimately upon your own perception of your repentance.

When I further ask, how do you know with certainty that you have repented, you give a very muddled definition of the term itself, confusing justification with sanctification (Luther, Rom. 7:14-8:11; David), confusing repentance in the narrow sense with repentance in the broad sense (publican), and confusing repentance itself with the fruits of repentance (LBCF). The only passage you quoted that dealt with our issue of justification was the publican, who went down to his house justified, not because of his repentance (as you define it in the narrow sense), but because he received the promised mercy in the universal atonement of Christ. In fact, throughout your entire response #7A you say nothing at all of Christ and His cross (reader, take note). Finally, when pressed, your primary answer of why you know you have repented comes down to “I know because I know”. This is not exactly giving an answer for the hope that is within you. A Mormon would say the very same thing.

You also presume that your repentance matches the repentance of the Bible characters (the publican, David, etc.). But how can you know this, since no man can know his own deceptive heart (Jeremiah 17:5-9)? Certainly this foundation cannot be compared with the immovable solid Rock of God’s objective Word which tells us plainly that Jesus Christ died for our sins? Building upon experience, no matter how impressive and seemingly genuine, is building upon a foundation of sand.

Luther writes, “This is the reason why our doctrine is most sure and certain, because it carries us out of ourselves, that we should not lean on our own strength, our own conscience, our own feeling, our own person, and our own works; but onto that which is outside us, that is to say, the promise and truth of God, which cannot deceive us” (St. L. IX:509). “You must be certain that your sins are truly and certainly forgiven you through the external Word.” (St. L. XIII:2438).

He further says that any man who bases his faith on his “experiences”, particularly on his possession of faith, is an “idolatrous apostate”. “For he trusts and builds on his own, namely, on a gift which God has given him, and not on God’s Word alone, just as another builds and trusts in his strength, riches, power, wisdom, holiness, which as well are gifts given him of God” (St. L. XVII:2213).

As for your attempted answer about Paul’s love being greater than Christ’s, I knew that you could not answer that, as this question again plainly exposes the false doctrine of limited atonement. You end up dealing with Romans 10:1, when I asked you about Romans 9:3. Your analogy between the words of the Apostle Paul, spoken by the Spirit of Christ within him, and “Christopher Hitchens” with his mistaken sentimentality, is not only ridiculous, but also blasphemous.

Finally, as to your question about the term ”the Great Exchange”, I think I know what you are probably referring to, but not in the formal recognizable doctrinal sense that you seem to be proposing. I would guess that it is referring to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This “great exchange” would refer to the fact that Christ (who is wholly righteous) took upon Himself the punishment of the sins of the world (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20), so that we (who are wholly sinful) might be made partakers of His righteousness.

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the mask off Calvinism

Question #7 for Stuart

2009-04-08T19:44:00.000-07:00

I am certain you have heard the term "the Great Exchange". Assuming you believe that this doctrine is true, please explain why this doctrine is central to the Christian faith.

Answer #7B for Stuart

2009-04-08T19:43:00.000-07:00

I have taken some time to consider Stuart's "7B" because, frankly, I don't understand the question.

Is Paul's love for Israel greater than God's? The answer is plainly "no".

So how does one explain Rom 10:1? I suspect it is by reading it in context and not reading into it. For example, is Paul actually accursed for the nations of Israel? Well, of course not -- and his statement that he wishes he could be underscores Israel's hopeless state rather than something God ought to have done for them.

So why has Stuart asked this question? It seems to me that he wants me to say, "well, because Paul's love for Israel includes saving all of them, but God's love for Israel does not if we believe in limited atonement, then this must prove limited atonement false."

The problem, of course, is that this is a simple non-sequitur. Let's imagine Christopher Hitchens for a moment who would never condemn any man or woman to hell -- to him the idea is itself a moral outrage. Does this mean that Christopher Hitchens loves mankind more than God does -- because certainly, God will condemn some to hell? Indeed not: it proves that Hitchens has an unfounded view of morality and justice because he want to supplant God's view of justice.

And I think we must, at this point, say the same for Pastor Wood. That is: because Pastor Wood wants to argue that the only love which is properly a God-sized love is a love which provides atonement for all people, we must say that his view distorts what God has plainly said about himself in order to conform with some false view of God's Love and Justice.

My apologies if this offends Pastor Wood -- I still think he means well. I think, however, in his well-meaning he has made errors which Scripture refutes as we have seen so far in my answers to him.

Answer #7A for Stuart

2009-04-07T18:52:00.000-07:00

I think I have answered this question the only way it is possible to answer it -- with Luther's own words on this subject: "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance."

That is, you have pictured "repentance" apart from "faith", but the truth is that when there is "faith" there is "repentance".

The case the Bible makes for us here in in several passages. In Rom 7:14-8:11, for example, declares that one must "set the mind on the Spirit [for] life and peace." That passage deserves more work than that, but I leave it to the reader to see that faith and repentance are inseparable.

The passage I want to look more closely at, however, is Luke 18:9-14. In this parable, Christ tells us something about what real faith in God looks like -- and it's not merely gratitude and obedience. The Pharisee has that, and Jesus says plainly he was not justified. But the tax collector was in the temple, and his prayer was simple: "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

Jesus says plainly of him: this man went down to his house justified. Because he knew his works were sinful, and he had no standing before God, he was justified before God. That, in a nutshell, is repentance.

And this is why I previously cited the LBCF to you: to underscore that I can know my own repentance. See: I think your question really comes from a place that the NT never does: you are asking an ontological question on-par with "How can I know I drove my car?" or "How can I know I love my wife?" or "How can I know I have posted my response at D-Blog?" The question of repentance is simply not that complicated -- and it is not a work but rather an orientation to God.

Think of it this way specifically: David murdered Uriah to conceal his sin with Bathsheba, right? So he made sin to cover sin. But when Nathan came to him and pointed told him his sin, unlike Saul who made excuses for his sin, David confessed, "I have sinned against YHVH."

These are not only words. When you know your sin is against God, and this is why it is wrong, and you know you deserve judgment, confess. This is the meaning of Rom 10:10. This is how anyone can know they are saved -- and to answer your question specifically, I know I have repented because I have repented as the Bible describes repentance.

Question #7B for Frank

2009-04-07T12:43:00.000-07:00

According to limited atonement, Christ DID NOT wish Himself accursed for those who did not believe (as He died only for the elect). However, according to Romans 9:3, Paul says that if possible he, Paul, WOULD wish himself accursed for those who did not believe (his unbelieving Jewish brethren). If limited atonement is true, this would necessarily make Paul’s love for the unbelieving greater than Christ’s love for them.

How can this possibly be? And how do you account for this?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Question #7A for Frank

2009-04-07T12:35:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Frank, I appreciate the opportunity to hear your responses to Question #7A and Question #7B. Both are important.

You say, "Those who have repented and will repent are those for whom Christ intentionally and specifically died on the cross; those who do not repent were never atoned for because they are condemned for sin. Christ never died for those who would never repent." You also plainly assert that you have repented and therefore are one for whom Christ died.

Does this not place your ultimate confidence in yourself and your repentance rather than in the objective Word of God? And how can you help but not doubt your salvation, as your faith depends upon something you do? Also, how can you take any confidence from your observable fruits when they are always going to be imperfect? This does not seem to me to be salvation by grace alone.

My question -“How do you, Frank Turk, identify and know with certainty that you have fulfilled this requirement of "repentance"?”

Pastor Wood

clarification

2009-04-07T12:11:00.000-07:00

I cannot answer this last post in 500 words -- it's simply not possible.

Stuart: please choose one question for me to answer in my next response. I will be pleased to answer one question in 500 words or less, and then give you a question "7B" which I will then answer in 500 words -- effectively giving you an extra question before asking my next question.

I think this is a decent remedy to cure your claim that I have "not answered" a question you have previously asked.

Please: post question 7A and then Question 7B and I will answer each of them in the space allowed.

Question #7 for Frank (including repeated call for answer to Question #6)

2009-04-07T06:49:00.000-07:00

The main part of my last question asked, “How do you, Frank Turk, identify and know with certainty that you have fulfilled this requirement of "repentance"?”

You answered, “It's a gross error to separate belief and repentance.” That does not answer my question. As this is an important part of our discussion, can you please answer the question above?

Also a new question – According to limited atonement, Christ DID NOT wish Himself accursed for those who did not believe (as He died only for the elect). However, according to Romans 9:3, Paul says that if possible he, Paul, WOULD wish himself accursed for those who did not believe (his unbelieving Jewish brethren). If limited atonement is true, this would necessarily make Paul’s love for the unbelieving greater than Christ’s love for them. How can this possibly be? And how do you account for this?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #6 for Frank

2009-04-06T08:54:00.000-07:00

You did not answer my last question. I believe that you cannot answer it. Also I am not separating faith from repentance in their necessary relationship to one another. True saving faith will evidence itself in a life of repentance and good works. I whole-heartedly agree with Luther, “that the whole life of believers should be repentance”. But that’s not the issue here. The issue here is that of justification, not sanctification. We are dealing with how a man is initially saved, not what fruits a saved man will eventually bring forth. I am asserting that a man is saved only by faith in the objective universal Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins”. This is the salvation of the Reformation - by the Word of God alone (sola Scriptura), by grace alone (sola gratia), and by faith alone (sola fide). Repentance (narrow sense) doesn’t save anyone. It is only the terrors of conscience that leads (as a tutor) to that which does indeed save, that is, the true universal atonement of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel.

Your LBCF evidences a wrong understanding of repentance (confusing it with the fruits of repentance), and this results in a religion of works. It also erroneously places faith before repentance, when, in regards to justification, faith comes after repentance. The wrong definition of Christ’s atonement results in a wrong Gospel, and now in a wrong definition of repentance. This leads you to the following works-based scenario:
1. Christ died only for the elect.
2. The elect are those who have repented of their sins (in sense of leading a godly life).
3. I, Frank Turk, have repented of my sins (not sure how you know this?)
4. Therefore I must be one of the elect for whom Christ died.
5. I am saved.

To answer your last question – We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). While Christ did indeed suffer and die for the sins of the whole world, this work is only effectual through faith. If a person does not receive the atoning work of Christ in true faith, then it is ineffectual to them, and they are yet in their sins. God will indeed punish them everlastingly for each and every one of their sins, though it is true that Christ atoned for these sins. Human reason may not apprehend this, but this is the plain testimony of the Word of God. A great example is Judas, “the son of perdition”, who is surely now suffering in hell for his sins. And yet Luke tells us that he was “at the table” (Luk. 22:21) when Jesus said, “This is my body which is given for you… This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luk. 22:19,20). Also, on what basis did Jesus cry out from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luk. 23:34)? Are we to believe that these chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, and mockers gathered around the cross were all God’s elect? (cf. also Stephen – Acts 7:60).

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the mask off Calvinism

Question #6 for Stuart

2009-04-05T17:00:00.000-07:00

Without offering an offense, Stuart, I think you missed the point of my last question, so I'll ask it again a different way. You and I agree on the meaning of the word "atonement" or "atone" in reference to what Christ did on the cross: the debt of sin was paid in full by Christ in his sacrifice. The question is only the extent of the atonement.

So I ask you: if the effect of the cross is universal atonement for sin, how can God in justice punish anyone for their sins -- even the unbelievers to whom you say "your sins are forgiven" even though they have not repented? Does God punish people for sin even though their sins are atoned for in Christ?

Answer #6 for Stuart

2009-04-05T05:13:00.000-07:00

I have a one-sentence answer, Stuart: It's a gross error to separate belief and repentance. That is, if someone "says" they believe, but they don't repent, they don't know what they're saying. It's like saying they have bread with no flour.

I think it's interesting that you'd ask this because Luther's first of the 95 Theses stated: "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." And this is also, frankly, the point of all the proclamations of the Gospel in the NT which I have linked to so far.

In that respect, I would also cite the London Baptist Confession of Faith:

Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served various lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling gives them repentance unto life.

...

This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, does, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.

As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly.

Such is the provision which God has made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary. [LBCF, Chpt XV, sections 1, 3 & 4]

Question #6 for Frank

2009-04-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

You say, "Those who have repented and will repent are those for whom Christ intentionally and specifically died on the cross; those who do not repent were never atoned for because they are condemned for sin. Christ never died for those who would never repent." You also plainly assert that you have repented and therefore are one for whom Christ died.

Does this not place your ultimate confidence in yourself and your repentance rather than in the objective Word of God? And how can you help but not doubt your salvation, as your faith depends upon something you do? Also, how can you take any confidence from your observable fruits when they are always going to be imperfect? This does not seem to me to be salvation by grace alone.

Question - In regards to justification, do you place faith before repentance or after repentance? And how do you, Frank Turk, identify and know with certainty that you have fulfilled this requirement of "repentance"?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #5 to Frank

2009-04-02T05:58:00.000-07:00

We understand repentance to properly mean "contrition" and "terrors of conscience" over one’s sins and lost estate. The Scriptures use the term in a broad sense and a narrow sense. When used in a broad sense, the term refers to both contrition and faith in the Gospel, and can be equated with the word "conversion". When used in a narrow sense, the term refers to contrition alone, and is often followed by a reference to faith in the Gospel (i.e. Acts 20:21).

We would assert that Peter was using the term "repent" in its wider sense in Acts 2:38, which would have included a call to faith in Christ and his Gospel promise of "the remission of sins". Faith has to be included in the word "repent", as it is followed by the command "be baptized". Only believers are to be baptized. Also, the fact that Peter offers the forgiveness of sins indiscriminately to a large crowd of people implies a universal atonement, that is, that the payment for that forgiveness had already been accomplished at the cross of Calvary. You can’t offer what you don’t have to give. Peter understood he could offer it to all. Notice too how the sermon began, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words" (Acts 2:14). Also cf. v. 21 - "whosoever".

Repentance (narrow sense) is a result of the preaching of the Law, while faith is a result of the preaching of the Gospel. To give an analogy – suppose I have been floating down the smooth gentle attractive river of life as an unbeliever, not knowing that the current will eventually sweep me off a frightful waterfall to my eternal destruction. Suddenly I start to notice signs on the bank of the river warning me that there is this mortal danger ahead. I seek to get out of the river but I cannot. The speed of the current seems to be picking up, and I start to notice sharp rocks and rapids indicating the end is near. I am terrified and regret ever having entered into this river. I have had a true "change of mind". Now, the warning signs are the preaching of the Law, and the alarm and terror I feel is repentance. Repentance is necessary, but it does not save me. It cannot rescue me from the river.

Now suppose also that the Lord has graciously provided a red rope across the river, with a sign that implores every man to grab hold of the rope before it is too late. He also assures us that this is His sign and that the rope will not fail. Via this rope, He Himself will pull us out of the river to safety. Now the sign telling of the rope is the Gospel, and the red rope itself is the atoning work of Christ. If we believe the sign (intended for all) and grab hold of the rope (intended for all) then we will be saved from the river and its terrible end. The Lord will be faithful to His Word. This is the Law and the Gospel. This is repentance and faith.

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Question #5 for Stuart

2009-04-01T13:13:00.000-07:00

I think we have come, really, to the crux of the matter, Stuart. In your last answer you gave what I would call an excellent definition of the meaning of “atonement”: “[the] reconciling work on the cross by which [Jesus] paid the penalty for the sins of the world and restored communion between God and man.”

I could not have said it better myself.

But in the context of that answer, I ask you on behalf of all people, for whom the sin-debt has already been paid in your view, of what should I repent, since all my sins are paid for in full? Asked another way, why should I fear the wrath of God if the punishment for my sin is already paid for in Christ?

Answer #5 for Stuart

2009-04-01T13:05:00.000-07:00

In Acts 2:29-41, Stuart, we see this in particular:

For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

'The Lord said to my Lord,Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.'

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Now, let’s be clear here: Peter is here proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah, and the fulfillment of the Davidic promise to Israel – but it’s interesting to see that the fulfillment of this promise does not come out of Peter’s mouth in something like this: “Jesus loves you and has already forgiven your sins, so believe in Him.”

Instead, what Peter proclaims is, “Jesus is the Messiah who will put His enemies under His footstool!”, by which the Jews are cut to the heart. The proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection makes Jesus Lord and Christ -- which is rightly a statement which terrifies the Jews. After all, they have just murdered him.

But when they are cut to the heart, what to the Jews do? They have no idea – they are terrified! And what Peter tells them is this:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

In Peter’s proclamation to the Jews, we have the foundation of our faith.

How do I know my sins are forgiven? I know because God has promised to forgive the believer of his sins, and I have repented and believed God’s promise.

By a long shot, that’s not all there is to the Gospel or the assurance of the believer. We know we have believed, for example, because we have kept his commandments (John 14); we know we have believed because we have persevered through trial (James 1); We know we have believed because we love one another (John 13). There are literally dozens of exhortations in the NT to test our faith by seeing the fruit of faith in our lives, but the foundation of our faith – that is, what we believe in – is that God will forgive the sin of the repentant based on the sacrifice of Christ.

God’s condemnation is what men must understand to receive the Gospel – because men have no reason to repent unless they are themselves still under the full burden of their sins. If all sin is already atoned for, why, exactly, must I “repent”?

Question #5 for Frank

2009-04-01T05:44:00.000-07:00

I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins (and am thereby saved) because God has testified in His Word that He died for all. In fact, I am compelled to believe this because it is spoken by "God, who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). For me not to believe that Christ died for my sins would be to make God a liar. "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:10,11). I am blessedly hemmed in by the truth.

My question – without the universal atonement of Christ, how do you, Frank Turk, know (with certainty) that Jesus Christ died for your sins?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #4 to Frank

2009-03-31T06:49:00.000-07:00

The thesis that you chose to defend was "to say that the doctrine of limited atonement necessarily changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense". I have now shown that this statement is not nonsense, but very true. As we have seen, how one defines the extent of the atonement does indeed determine how one defines the Gospel. Based upon our contrary definitions of Christ’s atonement, we have two different Gospels, two different religions, only one of which can be true and saving (Gal. 1:6-9). The gospel of 5-pointed Calvinism is clearly opposed to Luther’s Gospel of the Reformation. I believe that we agree about this. If not, please bear witness.

Now the question remains as to which of these Gospels is the true one. I will ask the reader a general question – which Gospel comes to you as Good News? The Gospel which tells you plainly and objectively that Christ died for your sins (because He died for all), or the gospel which tells you that Christ died for your sins if you are one of His elect and if you have repented? Which one, I ask, is Good News? From which one can you gain the assurance of faith?

As for arguments about individual passages, I am happy to engage, knowing that I can easily prove each passage as being true to the universal atonement of Christ. Romans 9 speaks of God’s choice of Jacob over Esau as the progenitor of the promised Seed, not as to their eternal salvation. Matthew 23:38 is preceded by, "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (v. 37). Only after their rejection of His love and grace did Jesus say, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate". I could go on to any passage brought forth, but I know how these Scripture debates usually go. Each side can recite the various arguments from their favorite commentaries ad infinitum, and very little is gained. The real question to ask about any passage in dispute is – had you never heard the convoluted arguments of biased theologies, what is the simple clear Word of God obviously saying? How would one ordinarily hear the expressions "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world", "who tasted death for every man", "who will have all men to be saved", "who is not willing that any should perish", etc.?

Finally, my definiton of "atonement". The atonement of Christ refers to His reconciling work on the cross by which He paid the penalty for the sins of the world and restored communion between God and man. The benefits of the atonement are effective to those who receive this Gospel Word (2 Cor. 5:18,19). "For by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8). Also, Pieper’s statement is correct. We cannot answer that proposed question because Scripture does not answer it. Faith can only go as far as the Word of God goes. "We take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." (2 Cor. 10:5).

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net

Question #4 for Stuart

2009-03-30T17:00:00.000-07:00

I have re-read your Answer #3 several times, Stuart, and have wondered at your position, because I cannot make any sense of it. I know what question I want to ask, but I think it's important to ask this question first.

You have asserted that Christ's atonement is universal in extent. As carefully as you can, please define the word "atonement" as you have used it here in reference to the sins of every person. Asked another way, what has happened to the sin of the whole world if Christ has atoned for the sin of every man and woman ever born?

Answer #4 for Stuart

2009-03-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

From the link you provided, Stuart, comes the following:

As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

The answer to your question, frankly, is captured in his clear admission in the Brief Statement: he has no answer to the conundrum of universal atonement vs. particular redemption – that is, that all are forgiven/atoned for, but only some are saved. So my answer to your question is, Pieper rejects the idea that Scripture answers this question, and moves on.

I realize he’s a much-revered guy in your circle, but I think that there are two tracks to follow here, one of which is the presentation of the Gospel in the NT, which I covered previously. The other track is the question of whether or not the NT explicitly anyone for whom Christ's sacrifice was not intended.

For example, the argument in Romans 9 is, in effect, God kept His promise to the Israel which was actually Israel, and not just every son of Jacob – so that God’s promise is not actually going to save everyone either in Israel or in the history of mankind. Further, the question of God promising to do something for Jacob but not for Esau is also a plainly-described activity of God’s choice to save some and not others.

In Mat 23, Jesus himself tells the Scribes and Pharisees that their “house is left to you desolate” after describing the depth of their sins against God. That doesn’t sound much like He intends to die for them. And how much more does that get underscored when John the Baptist has already told them, in Mat 3, “Who warned you to flee the wrath to come?”

And the truth is this: there is no question that, in the final account, not all mankind is saved. You have yourself agreed with this. A universal atonement would mean that all sins are forgiven, and that God has no basis for condemning any man to hell.

So my own case, as I would put it against the Lutheran case you propose, is that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all men as an offer of forgiveness for those who repent; God forgives those who repent on the basis of Christ’s atonement for their sins; those who have repented and will repent are those for whom Christ intentionally and specifically died on the cross; those who do not repent were never atoned for because they are condemned for sin. Christ never died for those who would never repent – and Scripture gives us clear examples of some of those.

Question #4 for Frank

2009-03-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

You are probably not very familiar with true orthodox Lutheranism, but Francis Pieper (1852-1931) is widely regarded as our finest dogmatician. He is very true to what Luther himself taught. His three-volume Christian Dogmatics has been used for nearly 100 years as the standard systematic theology textbook for orthodox Lutheran seminaries around the world. His Brief Statement is commonly included in orthodox Lutheran confessions of faith. On the issue of limited atonement, Dr. Pieper writes, “The Calvinistic doctrine which restricts the grace of God to only one part of mankind is a trap of despair, a pestilence, death and damnation for the soul... The Calvinist Reformed doctrine that the grace of God includes only one part of mankind is a soul-murdering doctrine.” (Theses on Unionism, p. 12). In light of our discussion so far, can you affirm for me (w/ explanation) that you understand why, from an orthodox Lutheran perspective, he would make such a statement?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net

Answer #3 to Frank

2009-03-28T07:33:00.000-07:00

This statement from the Canons of Dort is correct insofar as it goes. The atoning work of Christ "is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world". But this statement does not address the universal extent of Christ’s atonement, which is what the doctrine of limited atonement attacks. Although sufficiency and extent may appear similar, they are actually two completely different concepts. Sufficiency deals with the "value and worth" of the atonement. Extent deals with who that value and worth was actually wrought for and freely given to. If a king were to give a great sum of money to you that was sufficient to pay for the debts of the world, but did not give me any money for my own personal debts, that would not help me. I need to know that not only is the gift sufficient to pay my debts, but that the gift was intended for and given to me personally so that I might make use of it.

Now the universal atonement of Christ asserts that the true Gospel is how "Christ died for OUR sins" (1 Cor. 15:1-4), something that we may objectively announce to other people indiscriminately. This Gospel allows me, Stuart Wood, to proclaim to you, Frank Turk, that Jesus died for YOUR sins.

A limited atonement (that Christ died for the elect only) cannot assert this word "OUR" and thus cannot objectively announce the forgiveness of sins to others. It does not allow you, Frank Turk, to proclaim to me, Stuart Wood, that Christ died for MY sins.

This is a fundamental and profound difference between Luther’s Gospel of the Reformation and the gospel of five-point Calvinism. All orthodox Lutherans have recognized this. While preaching on John 1:29, Luther says, "This is an extraordinarily fine and comforting sermon on Christ our Savior. Neither our thoughts nor our words can do the subject full justice, but in the life beyond it will redound to our eternal joy and bliss that the Son of God abased himself so and burdened himself with my sins. Yes, he assumes not only my sins but also those of the whole world, from Adam down to the very last mortal. These sins he takes upon himself; for these he is willing to suffer and die that our sins may be expunged and we may attain eternal life and blessedness… This is the basis of all Christian doctrine. Whoever believes it is a Christian; whoever does not is no Christian, and will get what he has coming to him. The statement is clear enough: ‘This is the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.’ Moreover, this text is the Word of God, not our word. Nor is it our invention that the Lamb was sacrificed by God and that, in obedience to the Father, this Lamb took upon himself the sin of the whole world." (Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 162-169)

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net

Question #3 for Stuart

2009-03-27T19:00:00.000-07:00

As I said, my thanks for the clarification of your own position. Here's why I asked for it. Section 2, Article 3 of the Canons of Dort says, "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

So Dort -- which is the foundational "calvinist" enumeration of Limited Atonement -- says that Christ's Sacrifice is "more than sufficient for the sins of the whole world".

Since that is true, how would you explain why you insist that there is a difference in substance between the Calvinist teaching and the Orthodox Lutheran teaching?

Answer #3 for Stuart

2009-03-27T14:00:00.000-07:00

The answer to the question you have asked, Stuart, is No, I do not think that the Gospel can be defined two ways; any other gospel than the Gospel preached by the Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles and their “true sons in the faith” is a false gospel.

The problem is that the way you have asked this question seems to want to imply to the reader that you and I are affirming different Gospels -- and if that’s the choice the reader has to make, let’s make it clear to them which of us is advocating the proclamation of the Gospel as described by Scripture.

The Gospel is proclaimed in John 3:16-21. Does this passage claim that anyone beside the believer is saved – or does it say plainly the wicked love darkness, hate the light, and are thereby condemned?

The Gospel is proclaimed in John 6:38-40. Does this passage say that Jesus came down from heaven to atone for all men, or to lose “nothing of all that [the Father] has given me”?

The Gospel is proclaimed in Acts 2:14-39. Where does this passage proclaim that the hope of any one man is that prior to his repentance his sins are atoned for? It seems rather seriously focused on Jesus as judge against those who do not repent.

Again, the Gospel is proclaimed in Acts 3:11-21 (note particularly Acts 3:19 and the condition that sin might be “blotted out”). Is the hope Peter offers there that sin is already forgiven, or that it may only be forgiven through repentance?

The Gospel is proclaimed in Acts 7 – and note: Stephen’s proclamation to them was not, “your sins are already atoned for,” but that God will judge those who do not repent.

And there may be other Gospel proclamations in the NT – but we have to make sure we recognize the difference between extolling the Gospel to believers (cf. 1 Cor 15 or Col 1) and proclaiming the news to unbelievers (cf. Acts 17:22-31).

What you have done is an error – but it’s an easy error to make because let’s face it: it is true that the call to repentance Paul makes to believers is actually formulated like that. For example, 1 Cor 1:26-31 has Paul telling the Corinthians they should not be in division because they are united in Christ – Christ’s work is already working for them.

I think you mean well, and I think you have made a mistake. You may be wrong, and your goal of removing limited atonement from the Gospel may be nonsense, but I think you do it because you want to express love for people. That’s only a worthy goal if what you express is actually love and not a false hope.

Question #3 for Frank

2009-03-27T08:04:00.000-07:00

Based upon the true universal atonement of Christ, I have asserted that the Gospel is defined “as the objective proclamation to an individual that Christ died for his sins, personally”. Based upon a limited atonement, you have now said, “frankly all men are not assured that Christ died for them… The Bible never says that Christ died for someone in particular”. Does this not prove my original thesis, that “the doctrine of limited atonement necessarily changes the definition of the Gospel”? We may not agree as to which Gospel is the true Gospel, but no one can deny that we have two different Gospels. Luther’s Gospel of the Reformation is indeed different than the gospel of five-point Calvinism.

Assuming that we agree on this point, my next question for you – do you think that two contrary definitions of the Gospel can both be true and saving?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net

for the record

2009-03-26T13:41:00.000-07:00

For the record, I am and have always been 100% confident that Pastor Wood is a right-minded Lutheran. I am grateful for his clarification of his own position in answering my question.

Answer #2 to Frank

2009-03-26T09:51:00.000-07:00

This question and its introduction show a definite lack of understanding as to where I am coming from. For the record:

1. I have no confusion about the “proclamation of the Gospel with the necessary effects of the Gospel”. The proclamation of the Gospel is universal. The effects of the Gospel are particular. See the parable of the Sower and the Seed (Matthew 13:3-23). I have also stated this very clearly below - “Christ did indeed redeem all men from their sins on the cross in that He is “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin (singular) of the world” (John 1:29). He took away the whole lump of sin, for all men, from Adam down to the very last mortal. But this universal atonement is effective only through faith. “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8).”

2. I do not believe, nor have I ever said, “that those to whom the Gospel was never proclaimed would be, by default, not lost”. My position, simply put, is that those who receive the one and only true Gospel, proclaimed to them personally, based upon the one and only true universal atonement of Christ, will be saved. Those who reject the one and only true Gospel, proclaimed to them personally, based upon the one and only true universal atonement of Christ, will be lost. As to all others who have not heard the Word of the Gospel, I leave their fate in the hands of a wise, just, and merciful God. Since God’s Word is silent about this, then we, too, must make no final assertions here. We do know that we are commanded to “preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), as that is the revealed means by which all human beings will be saved. For those who have never heard, I leave it as Luther left it with Zwingli “If God has saved him, he has done so above and beyond the rule.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, p. 152).

Finally, as to being “a right-minded Lutheran”, I want you to know that, though trained as a Calvinist, I am an orthodox Lutheran pastor, holding completely to the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord (1580). I believe those confessions to be true to Biblical and historical Christianity in every doctrine which they assert (many of which address the errors of Calvinism). I have also read all 54 volumes of Luther’s Works and another 16 or so books by Luther. As far as I know, there is nothing in the English language that Luther wrote that I have not read. Many of the more important writings (Bondage of the Will, etc.), I have read multiple times. I have also read 7 biographies about Luther, and have made several trips to Germany tracking out many of the still-existing Luther sites. I don’t say this for my own sake, but for yours, that is, to reassure you that I am “a right-minded Lutheran”.

Pastor Wood

Question #2 to Stuart

2009-03-26T07:44:00.000-07:00

Let me suggest something and then ask a question. I suggest that you have confused the proclamation of the Gospel with the necessary effects of the Gospel. Put another way , no right-minded Calvinist would deny that God’s intention for the Gospel is that it should be proclaimed to every human being by us who are saved, but no right-minded Lutheran would affirm that those to whom the Gospel was never proclaimed would be, by default, not lost. Particularly, I’d point to the high Lutheran view of baptism to underscore the necessary of receiving the Gospel in order to be saved.

So I ask you: If the scope of Christ’s atonement is universal as you affirm, how does that correspond with what the Bible teaches us about the fate of those who never actively receive the Gospel but never actively deny the Gospel?

Answer #2 to Stuart

2009-03-26T07:22:00.000-07:00

I think that if you’re going to define an attribute of Christ’s atonement as “able to fail to achieve what it was made to accomplish”, Stuart, then yes: we have different definitions of Christ’s atonement. But I think you and I would agree without any qualifications that, for example, John 6:39-40 says clearly that Jesus saves and does not just create an opportunity to be saved.

There are many tensions in Christian theology which all systems seek to resolve, and one of them is how we view the contrast between the certainty of Christ’s work and the question, “who will be saved?” And this is critical, Stuart: you and I agree that only the believer is saved. All men are not saved, and frankly all men are not assured that Christ died for them. For example, the one who has never heard the Gospel, and therefore has never either denied or accepted it, will not be saved: he will be condemned. This is why the Gospel must be proclaimed: grace is by faith, and faith comes by hearing.

The view you are proposing in your question is that the Gospel is a message which says, “All men are saved now unless they reject this salvation.” The problem is that in every case in the Bible where the Gospel is proclaimed, the declaration is, “All men are condemned unless they believe.” That is, the consequences of Christ’s sacrifice are not the default benefits of any particular person unless he rejects them: the default condition of any person is condemnation unless he repents and believes.

Your question, then, is posing a false premise – that any person has a right, prior to repentance and faith, to assume Christ died for him. The Bible never says that Christ died for someone in particular therefore they should believe; it does say, however, that Christ is coming to judge the living and the dead, therefore repent in order to receive forgiveness based on the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. For example, in 1 Cor 15, Paul plainly says, “Christ died for our sins,” yes? But the implied “us” there is “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, to whom the letter is addressed.

Therefore, to answer your question as you put it, no one should ever say, “Christ died for you personally, and for your sins specifically” unless that person has believed and repented of sin. Rather you should say, “because you are a sinner, and require a savior to escape the coming judgment, believe in Christ and repent in order that you will be saved.”

Question #2 for Frank

2009-03-25T12:00:00.000-07:00

I think that we can agree that we have two contrary definitions of Christ’s atonement. I say that Christ died on the cross for the sins of all mankind, from Adam down to the very last mortal. You say that Christ died only for His elect, not for all mankind. I am now asserting that this difference in how we define the atonement creates a necessary difference in how we define the Gospel. I define the Gospel as the objective proclamation to an individual that Christ died for his sins, personally. I do not believe that you can define the Gospel in this same way, with these same words. John Bunyan (author of Pilgrim’s Progress), who held to the true universal atonement of Christ, had it exactly right. He says, “the offer of the Gospel cannot, with God’s allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that [universal extent of the atonement] be taken away there is indeed no Gospel nor grace to be extended” (Reprobation Asserted, Chapter 9).

Based upon your belief in a limited atonement, are you able to define the Gospel as the objective proclamation to an individual that Christ died for his sins, personally? Also, this question assumes that you know nothing about this person other than that he is a fellow human being.

Pastor Stuart Wood

Answer #1 to Frank

2009-03-24T11:50:00.000-07:00

These statements in the Synod of Dort can be misleading in that they assert only a part of the story (that which relates to the elect), and say little or nothing in regards to God’s intentions towards all men. Insofar as they speak about God’s intentions towards the elect, for the most part I would agree with them. There is no problem with #1, #5, #6, #7, and #8. I agree with #2 that God grants “justifying faith” to the elect through the atonement of Christ (because the saving Gospel, based upon that atonement, is the object of that faith which indeed justifies). But it would be wrong to say that God grants all faith through the atonement (cf. John 8:30, 31; Acts 8:13; Acts 26:27, etc.). There is a necessary correlation between the Word of God and the gift of faith (Romans 10:17). There is not a necessary correlation between the atonement of Christ and the gift of faith, other than that the atonement is also asserted in the Word of God (as are other truths). This is also the problem I would see with statement #4.

As for #3, my problem would be with the expression “only those”. Again, if we are looking to the final end of the matter, the statement would be true – “only those” who receive the one and only objective true universal Gospel, how that “Christ died for their sins”, would be finally redeemed or freed from the judgment of their sins. However it is also necessary to point out that Christ did indeed redeem all men from their sins on the cross in that He is “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin (singular) of the world” (John 1:29). He took away the whole lump of sin, for all men, from Adam down to the very last mortal. But this universal atonement is effective only through faith. “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). For this reason, the orthodox Lutheran theologians make a distinction between objective justification (whereby Christ justified all men by His universal atonement) and subjective justification (which speaks of the application of that atonement to the individual through faith). The statements of the Synod of Dort would be true to subjective justification, but not true to objective justification (which is what really deals with the universal extent of the atonement).

It is also important to understand that faith is “not of ourselves”. It is “the gift of God” and is created in the sinner by the Word of God itself. A great analogy can be seen with the raising of Lazurus. Lazurus was indeed dead, and was unable of himself to respond to the Word of God. But when Christ said, “Lazurus, come forth”, this very same Word which spoke to him also wrought in him the ability to respond and to come forth. All was of the Word and of grace, but yet Lazurus did indeed respond by the power of that Word.

So it is with the Gospel. The objective Gospel Word is sent to the individual sinner and says, “Christ died for YOUR sins”. By God’s grace (via the power of the Word), the individual (who is dead in his trespasses and sins) responds with faith and is also raised from the dead. Why this happens to some and not to others, we leave as a mystery. We do not attribute any “differences” in man (as some men do), nor do we fault God for the sinner’s own unbelief.

Pastor Stuart Wood

Question #1 for Stuart

2009-03-24T10:16:00.000-07:00

Stuart, welcome to D-Blog.

In my opening statement, I have listed the Synod of Dort’s exposition on the effectiveness of Christ’s Atonement, and labeled the statement with 8 notation markers. Because this is the definition of limited atonement, I assume you disagree with it.

Using the notation I have added to that statement, please explain which part(s) of that statement you think violate what the Bible teaches us about Christ’s work. In other words, where does the statement from the Synod of Dort violate what the Bible teaches about the Gospel?

Answer #1 to Stuart

2009-03-24T10:06:00.000-07:00

My thanks to Stuart for clarifying the start here. I hope we can get on-track at this point with a formatted discussion which the normal readers of this blog can follow.

The question, as I understand it, is, why should Stuart’s 3 primary objectives be regarded as “nonsense” by anyone. And of course, one tactic would be to cover all the cited verses Stuart listed in an attempt to disambiguate them. However, I am limited to 500 words, so I’ll save my questions for him to clarify his exegesis, and spend my time here clarifying what I believe to be the Biblical case.

The first issue, I think, is that it is important to grant this much: there is no question that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all men. Anyone who denies this, frankly, is wrong. The Gospel is good news to all people – because it is God’s offer of forgiveness for repentance based on the work of the resurrected Jesus and his death on a cross. And there is no question that all who believe the Gospel will be saved. This is also why it is good news to all people: none who believe will be lost.

With those basic points of agreement, what we must do, then, is think about what the Bible tells us about this good news. If the basis of forgiveness is Christ’s work – and we agree it is – for whom does Christ’s work actually work?

To all men, we proclaim boldly: for all who will believe.

What we do not, and cannot, proclaim is that Christ’s work saves all men, or that all sins are forgiven universally, or apart from faith and repentance. The expression of the Gospel in John 3, and the content of the Gospel in Acts 2, is this: salvation is only for those who believe. All who believe the Gospel believe this – and it ignites our passion for evangelism, because we know that only Christ saves, and only the proclamation of the Gospel declares Christ to the lost so that they may believe.

In that, the work of Christ is limited because some will not be saved, and will not believe. We know this for certain because in Rev 20:11-15, there is a final judgment, and those who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged by God for their evil works. If Christ’s work was for them, and they were still judged guilty and condemned, God would be unjust – extracting a penalty from the damned which Christ has already paid for them.

It is therefore nonsense to say that limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel: it is in fact part and parcel of the necessity of the Gospel, because Christ’s atonement does not work for those who never repent and believe.

Limited Atonement = Another (heteros) Gospel

2009-03-23T09:24:00.000-07:00

I am re-posting my original post as Frank and I had an email mix-up and need to now put this discussion in the correct order. Please, though, read this carefully, as it is the whole crux of the issue for me.

I have three objectives. First, I want to show how the false doctrine of limited atonement is contrary to the plain, simple, clear Word of God, as evidenced by “behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (Luk. 2:10); “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16); “This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42); “who is the Saviour of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10); “who will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4); “who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6); “one died for all” (2 Cor. 5:14); “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19); “who tasted death for every man” (Heb. 2:9); false prophets “even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1); “who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9); “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2); along with the equally clear Luke 14:16-24; 22:20, 21; John 3:17-18; 6:33, 51; 8:26; 12:47; 16:8, 9; Acts 13:26; 17:31; Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 4:3,4; 1 Tim. 2:5; Tit. 2:11; 3:4; Heb. 10:28, 29; and 1 John 4:13, 14.

Second, I want to show how the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily changes the definition of the Gospel, how that "Christ died for OUR sins" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). This is "the Gospel", Paul said, "which I preached unto you, which also ye have received" (v. 1). He preached this Gospel, these very words, "Christ died for OUR sins", to the Corinthians before they received the words, before he knew if they would believe it, while they were yet sinners belonging to the unbelieving world. Only the true universal atonement of Christ can allow for this word "our", as it was indeed accomplished for all men, from Adam down to the very last mortal. The Gospel is addressed to lost sinners personally. Now the false doctrine of limited atonement cannot let this word "our" stand in its gospel. It cannot allow a person to objectively and truthfully proclaim to another human being that "Christ died for OUR sins", both yours and mine (since it does not know if the person is truly one of God's elect). And since those who hold to limited atonement cannot confess the one true Gospel, theirs is necessarily "another (heteros) gospel", that is, a false gospel.

Third, I want to show that Paul warns very strictly against anyone departing from the one and only true Gospel. He writes, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8,9). The bottom line is that for anyone to hold consistently to the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily puts him under God's "anathema", and necessarily means that such a one cannot be a true Christian. The Gospel door is the "first of all" (1 Cor. 15:3), the very foundation of the Christian faith. Whoever does not enter by this one and only door, build upon this one and only foundation, is lost.

I have sought to expose this issue for the sake of dear souls. I don't seek anyone's hurt, but their everlasting benefit. I, too, once held to this false doctrine of limited atonement, but by God's grace, I came to know the truth about its implication to the Gospel. My question now to Frank - why should this be regarded by you or anyone else as "nonsense"?

Pastor Stuart Wood

Statement of Thesis: Limited Atonement

2009-03-22T19:56:00.000-07:00

The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father[1] that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones[2], in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation[3]. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father[4]; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death)[5]; that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith[6]; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end[7]; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle[8].

If we're going to talk about the Gospel, and whether limited atonement is a necessary attribute of the Gospel -- an attribute without which one has changed the Gospel and therefore produced a false gospel -- we have to understand what we're saying. To help with that, I have inserted 8 tags in the above text to follow what is being said. As we stroll through this discussion, I will refer back to these makers as necessary -- noting that the point in question precedes the marker.

This excerpt from the Synod of Dort is saying something implicitly which Pastor Wood would never deny: not every person is saved from Hell. Pastor Wood would also not deny another statement from the Synod of Dort which I have omitted here to conserve words: everyone deserves to go to Hell.

The consequences of the Gospel is what renders the difference, namely that those who are saved from Hell are saved by means of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. And again, I think Pastor Wood would not deny this. The problem is that Pastor Wood wants to extract the fact that the Gospel has a limited effect from the Gospel.

Pastor Wood has thoroughly-good intentions -- because I believe he wants to proclaim the Gospel to every living thing, as the Bible instructs us to do. He wants to say to every man, "Repent and believe because Christ is the Savior!" And with him, I agree on this. The Gospel is the power to save -- and it will save everyone who believes it.

For us believers, we have to come to grips with the plain fact that not everyone will believe the Gospel. In that, if there is an explanation for this which we must believe, that explanation must come from Scripture. And fortunately for us, Scripture does explain it.

For that reason, I propose this thesis:

For someone to say that the doctrine of limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense.

I look forward to Pastor Wood's answers and his questions.

Opening Statement - The Danger of Another (heteros) Gospel

2009-03-22T09:20:00.000-07:00

First, some necessary clarifications - the name is Stuart Wood, not "Woods". Mr. Turk had offered to debate me on the subject that we had been discussing on a recent Pyro blog thread, which was why limited atonement necessarily changes the definition of the Gospel. When I took him up on his offer, he then tried to switch topics on me from what we had been discussing and propose something new. In that email he asserted that, "For someone to say that the doctrine of limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense". I responded that since that is his assertion, let us debate that thesis. He wrote back that he agreed with this, and here we are.

Now, for my opening statement, I have three objectives. First, I want to show how the false doctrine of limited atonement is contrary to the plain, simple, clear Word of God, as evidenced by “behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (Luk. 2:10); “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16); “This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42); “who is the Saviour of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10); “who will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4); “who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6); “one died for all” (2 Cor. 5:14); “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19); “who tasted death for every man” (Heb. 2:9); “even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1); “who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9); “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2); along with the equally clear Luke 14:16-24; 22:20, 21; John 3:17-18; 6:33, 51; 8:26; 12:47; 16:8, 9; Acts 13:26; 17:31; Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 4:3,4; 1 Tim. 2:5; Tit. 2:11; 3:4; Heb. 10:28, 29; and 1 John 4:13, 14.

Second, I want to show how the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily changes the definition of the Gospel, how that "Christ died for OUR sins" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). This is the Gospel, Paul said, "which I preached unto you, which also ye have received". He preached this Gospel to the Corinthians before they received it. Thus, his one and only true saving Gospel included the word "our" before he knew if they would believe it, while they were yet sinners belonging to the unbelieving world. In fact, the true universal atonement of Christ requires this word "our", as it was accomplished for all men, from Adam down to the very last mortal. On the other hand, the false doctrine of limited atonement cannot and will not let this word "our" stand in its gospel. It cannot allow a person to objectively and truthfully proclaim to another human being that "Christ died for OUR sins", both yours and mine. And since those who hold to limited atonement cannot confess the one true Gospel, theirs is necessarily "another (heteros) gospel", that is, a false gospel.

Third, I want to show that Paul warns very strictly against anyone departing from the one and only true Gospel. He writes, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8,9). The bottom line is that for anyone to hold consistently to the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily puts him under God's "anathema", and necessarily means that such a one cannot be a true Christian. The Gospel door is the "first of all" (1 Cor. 15:3), the very foundation of the Christian faith. Whoever does not enter by this one and only door, build upon this one and only foundation, is lost.

I have ventured into these hostile waters for the sake of dear souls. I don't seek your hurt, but your everlasting benefit. I, too, once held to this devilish lie, but by God's grace, I came to know the truth. Throughout this discussion, I will seek to be respectful, but forceful, due to the eternal souls at stake. My question now to Mr. Turk - how is this "nonsense"?

Pastor Stuart Wood

Welcome Back

2009-03-21T12:18:00.000-07:00

Well! Long time no see.

A couple of weeks ago, a person of interest named Stuart Wood [Sorry about the typo, Stuart] showed up at TeamPyro and began saying things he believes about the evils of Calvinism. You'd think that after doing this blog for a couple of years that he wouldn't be the first to show up here on that subject, but indeed: he is.

He has asked me to defend the following statement:

For someone to say that the doctrine of limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense.

I actually offered him a more theologically-oriented affirmation of Limited Atonement, but people are people. I'll be defending that affirmation, and I suspect that Stuart will be denying it.

Welcome back. We'll begin after Stuart posts his opening statement and his first question. This is a 10-question exchange, and the normal word limits apply.

Final Statements

2008-07-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

I don't think there is much to be said, that makes sense to say here. The arguments are unrebutted. I'll close with a quote from one of the earliest authentically dateable documents we have: one generation after Paul:

After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their [Christian] religious rites (from a report from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan in 95 CE letter 58)

I'll thank Frank once again for hosting this debate and anyone interested in discussing this topic further is welcome to do so on a thread I set up for this purpose over on church-discipline. Anyone interested in reading more material about the evolution of the attitude towards women should see defense against patriarchy (and I'd note that Frank did not take a pro patriarchy possition in this debate). Hope you all enjoyed reading this exchange.

Closing Statement from cent

2008-07-07T18:48:00.000-07:00

I leave the reader to decide if CD-Host's rhetoric matches the weight of his arguments.

My closing statement is taken from a book I have just received from Crossway by Mark Driscoll, A book you'll actually read On Church Leadership.

A complimentarian church should encourage women to use the spiritual gifts and natural abilities that God has given them to their fullest extent. This could be in anything from teaching a class to leading a Bible study, overseeing a ministry, leading as a deacon, speaking to the church in a way that is not preaching, leading worship, serving communion, entering into full-time paid ministry as a member of the staff, and receiving formal theological education -- or basically every opportunity in the church except what the Bible and the elders deem elder-only duties. Therefore the issue is not if a woman can be in ministry, but rather what ministry a woman can be in and remain faithful to Scripture.[43]

Conclusion by CD-Host

2008-07-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly this debate has ended up being really focused on the issue of hermeneutics. How to read and understand what the bible means. What is what a verse means literally is not the final determiner for what it means interpretatively. Rather we do need to employ a meta-narrative / a hermeneutical methodology to read scripture. For example 1Timothy 5:23 gives a clear prescription of wine for stomach ailments. I know of no Christian today who demands that Christians with stomach problems should drink wine and not avail themselves of better medicine.

I presented 3 criteria for a perspicuous read of scripture based on the positions held.

The positions were justified based on scripture.
These positions were held historically by large groups of people over a long period of time and those people saw scripture as justifying these positions.
There are no major contradictions between these positions held.

What I have shown rather is the opposite: that large groups of people over a long period of time held positions that contradict one another to their core and saw their positions as deriving directly from scripture.

An alternative theory of interpretation has been presented and while not trying to be insulting it amounts to the “personal standard”. The bible means whatever thoughts pop into the person's head when he reads it. So as we went through passages the analysis of:

Jerome
Aquinas
Augustine
Heracleon
Elaine Pagels
Sarah Grimké
Pope Paul VI
Valentinus
John Calvin
Micah (the biblical prophet)
Saint Augustine
Saint Ambrose
Ambrose's sister
Saint Thelca of Iconium
St. Eustochium Julia
Saint Marcella
Saint Macrina
Bishop Epiphanius
Synod of Laodicea
Saint Catherine of Alexandria
Rashi (Shlomo Yitzhaki)
(other woman)
Arthur Hurdack
N.T. Wright (give title)
The Cathars
The Marcosians
Robert Dabney
The author of the Acts of Paul
The Thecla cult which became 1600 years of the convent movement
The Apostolic Constitution
Adolf von Harnack
Chabad
(and others I got tired of making this list)

was simply dismissed out of hand. Not only were they said to wrong but so obviously wrong that it did not place scripture's perspicuity in doubt. I find this an indefensible position. It is arguable to disagree with the general view that words mean what people think they mean, sentences mean what people think they mean and books mean what people think they mean. It is not arguable though to assert that if people don't agree on the meaning of the a word, that word's meaning is universally held; if people don't interpret a sentence the same way the sentence is clear; or that if i large numbers over long periods of time don't walk away from a book with the same opinions about the books position on an issue that the book is clear on that issue. There has been no counter argument other than assertion on perspicuity so I can't say much.

The other part of the debate centered on aner. And again I presented evidence. In particular 3 major Biblical translators who specifically rejected Frank's theory of what the word could only possibly mean:

Barclay Newman (CEV) who co-wrote the dictionary for NA27
Bruce Metzger (NRSV) ,
C.H. Dodd (NEB/REB)

Their views were also rejected without really much counter argument. Here again we run into the problem of a non-methodological personal interpretation. It is impossible for me to argue that about which thoughts occurred to Frank when he reads a passage. It is a burden that cannot be met by any debater. Moreover the thought standard fails a basic desirable criteria: The bible can be perspicuous only to individuals coming from very closely related cultures. In particular the bible cannot have a universal culturally independent meaning under the "whatever thoughts pop in my head" criteria.

Now I understand Frank's read of the verses, its not an unreasonable read. But, there are many verses that on their surface are quite oppressive of woman, far more so than what Frank argued for:

Woman are property of their husbands, “belonging to your neighbor” with a comparison with homes, slaves, lifestock and other property (Exodus 20:17)
Woman but not men suspected of adultery should have the test by water (Numbers 5:11-31)
Woman leading in almost any capacity is a curse (Isaiah 3:12)

Either we can develop a morally repulsive society based on literal readings of these and many other verses or we can choose to look deeper into the text and deconstruct in a way to create a reasonable Christian society. Aner in Titus 1:6 and in other places is a perfectly good example of this. James 1:12 “Blessed is the man (aner) who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him”. What about woman who have persevered under trial? Does the verse apply them? Are they cursed rather than blessed, or is God completely indifferent to their perseverance? If it is reasonable to assume that James was using aner in the sense of humanity rather than simply men, then a natural question is in what other capacities is aner being used similarly? We will never know for sure however using linguistic methods. If James had wanted to say, ‘Blessed is the man,’ wanting his readers to understand an adult male and not just a blessed “person,” he have said written in Greek the exactly the same thing. Only context, common sense and a desire to build a decent society determines the meaning there.

This is not specific to Greek, the same thing is a true in English as in Greek. Could a piece of advice like, “A man should make sure his spouse has read his will” apply to a woman who writes a will? That “man” in the above advice literally means “a male adult human” and that “his” is even further evidence for the maleness of “man” was never in question. Just as the fact that aner literally is man was never in question. What is in question is the interpretation not the literal structure, that is as I said our interpretation requires dynamic equivalence not the formal equivalence because in english we would use spouse where Paul used husband.

Another point that bears repeating is the immediate context. Titus 1:6 in the context of a list of moral qualities aner is being used to represent simply a physical state (being male) or a moral state (being faithful to one's spouse). Just as there is no way to prove that James really means person in James 1:12 there is no way to prove that Paul means faithful spouse in Titus 1:6. Ancient Greek uses male words to represent both males and humanity in general. This is fundamentally a question of interpretation. Unless one wants to assert that being female is a moral defect the context tends to lead one to the Metzeger/Dodd/Newman line of thinking.

But the bible lets you see whichever version you want, both are from a purely linguistic standard equally valid. However, throughout this entire debate no evidence was presented that forces one to see this verse as forever disempowering woman. This was a point based solely on assertion, it is true because the reader wanted it to be true. So we are left with a simple question: do we want woman's oppression? If the answer is yes then Titus 1:6 means husband. And if we want we can choose for a bonus that woman who persevere in the faith receive no merit from God. If the answer is no, then we can note that there are many reasonable and good reasons to choose faithful spouse rather than say non-polygimist male as the preferred interpretation.

Questions 7 and 8 dealt with the issue of whether there was any good reason to suspect that woman were too defective as to be capable of leadership in churches. Frank could not come up with one, even when pushed. Which calls into serious question why create such a massive injustice without an obvious reason. I suspect the reason that Frank couldn't answer is that ultimately he has too much decency to actually believe what is necessary to defend the ideology behind the view he is advocating. Someone like Johannes Gratian from The Decretum, "It is the order of nature among human beings that woman obey man and sons obey their parents, because it is justice in those matters that the lesser obey the greater" (Ch XII). Gratian has no trouble saying what the problem is with female leadership:

This is the likeness of God in man [the male], that he is created as the only being, from whom the others have come, and that he possesses, as it were, the dominion of God as his representative, since he bears in himself the image of the one God. So woman is not created in the image of God; that is what [scripture] says: ‘And God created man [the male], according to the image of God he created him’; and therefore the Apostle also says: ‘Man certainly must not cover his head, because he is image and reflection of God, but woman must cover her head because she is neither the reflection nor the image of God'. (ch XIII)

Choose to hold Gratian's philosophy and Frank's interpretation of Titus 1:6 becomes quite natural. Choose to believe that women are not some form of defective men, but rather a co-equal entity and it becomes much harder to defend Frank's position. And I think that is why his argument ultimately failed. In 1840 among most Presbyterians the bible mandated slavery, in 1880 in forbid it. The bible can be read to support inequality and oppression but doesn't have to be.

I believe, if there are no good reasons to exclude woman other than “God said so” then it becomes very important to make sure he really did say so. Just as we no longer believe that the mark of Cain is obviously black skin and God did not make Africans black so as to create a situation of permanent oppression; we do not have to believe that God meant to permanently oppress woman whether in church or the home. The Christian tradition has a wealth of material from which to construct an alternate theology, of which I've presented a slice during this debate.

One area that has come up is the issue of whether submission at home precludes leadership in church. I've shown that this was not the view of many Christian scholars.

To conclude:

Perspicuity has been disproved
The entire theory of sexual differentiation on which Frank's case is based has been historically rejected by Christianity in favor of a theory of gender
The entire argument over aner missed the separation between literal translation and meaning.
Scripture most certainly can be read to support woman in all forms of eldership / leadership
Woman have served in precisely the capacities Frank excluded: within scripture, right after the new testament period and throughout history, the most notable being the convent movement

I thank Frank for hosting this debate and continuing with it. It has been very long for both of us. In the 19th century conservative Christianity was greatly discredited by defending slavery to the very end. I see no reason that the gospel should once again be similarly tainted for this issue.

A#10 for Frank (how is the church led)

2008-07-01T17:45:00.000-07:00

Actually I'm using your definition of leadership I'm just holding very strictly to it. That is you used the definition of teach and rebuke. My very first question was clarifying there to make sure that is what you meant, that you didn't want to include other stuff. If I were to give my personal definition of church leadership it would break into three primary classes:

Symbolic -- The Mass (i.e. eucharist) and granting absolution from sin.
Managerial -- Appointing of persons to perform functions
Financial -- Control of money and resources

Teaching being a primary leadership activity came 100% from you not me. But for example on financial you didn't express any hesitation at all so that didn't seem to be a problem. You're protestant so you don't think anyone, man or woman, can perform the symbolic ones, so no sex discrimination there. The managerial ones were a real issue on both our lists. So we focused on management and teaching.

As far as leadership being tantamount to eldership, I may very well have been confused there. I've been trying to work out hard and fast guidelines for acts that are prohibited (again 2nd rebuttal and the first question). But I was never able to get a clear distinction on this from you, and this may have been a miscommunication that wouldn't surprise me. In the end if there is a distinction there must be acts allowed to the one not allowed to the other.

For example something like: elders vote on church policy, ministers are leaders but they don't vote they execute the instructions of the board of elders with respect to church policy and have no authority in deciding it, would have made that issue clear. Moreover it seemed clear throughout the debate that teaching / rebuking were the activities prohibited to woman so it really didn't matter too much who could do what in your system. Just to be clear if woman were allowed to do everything but buy carpet then the debate would have been about carpet purchasing.

Now in what sense is the church being led based on your definition? Well it sounds to me like spiritual leadership. You are reformed so doctrine and theology are extremely important to you, hence being able to decide those issues both in theory (teaching) and practice (rebuking) are what is key. But you are essentially asking me to read your mind with that part of the question.

So in short what I did was pushed against your doctrine, because I don't think the bible nor history supports it. If you look back, your questions were mostly of the form: why do you assert that person X did Y; and mine were mostly of the form: how can you continue to believe doctrine X when the bible or history or common sense clearly shows X to be false.

Hope that answers your question. I was a bit confused. Feel free to take a free Q10.5 with no extra question from me if I didn't answer everything. See 'ya in the rebuttals. And sorry about the heated exchange near question 5.

Q#10 for CD-HOST

2008-07-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about your position for almost three weeks now, CD-HOST, and it leaves me very puzzled, especially in terms of the way you qualify so many things as "leadership" tantmount to "eldership".

Here's my question: because you seem to have such a broad view of what a "leader/elder" is, it seems to me that anyone who does more than show up for services on Sunday should be classified as a "leader/elder"; how is the church being "lead" if this is true?

A#10 for CD-HOST

2008-07-01T12:53:00.000-07:00

The short answer is that I’d reject the way you have said what you have said, but I think that the pragmatic application of sending women into the missions field alone because they are the only volunteers one has is a faulty practice for multiple reasons, the most important of which is the clear New Testament teaching regarding male eldership.

The long answer asks more contextual questions than you have asked here. For example, how is a missionary “sent”? To whom are they accountable? How is their teaching reviewed? Because it seems obvious to me that there is a massive difference between sending a anyone alone into a foreign country to be a missionary, and sending a woman into a country who is under the care of sending churches who assist her in material and spiritual needs. A missionary who is set essentially with a Bible and a billfold is a mis-sent missionary; one who is sent who is still accountable to her church, and teaches what the elders of her church have commissioned her to teach, and places the converted she finds in the care of her elders, has done what any Christian ought to be doing in any church at any time.

That said, Paul didn’t send any female missionaries, your inferences about Priscilla notwithstanding. And missionary work most often results not in sending people back to one’s elders but in fact – as Titus was sent to do by Paul -- establishing elders in the various places one will go. In that work, women are not eligible. That doesn’t make any person evangelized by a woman unsaved, but it does make churches which, in the long run, reject sound ecclesiology.

For the record, I have a lot of concerns with so-called "sending agencies" as well, but that's not in the scope of this exchange.

Your view continues to be extremely black-and-white on this subject, and in trying to frame the matter as either one is an elder or one is an outcast and a damned sinner, you miss almost all of the real liberty expressed by the New Testament regarding the matter of ministry and service in the church. All service to the Gospel is not eldership: some of it – in fact, most of it – is simply living as if you have a living faith. Until you work that into your view of both your own position and the position(s) you are trying to criticize, your argumentation falls flat.

Q#10 for Frank (damnation of female teachers)

2008-07-01T06:03:00.000-07:00

Sorry I can't return the favor of a softball question.

I'd like to address the issue of single female missionaries. The reformed tradition has for over a century sent single woman primarily to Asia as missionaries. In fact the turn of the century (20th) pool was 2 females for every male volunteer (cite). In that capacity women have both led and taught. Is this permissible and if so why? If not, these are reformed woman, who in your opinion are deliberately disobeying God. That is assuming you are correct engaging in unrepentant sin. Moreover many of them speak about how these were some of the best and most important years of their lives and encourage other woman to follow.

The bible speaks very harshly of people that take pride in their sins. It speaks very harshly about leading others astray. So are these woman missionaries damned for their unrepentant sins of teaching, leading and then compounding it by attempting to recruit others to their wicked lifestyle?

Obviously I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but is female teaching and leading in mission churches wickedness?

A#9 for Frank (Child Elders)

2008-07-01T04:50:00.000-07:00

My short answer is a qualified yes. First off I don't think there is anything prohibiting it at all for a church, so in answer to the "can we" is a yes, there have been child kings. For the rest of the answer I'll address the "should we". For this I think it matters a great deal what sort of church he goes to. For example if he is Catholic then Titus 1 is talking about a bishop (episkopos from Titus 1:7) and I can't think of any circumstances in which a 12 year old is qualified to be a bishop. So to answer the question you are interested in, I'll assume Reformed. I don't know much about the structure of your church, but one of the things I think is fantastic about the reformed tradition is the separation between teaching and governing elders. I'll assume this exists in the answer.

In terms of a governing elder I not only think its allowable I think it's a good idea. One of the biggest problems that I see on my blog, and one of the most frequent complaints is that issue of discipline are handled in ways that are extremely biased. Elders being older men tend to sympathize with issues that effect older men. Hence woman and younger men tend to get disciplined much much more frequently, i.e. there is systematic bias. In terms of age: the sins of Venus are punished much more often than the sins of Pluto. In terms of male to female discipline in most studies it runs 1:2-3. And I yes I think a child elder could do a lot to try and fix those sorts of biases. Moreover such a governing elder creates a reasonable bridge of communication between the membership and the church government. Creating these sorts of bridges is a key to good government.

Now it certainly is the case that a 12 year old, or even a 22 year old is likely on average to be substantially less mature than a 52 year old. They aren't going to carry the same sort of respect with the adult men; but middle aged and elderly men have good representation already. Among the disempowered or the alienated a child elder might carry more authority since they aren't seen as being part of the machine. They would carry more respect with that demographic and be more able to rebuke them with moral authority. The message underlying Titus 1 is that governing elders need to be people that others in the church will listen to, in a democratic culture ideas of empowerment and representation are important for governing in a way they aren't in a highly hierarchical culture.

Now in terms of teaching elder you listed a bunch of skills. I think the specific skills are relative to the church. I can image churches in which being able to read at all puts you well above the vast majority of membership. I can imagine others (say at Nassau Presbyterian Church) where "knowing the Greek" means being able to discuss issues with the individual fragments of the early bible. So I'll change the question to a situation where a 12 year old knows more than 98% of the church, and is a talented teacher. Also for many reformed traditions to become a teaching elder means certification by the denomination. Essentially "can you pass the test". In this case the test determines if the boy knew enough. And yes if he is a good teacher, good morals, believes the creeds and people will listen I don't see why he can't be a teaching elder. Is this likely to happen often? No but the issue you are asking about is ever rather than frequency.

Q#9 for CD-HOST

2008-06-30T19:02:00.000-07:00

This is my second-to-last question for you, CD-HOST, so it will be one of two softballs.

I want to think about Titus 1:6 again for a minute, particularly in these terms. Let's say that in my church there is a boy of 7 or 8 who -- because of his family or his particular interests -- has mastered Greek and knows more about theology than the average American adult Christian. For example, let's say he has memorized the Westminster catechism, and can teach others effectively through the Bible.

In my view, he is not qualified to be an elder -- not because of his age per se, but because of his maturity. In my view, Titus 1 excludes children from being elders or leaders of the church under any circumstances -- because they are under the authority of their parents. A child can never be an elder.

In your view, why or why not could this boy, today, be an elder in his local church based on the critieria of Titus 1?

A#9 for CD-HOST

2008-06-30T18:59:00.000-07:00

Three questions then? Okay -- but I'll pick the order.

What do you think prophecy means?

This question happens to be a pet peeve of mine, so it gets center stage. The most common understanding of this word is "Words given by God which explain His purpose and intention, particularly in the revelation of Scripture." However, Scripture itself uses this word in at least two other ways -- the edification of God's people, and words of encouragement or consolation.

Most people miss this completely, and it gets them into a lot of trouble. For example, they miss that what Miriam did when she "prophecied" is explicitly (if we trust what God said) of a lower authority than what Moses did. Likewise, in 1 Samuel we can see that what Saul did when he "prophecied" was not used by God to direct the nation Israel, while Samuel was given prophesies by which the Lord spoke to Israel and rebuked them.

Not all prophecy is equal.

How does it imply lesser authority than simply teaching from the bible directly?

Because it describes a variety of activities, it doesn't describe the authority of the activity: it describes the reliability of the activity; to put that another way, a prophecy of encouragement is encouraging not because it is nice but because it is God's intention and not man's. For example, Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2 is clearly a kind of prophecy -- because it speaks of a king who is not yet even born yet. But to whom was this prophecy given or directed? At best, only Eli and Hannah heard it -- and perhaps she taught it or repeated it to her son, Samuel. And while it has plainly become Scripture, it is not prescriptive but descriptive of the future of Israel.

Calling "prophecy" in general a matter of demonstrating authority misses broadly the diversity of actions the OT and NT label "prophecy".

Do you agree that women are gifted with prophecy?

I'd be utterly stupid to deny that women have prophecied in Scripture. It's a plain matter of fact that Hannah, Elizabeth, Miriam and others have all been given prophecies.

But frankly, I believe it's as equally plain that the gift of prophecy (as CD-HOST intends to use the word here) has ended and no one today utters prophecy -- unless they are reading Scripture. Women today are not gifted with prophecy, and neither are men.

Q#9 for Frank (Prophecy)

2008-06-29T07:39:00.000-07:00

The issue of prophecy has come up a few times. Do you agree that women are gifted with prophecy? What do you think prophecy means? How does it imply lesser authority than simply teaching from the bible directly?

A#8 for Frank (house churches of Prisca)

2008-06-28T21:16:00.000-07:00

Well glad you like the citations. I think this debate has successfully explicated the issues.

Where does the New Testament say Priscilla founded any churches? Phrased another way, which churches did Priscilla found without Paul being the one establishing the foundational message and teaching the coverts the essential message of the Gospel?

The two churches are:

In Rome ~ Romans 16:3-5
In Ephesus ~ 1 Corinthians 16:19, Acts 18:19

To start with let's turn the question around. What evidence exists that Paul founded these churches at all? He never claims anything like that. Paul doesn't refer to these as his churches.

We can make a positive case, though I'm not sure it is needed. Why do we suspect that Prisca ran the churches, rather than Paul ran the churches and she was just a local agent? Because that would make her a subordinate to Paul, and as we've discussed she is regarded by him as an equal. If she was in a relationship of submission to him as a local agent, that is under his command, she would not be an equal.

Another piece of evidence is Apollos. 1 Cor 3:9 shows again Paul stating that he and Apollos are working together, another use of synergoi, not that Apollos works for Paul. The whole point of the 1 Cor 3 is rejecting the sort of hierarchy which would put one or the other on top; Jesus is on top. Now if Priscilla who had an instruction relationship with Paul was acting as nothing more than a local agent for Paul I don't think we would see this sort of language given that Priscilla and possibly Aquila are/were Apollos' teachers.

Finally while highly speculative we have Adolf von Harnack's view that Priscilla wrote Hebrews (link to Ruth Hoppin summary). Luther suspected Apollos. In either case we have the differences between the Pauline theology and the theology of Hebrews coming from Priscilla's school. Which again would eliminate Paul being in charge of theological oversight and Priscilla being in charge of cooking and serving wine.

Q#8 for CD-HOST

2008-06-28T14:54:00.000-07:00

What I like about the answers you give, CD-HOST, is that you often cite sources when you make an answer. And in the case of Metzger, for example, I can't contest your citations as I don't have access to the things he has written on this subject.

However, the main text we are trying to sort out here is the New Testament -- which we both have access to. And in your citation of Chrysostem, you have cited him as endorsing the idea that Priscilla was the teacher of Apollos. Well, problematically, this is one place where the NT lists Aquila first, and says plainly "they" (Aquila and Priscilla) both taught him the errors of his ways. If your rule that being listed first makes one of the other more prominent, more authoritative, Chrysostem must be wrong.

That said, let's examine the final claim you have made about Priscilla: that she "founded two churches".

Where does the New Testament say Priscilla founded any churches? Phrased another way, which churches did Priscilla found without Paul being the one establishing the foundational message and teaching the coverts the essential message of the Gospel?

A#8 for CD-HOST

2008-06-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

The significant difference between being a drunk and being a woman, CD-HOST, is that God explicitly called being a drunk a moral failing, and does not call being a woman a moral failing -- or a failing of any sort. I gave the answer I gave previously because there are two wide classes of things in the NT which God communicates to us about who ought to be an elder: qualifications (that is, the reasons to consider one for being an elder) and disqualifications (that is, reasons one who has the qualifications should be removed). The former class is a list of characteristics which commend one to the role. The latter class is a list of behaviors which break the rules governing the church.

I want to say this clearly: the reason "because God said so" is reasonable if God actually said so. Titus 1:6 makes it plainly clear that the essential pool of candidates for the other characteristics is men -- in the same way it makes it clear that they are to be of good character and able to teach. One has to undo any reasonable way of reading Titus 1 to say, "well, it does say 'drunkard', and it does say 'not violent', but when it says 'man' it means anyone in spite of the overwhelming evidence of that vast majority of translators of the NT."

To ask, "well, why did God say that" is not an objection to the fact that God said it. We could equally ask, "well, why did God say that drunkards are not eligible but he doesn't mention liars or gluttons?"

However, the answer to your inquiry lies in the Eph 5 passage with which I opened my argument. God has established man as the figure of Christ in his family. If a man demonstrates fidelity to that call, he makes himself eligible for eldership.

Q#8 for Frank (woman's defect try #2)

2008-06-28T13:12:00.000-07:00

Women are eligible to serve in ministry in the church. They are not eligible to be elders. It is not because of some fault they possess: it is because those are the qualifications God has established for eldership.

This is kind of a non answer. What I was looking for was the reason behind the qualification. Its obvious why a poor teacher should not a teaching elder, or someone of low public esteem. That is they have defects which are damaging to their ability to function. What I'm asking for is the defect that woman posses in your opinion. Both drunks and women can excluded by the "God said so" argument, but in the case of drunks one can see why such a rule exist. So what is the reason for women?

A#7 for Frank (Prisca as a leader)

2008-06-28T07:39:00.000-07:00

First a comment, Frank didn't imply that it synergoi means underling. My claim was that synergoi precludes an underling. This is crucial because of who is saying it, someone of very high rank, Paul. If she isn't an underling to Paul than she has real stature.

This is why I'm using colleague and not co-worker, and even that is a little weak. Basically, if a man fixes something with the help of his slave they worked on the project together the slave is not a synergoi. Similarly for a hireling. If he works on it with his business partner that person is a synergoi.

How do you substantiate your claim that this convention means Pricilla was the more important or higher-ranking person? To ask that same question another way, why would we read that matter to mean that Priscilla was the elder rather than, for example, the person more endeared or more familiar to Paul or the people he was writing to?

Appeal to experts. As far as I know this is the universal opinion of commentators. Every study bible seems to mention it, and academic resources seem to hold this to be true. Ben Witherington for example in he anti-feminist tendencies of the "Western" text in Acts (Journal of Biblical Literature 103 no 1 Mr 1984, p 82-84.) (I will email if requested) mentions the shift of Acts 18:2 which you sighted in your question. Metzger in the textual commentary on the NT has this verse with Priscilla named first and gives the same reason. The Teachers' Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles By Francis Nathan Peloubet, is cited by both as for the importance of this shift (i.e. diminishing her role).

According to the resources I found Karl Josef Rudolph Cornely in Commentarius in ep. ad Romanos" (Paris, 1896) collected the various ancient authorities on this subject and there seems to be agreement that Prisca is the more important of the pair since otherwise she would never be named first. I will admit I haven't read this book, so I am relying on secondary sources on what it says.

Chrysostom held a similar opinion regarding her being named first indicated she was the teacher of Apollos.

This too is worthy of inquiry, why, as he addressed them, Paul has placed Priscilla before her husband. For he did not say, “Greet Aquila and Priscilla,” but “Priscilla and Aquila.” He does not do this without reason, but he seems to me to acknowledge a greater godliness for her than for her husband. What I said is not guess-work, because it is possible to learn this from the Book of Acts. [Priscilla] took Apollos, an eloquent man and powerful in the Scriptures, but knowing only the baptism of John; and she instructed him in the way of the Lord and made him a teacher brought to completion (Acts 18:24-25). (John Chrysostom, “First Homily on the Greeting to Priscilla and Aquila”)

In his commentary on 2Tim he says essentially the same thing. Incidentally in Homily 40 on Acts he indicates Paul left them in Ephesus specifically so they could teach. A direct reference to her being a teacher.

The current Pope commented on church tradition, "Later hagiographic tradition has given a very singular importance to Priscilla, even if the problem of identifying her with the martyr Priscilla remains."

A few more pieces of evidence are archeological. In Rome to this day there is still a street named after her (but not him) in the aventine Via de Santa Prisca. There is a large church built in her honor, that goes back to the 4th century and possibly earlier, which legend says was the location of her house. Incidentally under the church was a mithric temple, so it may have been that Prisca's "house church" was really quite nice, a converted temple, it also contains Christian catacombs from no later than the 2nd century. Her grave still has veneration.

So to summarize the bible teaches

Paul does not consider her an inferior
That she outranked Aquila
That she taught theology

External sources teach

Church fathers agree she was a teacher
As far as I can tell all commentators agree on my interpretation of her being named first
Archeology indicates she was the more important of the pair

(Exuding the initial clarification on synergoi and the final summary I'm at 495 words, so I'm a bit over on word count here. I thought both were worth the extra space).

Q#7 for CD-HOST

2008-06-28T06:57:00.000-07:00

Your last answer, as always, is interesting. In the first place, it overlooks my admission that "synergoi" means "co-workers; those who shared a task", but what it doesn't address is that is has no rank connotation. In fact, your answer problematically implies that I have said that "synergoi" means something like "underling" when I have not. It's a term of fellowship, not a term which compares or gages authority.

But that said, you have asserted that Priscilla is always named first when she and Aquila are referenced, making her the more -important one. Well, that's simply, factually untrue -- Acts 18 and 1 Cor 16 both name Aquila first.

Now, that said, we can concede that the majority of times she is referenced, she is named first. How do you substantiate your claim that this convention means Pricilla was the more important or higher-ranking person? To ask that same question another way, why would we read that matter to mean that Priscilla was the elder rather than, for example, the person more endeared or more familiar to Paul or the people he was writing to?

A#7 for CD-HOST

2008-06-28T06:37:00.000-07:00

When I took a previous job in real life, one of the qualifications for that job was "BS or BA or Higher" -- meaning the qualified candidate would have a college degree. When I took the job, my primary direct report was a fellow who applied for the job, was interviewed, and didn't get it. He was a long-term employee of that company, and he had a spotless record and excellent technical skills.

I had lunch with him the first week I was in the office, and he accepted (begrudgingly). When we talked about where he was professionally, he was very put out that someone about his age with a little less in-company experience was hired over him, and he wanted to know what was wrong with him that he didn't get the job. We talked about it, and it turns out that he had a GED and no college classes.

His problem, in short was not that he was "disqualified" or that there was "something wrong with him". His problem was that he was not first qualified -- he didn't meet the primary qualifications for the job. Being "disqualified" means that one who was eligible is no longer eligible -- not that someone has never been eligible. In the same way this fellow was not eligible -- that is, he didn't have the required qualities -- some people are not eligible to be elders.

Women are eligible to serve in ministry in the church. They are not eligible to be elders. It is not because of some fault they possess: it is because those are the qualifications God has established for eldership.

Q#7 for Frank (defective women)

2008-06-27T14:22:00.000-07:00

Lets take the list from 1 Tim 3:1-7. It lists a lot of reasons to exclude people from being Elders:

Involved in scandal
A polygamist
Sexually unfaithful
Intemperate
Insensible
Disrespected either by the Christian or secular community
Inhospitable
Unwilling or unable to teach
A drunkard
Violent
Quarrelsome
Greedy
Poor household manager
Recent convert

This is a list of defects. So what defect do woman have that prevents them from being able to exercise leadership? What puts say Anne Graham Lotz on par with say: Ted Haggard or Martin K. Miller as being unfit? Because when we cut through the the obfuscation that is essentially the claim that woman are defective in some way which prevents then from being able to exercise leadership properly. So what is the defect?

A#6 for Frank (Prisca & synergoi)

2008-06-27T13:43:00.000-07:00

What evidence do you have that makes it necessary to interpret “synergoi” in Rom 16 as a term denoting authority or position?

Co-worker is too weak. This term can even be used as a euphemism for sex (though I'm not arguing or implying Paul means it that way), colleague, good friend perhaps. What the word is never used for is a subordinate. That is Paul considers Priscilla an equal. That he is addressing her as an equal is the extent of the word claim. But that means that at least in Paul's mind she is not beneath him either directly or diagonally. So for example if Aquila were a peer and Prisca worked under Aquila the word choice would be been inappropriate, i.e. a diagonal subordinate.

But that is not the core of the strong claim. She is consistently named first. Normally the man would be named first or exclusively; meaning she is the better known and more prestigious of the two. And this is all over the place in various cities, so she is not just some well known person locally rather she is well known within the whole of the Christian community, better known and more respected than Aquila.

So in other words we have Prisca approximately equal to Paul at Paul's mind; and Priscilla generally regarded as well above Aquila. Those two facts together are strong evidence. But it gets worse. In Acts 18:26 she is portrayed as teaching a theologian about theology. Again she is listed first, with regard to the act of teaching. And this is what is devastating because it means she is well respected as a teacher / missionary not because of some secondary factor.

Its interesting you mention Phil 4:3 because that's another group of woman he is talking about.

Q#6 for CD-HOST

2008-06-26T13:28:00.000-07:00

Let’s look at another interesting example you have provided for your argument: Prisca, or Pricilla, the wife of Aquila. You have already said that Paul calls her “synergoi”, and you have claimed she “founded two churches”, and that she is “more prominent” than her husband Aquila.

Let’s start here: Paul says calls both Prisca and Aquila his “synergoi” in Christ – which means that he worked with them for the sake of Christ. I grant that. The problem is whether or not “synergoi” means “people who worked with me on the same task” or “people of my same authority and position”.

It seems to me that “synergoi” is used to mean “someone who worked with me, without regard to authority or position” – co-worker, someone who did their part. I say this because that’s how Paul uses that word in 2 Cor 1 and Phl 4:3 -- not as a rank, but a term of camaraderie and true fellowship.

What evidence do you have that makes it necessary to interpret “synergoi” in Rom 16 as a term denoting authority or position?

A#6 for CD-HOST

2008-06-26T13:10:00.000-07:00

Well, you repeat your question, I’ll repeat my answer – with minor embellishments. There are at least 3 plausible explanations regarding the cult of Thecla:

[1] Your assertion that they had "the Pauline scriptures [and] direct knowledge of his opinion on scripture and perhaps even ecclesiology" is an overstatement that cannot be substantiated, due to the apocryphal nature of what we know about Thecla; the cult of Thecla was in fact a cult with little or no knowledge of the Pauline epistles as far as any historical evidence demonstrates. Therefore, it's not very useful to cite them as a group who are an authority on what Paul said when we in fact have what Paul did write. As the affirming party, it’s CD-HOST’s responsibility to prove and not to assert without evidence.

[2] Even if we accept at face value the claim that Thecla was a student of Paul, there's no reason to believe the followers of Thecla had all of the Pauline letters. There's no evidence, in fact, that any church in the first 2 centuries had all the NT scripture. In that respect, it's not very plausible that they knew what all the letters taught. The only addenda to make here is that it is not my job to prove that they didn’t have any or all of Paul’s letters: it is CD-Host’s job, as the affirming party, to prove that they did in fact have any or all of the letters as it is his assertion. Having “the Bible” by the 3rd century does not demonstrate that their culture was formed by the Pauline epistles, and it begs the question of whether their reading of letters they didn’t have until then was shaped by other factors such as common practice.

[3] Now think about this: even if we concede that Thecla was a student of Paul, and her disciples had all of Paul's letters, the question remains as to whether they read those letters any more credibly than CD-Host is reading the arguments poised against him in this exchange. For example, the on-going discussion here about what "aner" means is only obscure if you cannot believe that "aner" means "husband" or “man” when it refers to a man who has a wife. It is entirely plausible, and this is a foundation of CD-HOST's argument, that these people took a clear text and refused to believe it because they have a cultural or social bias which they cannot give up in favor of what the text says.

I would add this: the real irony in using all-woman communities as an example misses the point that the leaders of those communities were never able to celebrate their liturgy without male leadership. This underscores my previous point that the Elder has always been a different kind of leader than other leadership roles in the church. Showing women doing things that are leadership-like doesn’t make them Elders – and this is specifically my affirmation in regard to the thesis of this exchange.

Q#6 for Frank (Thecla and perspicuity #2)

2008-06-26T09:09:00.000-07:00

When I asked my question about Thecla and the Valentinus you made a claim that the cult of Thecla has little knowledge of the Pauline epistles. Do you have any evidence for this? For a second century group not to have the 7 core epistles plus some additional works is very strange, I want to confirm that is actually your claim. Further by the 3rd century they would have had the entire bible. Also as the idea of convent system developed it received some of its strongest support from Jerome who unquestionably had, read and understood all the letters.

The core idea of the cult: sex segregated communities of virgin/chaste woman in leadership positions has continued to this day. Today we still see nuns leading bible studies to mixed groups. Today we still see nuns disciplining their own membership. The Catholic Church has the epistles.

I don’t think a plea of ignorance is valid. So I’ll ask the question again. Given a community which sees itself as descended from Paul (i.e. Thecla was his student and companion) and possesses the epistles; how can they have read the epistles to support female leading and teaching if the epistles are clear that this is prohibited?

A#5 for Frank (Miriam meets critiera)

2008-06-26T07:27:00.000-07:00

What I would respond to your comment when combined with the answer is that it shows a very clear example of how the bible on this issue acts like a mirror, reflecting back to people what they want to see. 150 years ago the bible under a conservative reformed hermeneutic virtually mandated racial slavery; 50 years later it preached the equality of all men and racism was sin.

Now consider your attitude about husband of one wife when I brought up Jesus and Paul, or your own example of Moses. Paul identifies himself as unmarried, that is not a husband. Moreover he hints strongly and church history teaches that he was a lifelong bachelor. Your attitude is that unless the bible specifically says “never married” he could have been married and that “husband” includes widower. Further you argue having once had a wife is sufficient to qualify as a husband even though no one uses the word that way. You have consistently interpreted the evidence to favor male leadership and male qualification; while consistently either ignoring or minimizing the evidence with regards to female leaders.

With other male leaders you have worse problems:

Moses is a 3 woman man, serial monogamist
David & Solomon, were never 1 woman men yet they each wrote books of the bible
Jesus is not a husband at all

Now consider the case of Miriam. God himself say he sent her visions and dreams, the bible identifies she passed this information on. This is teaching God’s word to the people. We’ve mentioned this a ½ dozen times you excluded it. So lets make it clear: Miriam taught God’s words to his people under his direct orders. The bible is absolutely clear on this point. We are not given the content of the teachings within the bible, but that in no way contradicts the principle that these teachings exist. Even here there are strong hints, that is a reasonable hypothesis as to the content of her teaching, material Moses could not have taught that would have required a female instructor.

We have strong analysis she is a leader:

Micah puts her on par with Aaron and Moses.
Calvin confirms she is a leader
Rashi confirms her importance as a community leader

I’ve also presented that the bible makes it likely that Miriam rebuked. Yes Miriam is qualitatively different from Moses. Moses essentially founded Jewish religion and wrote 5 books of the bible. She is not on par with Moses, so what? Neither is any other man in the bible. The question is, is she less than a church elder? And the answer is she much, much more.

Further the list was of woman who fulfilled a variety of functions. As I’ve said before, prophecy in of itself kills the no teaching argument. And this was one of the central promises (as affirmed by Joel and Acts) that God gave to woman.

There is no one who acted like a 21st century protestant on the list. Miriam being depicted as almost 4000 years ago is going to be least like a 21st century protestant. I don’t think her failure to act like one invalidates her as a female teacher and leader anymore than the fact that she didn’t drive to church while listening to her ipod invalidates her.

I think a divinely sanctioned teacher of the word who is a leader is sufficient evidence to provide a counter example. Calvin agreed the evidence on Miriam and Debra met the standard. I feel pretty comfortable standing on the analysis of Calvin and Rashi. You can ask the question as many times as you like, but not being equal to Moses is not the same as not being a leader at all.

Q#5 for CD-HOST

2008-06-24T11:57:00.000-07:00

I found your last answer interesting, but frankly unconvincing. I think you have lost sight of our thesis statement – The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is clear about the God-created differences between men and women; those differences normally have consequences in ecclesiology.In that, if one proposes that some Old Testament figure overturns this thesis as an example, one has to demonstrate positively (that is, by evidence) that the example suits the counterclaim.

Your last answer, it seems, is that there is no evidence for your claim vis. Miriam except, as you say, “God via. Micah considers her such an important figure”. Well, it turns out that Miriam lead worship at least once in the Old Testament – in Exodus 15. She didn’t deliver the Law or stand in judgment over Israel, and she didn’t offer the sacrifice, but she lead song in praise of the victory of Yahweh. If we want to know why Micah and God listed Miriam in this passage, we have to know what Miriam did and not what we wish she had done, or might have done if there were any evidence for such a thing.

Miriam lead worship in song under Moses. She did not lead the people with teaching and rebuke. However, that is the ministry of Moses as explained, for example, in Acts 15.

My affirmation would be, then, that there is a qualitative difference between Moses and Miriam in the life of Israel, and that the same qualitative difference exists in the ministry roles described for the church in the New Testament.

How would you respond to that affirmation?

A#5 for CD-HOST

2008-06-24T11:55:00.000-07:00

I leave it to the reader to discern why CD-HOST has chosen to ask 4 questions in one single question, and what that says about the state of this exchange and his position.

Answering the questions in order:

[1] “kite” does actually mean “kite” in this phrase – the problem is that the whole action ought to be interpreted as a metaphor for doing something by one’s self as long as you leave the speaker alone. The literal understanding (go play with a toy, such as a kite) leads us to the implied or idiomatic understanding (as long as you leave me alone, I don’t care what you do).

This is a great example of how idioms actually work – but it has nothing to do, for example, with what was written by Paul in Titus 1:6, as we shall see in [3], below.

[2] What I think is interesting is that 1Cor 7 proves Paul is not currently married, not that he has never been married. A “one-woman man” could easily me a man only married once, such as a widower.
As to Jesus as an example, he turns out to be unique in more ways than merely never having been married – and the irony is that the NT does not say that men who seek to be elders ought to be “exactly like Jesus”. The NT gives significantly better detail – things more practical and actually observable – than to say, “they should be just like Jesus”.

[3] I think you have to read on in the TNIV before you cite it as an endorsement of you view – because it translates “aner” in Titus 1:6 as “man” and not “anyone”, thus:

a man

They think “aner” must mean “a man”; the BDAG thinks it must mean “a husband”. What has happened is that the translators agree that “aner” is not generic, but they disagree about which clause it joins to.

[4] What is at stake in my citation of Jerome is that he translates the Greek into Latin by maintaining the sex-specific identity of the candidate for an elder -- using the unmistakable word “vir” in place of “aner”. In Latin, there are many possible choices if one needs to translate the indeterminate “you”. Sadly, “vir” is not one of them.

What CD-HOST seems to want is complex answers to questions which are fundamentally simple questions. I think it is far more convincing to supply a clear and concise answer – much the way the NT does – and avoid misunderstandings.

~439 words

Q#5 for Frank (BDAG)

2008-06-24T06:16:00.000-07:00

I've been frustrated that rather than engage the previous 2 questions I've given you, and then do your rebuttal during later phases you have used your answer space to raise issues irrelevant to the question. As many as 6 times you have interjected material regarding "husband". So rather than have another question not addressed I'll address BDAG directly.

First off thank you for presenting evidence (3rd party sources), rather arguing from assertion.

1) You are a foreigner and reading an English work and came upon "Go fly a kite". The lexicon generally does not include multiword expression, i.e. it is a good lexicon but not an extensive idiomatic dictionary, and in particular doesn't have that expression.
The entry lists: the bird, a predatory person, a light flame with cloth, a check without covered funds and other standard uses of kite.
How would you derive from the lexicon that the word "kite" in the expression doesn't mean any of those? And if the answer is you wouldn't, how does the BDAG prove what you are trying to show?

2) First you claim that Paul might be married is rebutted with 1Corinthians 7:8. Given that Paul and Jesus are not husbands at all how do they qualify as elders if the expression is to be taken literally? And what argument can their be that a unmarried man is closer to a husband than a married woman? That is what indication does that phrase contain that the the married part is less important than the having a penis part, especially given the context regarding children and a household?

3) You have been quite excited by the TNIV. Yet the translation they use "faithful to his wife" puts the emphasis on action (fidelity). How does this support your position that the core of the verse is status not action?

4) You have mentioned Jerome's translation to woman. Given the extensive conversation that has already occurred regarding gender in Jerome what evidence do you have that he means all females by "women"?

Because I Frank to be able to answer in as much detail as is needed, I'm extending the space limit on the response to 5000 words.

A#4 for Frank (Miriam and expository preaching)

2008-06-22T06:06:00.000-07:00

Miriam is a minor biblical character. I think we are agreed we don't know much about her at all. To even try and answer your question with anything more than "the bible doesn't give us the reason she is a leader", I'm going to need to engage in rampant speculation.

There is a lot of Jewish practice that is specific to women. Moses during the 40 years lays down laws that apply specifically to woman, but not in anywhere near enough detail for these instructions to be carried out. Also there are many other blessings and prayers that are woman's only, and presumably Moses wouldn't know these. That is Jews have very extensive customs and laws regarding duties including those that are exclusive and/or generally performed by woman (example menstral ritual purity and separation of dough) and in general they are passed and taught by women to women. It would not be unreasonable that Miriam as the woman in the triad was the source of these. Especially given Aaron as the third this makes sense, i.e. Moses would have difficulty teaching things he was forbidden to actually do. So we could have Moses handles laws for the community as a whole, Aaron handled the rituals specific to priests, Miriam handled the rituals specific to woman.

Remember the Jews of the bible are not reformed protestants. For them the center of religious life is ritual practice and law not doctrine. But again that is pure speculation, the bible simply doesn't tell us enough about Miriam to know why God via. Micah considers her such an important figure. But from Genesis alone, without Hebrews, we would not know why Melchizedek is such a key figure either.

In terms of teaching "from the word" she can't because it doesn't exist when she is alive.
She however is a prophet. She receives dreams and visions from God and relates them. We don't know the content of these dreams and visions from any verses. So no way to know one way or the other what information God is giving her for her people. I've given a possible hypothesis above.

And as discussed in the last post we know that she acts as a music minister leading the woman in song and worship. As per the Rashi in the last answer she is tied to the granting of water in the desert.

In terms of rebuking we know even less. We know that she does attempt to rebuke Moses, She is criticized for not knowing her place but not for being a woman who rebukes. God in his interaction with her does not support that a religious rebuke is a male only function, but that is an argument from silence.

In the end though no verse where she engaged in teaching doctrine. Neither the bible itself nor history back that the sum total of Christian leadership is merely to preach and rebuke, that idea is modern protestant.

Q#4 for CD-HOST

2008-06-21T14:58:00.000-07:00

I'm a little disappointed that you have chosen not to answer my previous question. I think it would have been instructive regarding how you reason through the NT. However, let's turn to the answer you have given instead.

You have come back to Miriam to say, "well, she was a leader of a sort", and you have used a passage in Micah to justify that this makes Miriam an "elder". This is interesting because Paul tells Titus, in Titus 1:

put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. ... He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.That's Paul's description of the elder in terms of duty or objective.

Miriam is mentioned 13 times in the Old Testament by name. Can you identify even one passage in which she is conducting this sort of work? If you cannot, can you describe briefly what kind of "leadership" Miriam provided which makes her the kind of leader Moses was -- which I would argue is explicitly the kind of leader Paul is describing to Titus?

A#4 for CD-HOST

2008-06-21T14:22:00.000-07:00

As a text, I highly recommend ISBN#0785252258, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised and Updated,By W. W. Klein / Thomas Nelson, which is a standard text on the art and science of hermeneutics. This book identifies the very broad task of hermeneutics well, and to attempt to summarize that text in 500 words would be simply reductive.

To answer your question directly, "hermeneutics" is the study of techniques in literary criticism which are used to uncover from a given text the intended meaning of the author. Factors that influenced the author from a historical, social or philosophical standpoint may be relevant to receiving what he may have written, but how others have received it is nearly irrelevant to identifying what he meant when he wrote what he wrote. Especially, I might add, when those readers are themselves influenced by cultural and social factors which undermine their consideration of what the author intended.

Of particular interest in this matter is, as one might guess, CD-HOST's reading of Titus 1:6. His view is that the generic reading -- i.e., one who is married only once, with no reference to the sex of the one(s) being referenced -- is somehow a better reading of the text in spite of the BDAG affirmation that it is not, and in spite of even the gender-neutral TNIV (let alone almost all modern translations into English) rejecting this idea. Even Jerome, when translating the Vulgate, translated the first half of Titus 1:6 "si quis sine crimine est unius uxoris vir" -- that is, "if anyone is without incrimination, a man of one wife".

The issue of the sex of those Paul commends to Titus is not a matter of social indoctrination or reading doctrine into the text. The NT uses clear words to distinguish between men and women, it describes them as having different roles by the fact of creation, and one of the consequences of that role distinction as ordained by God is roles in the church -- men are called to eldership in the church in the same way they are also called to leadership in the home.

That is a matter of identifying the author's intent and not trying to figure out which reader of the text you find most reliable. It treats the NT as documents which ought to have some relationship to each other, and does not seek to cherry-pick obscure readers and readings in order to justify one's own biases toward the text.

Q#4 for Frank (Hermeneutics)

2008-06-21T13:01:00.000-07:00

What is your standard for determining what a text means? Throughout this debate your standard has seemed to be whatever thoughts pop into your head when you read the words is what the text "says". And then it means whatever meaning you choose to assign to what it says. Confronted with different theories of the text you simply assert they are off topic since they don't address what you think the text says.

I've presented a clear principle of hermeneutics:

A text says what large groups of readers over long periods of time believe it says.
A text means what large groups of readers over long periods of time believe it means.

This is an utterly neutral definition, for purposes of a debate. It reduces interpretation to history. Do you have any sort of similar definition that is not dependent on the state of your own mind for assigning a reading and a meaning?

A#3 for Frank (Miriam and leadership)

2008-06-21T11:00:00.000-07:00

Having established in the previous answer, that Miriam was not punished because she attempted to be a female leader (i.e. the same thing happened to Korah) the question then becomes was she a leader at all. To pick an authority I know Frank respects I will quote John Calvin:

Then he adds, I have set over thee as leaders Moses, and Aaron, and Miriam, the sister of them both.... With regard to Miriam, she also performed her part towards the women; and as we find in Exodus 15, she composed a song of thanksgiving after passing through the Red Sea: and hence arose her base envy with regard to Moses; for being highly praised, she thought herself equal to him in dignity. It is at the same time right to mention, that it was an extraordinary thing, when God gave authority to a woman, as was the case with Deborah that no one may consider this singular precedent as a common rule. (Calvin Commentary on Micah 6:4)

So we see in this quote that Calvin even though he disapproves of female elders agrees that both Miriam and Deborah were leaders with authority. That is he considers these two to be exceptions but does not deny they were leaders with authority. Moreover he asserts that this authority was granted directly by God.

Incidentally the very passage being discussed, Numbers 12:6-8, God himself contrasts the type of information he gives Miriam vs. the type he gives Moses. But what's key here is that he does imply that Miriam has received visions and dreams directly from God. That is while this information is of lower quality than what Moses recieves she most certainly is the recepient of revelation.

For those of a more mystical bent Numbers 20:1-2 presents a more interesting picture, Miriam dies and the water stops. Right after the song of Miriam the bitter water is made sweet, manah comes from heaver and Moses draws water from a rock. As far as I know Christian commentaries see no connection other than sequence. Jewish commentaries have a different take. For them Miriam is associated with water throughout: for example Exodus 2:1-10 where she is associated with the river. Rashi, explains Ta’anith 9a (Ta’anith is the book of fasts and feasts) and provides the background needed to understand Micah 6:4.

Our Sages say that the three great Divine gifts that sustained the Jewish people in the desert-the Manna, the Clouds of Glory, and the Well-were in the merit of these three worthy shepherds, Moshe, Aaron, and Miriam respectively. "Miriam's Well," as it became known - a rolling rock that accompanied the Jewish people on their wanderings - provided fresh water in the desert, not only for the people, but also for their cattle and sheep. It also made the desert bloom with green pastures and beautifully scented flowers. Small wonder the people loved and respected this wise, G-d fearing and saintly prophetess. (Rashi/Chabad link)

Rules of engagement

2008-06-21T10:20:00.000-07:00

I am rejecting these rules. Either the debate proceeds in good faith or it doesn't proceed at all. I don't cite you as saying something when you can produce word for word quotes that are the exact opposite. That is either an error or a lie.

It's your blog if you want to declare that I am now in default then fine. We can stop right here and you generate a post about how you won. But I simply no reason to tolerate intentional dishonesty. I do not consider that a legitimate debate tactic any more than drugging an opponent prior to a basketball game is good sportsmanship. If the misquotes are unintentional you should welcome the clarification. I offered to allow you to modify your previous posts based on the clarification and I do not consider that a "loophole". I do not offer and will not offer a policy unrebutted lies.

Any sentence starting with "CD-Host says" or something of that order that is not followed by a quote in context, should have an accurate summary of what I said. If it fails to I reserve the right to correct. Not the right to rebut but the right to correct the statement. I've offered the same rights and continue to do so. Similarly if a post says something like "CD-Host infers from this" then either it should contain the quote with the inference or it is open to correction. You are free to indicate what I should infer freely, but not to draw your own inferences and attribute them to me.

So what is your call, do we precede in good faith or do you "win" here?

Closing the "clarification" loop-hole

2008-06-21T10:18:00.000-07:00

You've expended a great deal of words already making your point "clear", CD-HOST. The problem is that either of your literal translations [1] ignore the BDAG affirmation that "aner" in Titus 1:6 must mean "husband", and that [2] even if you somehow know more about Greek than the editors of the BDAG, a "man of one woman" or a "one-woman man" must still be a man. To say otherwise is to say that Paul condones women marrying women -- which is utterly untenable.

You've had plenty of bandwidth to make your own points, and to this point in the exchange I have not added one word over my limits -- in fact, I am significantly below my total words.

Please consider my offer to "clarify" closed. You have had ample opportunity to "clarify", and I suggest leaving it to the reader whether your point has been made, unmade, or abused.

Another place that I think you have made a serious error overall is expecting me to simply roll over when you make errors which are frankly fundamental. You have ignored the BDAG lexical authority for Titus 1:6, and to be clear I would love to go through Metzger with you on this passage -- and given that there are 7 more questions in cross-examination, I may. Just because I had no rebuttal for your off-topic opening statement doesn't mean that I am going to ignore glaring errors when you return to the topic. And note: I am able to do it inside the rules of this exchange as we agreed to them from the beginning.

Please answer the question put to you in 500 words or less. You have ample opportunity to examine my assertions and my argument inside the rules of this exchange. Please do so going forward.

Clarification on aner and Sproul

2008-06-21T05:39:00.000-07:00

I will again take Frank up on that offer regarding the ability to clarify when arguments have broken out regarding a misquote or a misunderstanding. I am having trouble assuming good faith regarding the comments regarding aner in his answer #3. So I will even allow him to amend the answer, both to rephrase the comments in his post and to answer the actual question about Thelca and Valentnus if he so chooses after this post. Since this is a clarification I will not present new evidence but simply repeat the arguments previously made.

The discussion of Titus 1:6 consumed quite a bit of my first response, roughly 2000 words. I took this amount of time because the argument was complicated and many of the preliminaries established there would apply to other passages. The argument regarding translation consists of two components:

1) An appeal to authority
2) A commentary / justification written by me about why the authorities were justified in their choice

It should be noted that #2 does not contain the crucial piece of the puzzle, the evidence for the assertion that "of-one woman man" is an expression. Rather it makes clear that I consider the core question to be whether the status is meant (i.e. a man of-one woman) or the relationship is focused on (of-one woman man, i.e married). #1 is not in any way dependent on #2. #2 is a simple appeal to authority, in this case to the authority of the NEB, NRSV and CEV translation teams, as I said quite clearly in the text:

"That is, leading translators all agree the use of male here, is a grammatical form and doesn’t imply anything in the meaning."
"But that may not be entirely convincing, especially to a conservative audience that mistrusts the NEB, the NRSV and the CEV."

I would like to note the ESV does not appear in this list. In fact earlier in the very entry I make very explicit what I will be doing, "Since Frank makes use of the ESV, and the ESV is the default bible for this blog , I think the burden of proof as the guest falls upon me to argue why the ESV is a particularly bad choice for this debate." That is my argument is against the ESV, I am not counting it as an ally. Further in keeping with an appeal to authority I am asserting that we should be yielding to translations committees composed of dozens of experts on what passages mean. Neither Frank nor I knows enough to be on any of these committees.

Now what did these 3 teams do:

CEV: 3 possible translations one of which had any mention of sex in it, they choose "they must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. " as their translation
NRSV: 2 possible translations one of which mentions sex, they choose "someone who is blameless, married only once"as their translation
NEB: Presents the husband of one wife translation and then footnotes that this translation is misleading in the context of Titus 1:5-8.

I should mention the focus was on the American Bible Society throughout, not on Sproul. Why? Because ultimately regardless of what Sproul thinks this passage means he was not part of much less "won" the debate among the translation committee on how to handle the passage. Also, Sproul is a minister not an authority on ancient languages. Further, Sproul believes in "essentially literal" translation (extended discussion on my blog), that is a translation that is misleading but stays closer to the Greek text. As I indicated in the original, "The ESV chooses a defensible but somewhat misleading translation (husband of one wife)".

So I consider the following comment to have crossed the line into being outright dishonest in the chain of logic it presents, and in the relative importance I attached to the Reformation Study Bible:

It is a very strained argument to insist that because the Reformation Study Bible does not here break into a complementarian excursis in this passage that it must be an endorsement of female elders. The problem is the CD-HOST is seeking allies in all corners, whether they are his cohorts or not

It is also dishonest in another way. I never even asserted that Sproul supported female elders. In fact I quite explicitly said the opposite, "I cited R. C. Sproul as someone who would agree with my translation of Titus 1:6.... R. C. Sproul is on the board of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he would most certainly not agree with me regarding female elders."

But even more importantly, the focus on Sproul came from Frank not from I. The Reformation Study Bible got one sentence in my original post, "And even the ESV Reformation Study Bible notes that Titus 1:6 is 'Probably a reference to marital fidelity' while offering prohibition on polygamy, remarriage after divorce as alternatives." This sentence occurred within a paragraph linking a textual argument on 4 verses to a position on the bible as a whole. This one sentence occurs in an aside and not even part of the core thrust of the argument. The reason Sproul is being discussed is because in Frank questioned the reference and I wrote a lengthy response. That is out of 5 pages he choose to focus on one sentence, in a transition paragraph.

In the end the reader can choose between Frank vs. Barclay Newman, Bruce Metzger, or C.H. Dodd on their respective knowledge of translation and ancient Greek. But it is disingenuous in the extreme to distract from the core thrust to indicate that Sproul was a key part of the chain of logic. It is outright false to assert that I ever made a single comment that Sproul supported female elders when I stated the exact opposite.

Q#3 to CD-HOST

2008-06-21T04:01:00.000-07:00

My friend, I think you have evaded the question of what is going on in Numbers 12. You listed Miriam as an example of someone "leading" Israel, when in fact Miriam was not leading Israel and God said explicitly why -- that is, Moses was leading Israel under God's authority. That being the case, Miriam was not leading Israel, and in seeking to get placed next to Moses, she was punished by God. My point was that Miriam is not the example you require to make your argument.

But that said, let's think about another issue which is critical for this exchange. A premise of my argument is that there is a difference between serving the body of Christ and leading the body of Christ. A great example is the one you have brought up several times: the role of worship leader. In your view, if a worship leader chooses what music is being played, that person has "lead" the church in the sense that Paul means in writing to Titus about Elders.

Where in the NT are the duties of the worship leader described?

A#3 to CD-HOST

2008-06-21T04:00:00.000-07:00

I think this is an interesting question, given CD-HOST's premises. However, I can think of at least three plausible explanations which do not impugn the clarity of Scripture:

[1] Your assertion that they had "the Pauline scriptures [and] direct knowledge of his opinion on scripture and perhaps even ecclesiology" is an overstatement that cannot be substantiated, due to the apocryphal nature of what we know about Thecla, and the cult of Thecla was in fact a cult with little or no knowledge of the Pauline epistles. Therefore, it's not very useful to cite them as a group who are an authority on what Paul said when we in fact have what Paul did say.

[2] Even if we accept at face value the claim that Thecla was a student of Paul, there's no reason to believe they had all of the Pauline letters. There's no evidence, in fact, that any church had all the NT scripture. In that respect, it's not very plausible that they knew what all the letters taught.

[3] Now think about this: even if we concede that Thecla was a personal apostle of Paul, and her disciples had all of Paul's letters, the question remains as to whether they read those letters any more credibly than CD-Host is reading the arguments poised against him in this exchange. For example, the on-going discussion here about what "aner" means is only obscure if you cannot believe that "aner" means "husband" when it refers to a man who has a wife. It is entirely plausible, and this is a foundation of CD-HOST's argument, that these people took a clear text and refused to believe it because they have a cultural or social bias which they cannot give up in favor of what the text says.

The question of what Titus 1:6 says is not an issue – in spite of CD-Host's confusion. The Greek says, "εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ". And it might be argued, "well, the first clause refers to 'anyone'". But the second clause does not refer to any spouse: it refers to the husband of one wife, a one-woman man, meaning a man who is not a polygamist or, one infers, divorced from a believing spouse.

It is a very strained argument to insist that because the Reformation Study Bible does not here break into a complementarian excursis in this passage that it must be an endorsement of female elders. The problem is the CD-HOST is seeking allies in all corners, whether they are his cohorts or not – and I suggest that the cult of Thecla could reasonably have done the same with Paul's letters and teaching.

Q#3 for Frank (Thecla and Valentinus)

2008-06-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

I'm going to use my question to address one of your questions, regarding scope

15. Does the Thecla cult have any mention in the NT? It is outside of the scope of this discussion.

This is in reference to a paragraph that ended "It is almost impossible to believe that the Thecla cult could have attributed its founder to being a disciple of Paul’s were he known to be against woman teaching."

Thecla was a companion and pupil of Paul's for years. To just pick another example, Valentinus was a student of Theudas who was a student of Paul's. Thecla founded a woman's ministry and Valentinus allowed woman full priesthood, in fact his cult even asserted that Mary Magdalene was the greatest of the apostles. Both the Thecla cult and the Valentinians revered Paul (seeing themselves as direct descendants) and had very direct connections.

These groups possessed not only the Pauline scriptures but direct knowledge of his opinion on scripture and perhaps even ecclesiology. What is the mechanism by which Valentinus and the Thecla cult, only 2 generations removed from Paul, failed to understand Paul's clear teachings on this matter? What is the mechanism by which their followers came to believe that Paul taught the exact opposite of what you are asserting he taught perspicuously in the very scriptures they based their faith on?

(For the reader interested in more information on Thelca and Valentinus part 2 of defense against patriarchy).

A#2 for Frank (Korah and Miriam)

2008-06-20T06:14:00.000-07:00

I'd offer the story of Korah (Numbers 16) as a quick example that what happened to Miriam was because she was opposing Moses not because she was female. God himself states (Numbers 12:6-10) that it is because of his special relationship with Moses that Miriam and Aaron should not speak against Moses. There is no hint that what happened to Miriam is because she is a woman and the same thing happens to a male. So I think this proves that God did approve of Miriam as a leader, just not as one coequal to Moses. Everyone is subordinate to Moses, including Miriam, because he is a servant.

Rashi upholds this interpretation (comm Numbers 12:8):

against my servant Moses Heb. בְּעַבְדִי בְמשֶׁה, lit., against My servant, against Moses. Scripture does not say בְּעַבְדִי משֶׁה, against My servant Moses, but בְּעַבְדִי בְמשֶׁה, against My servant, against Moses . [The meaning is thus:] against My servant even if he were not Moses, and against Moses, even if he were not My servant, you should certainly have feared him, and all the more so since he is My servant, and the servant of the king is a king himself! You should have said, “The King does not love him for nothing.” If you claim that I am unaware of his actions, this [statement] is worse than your previous one. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8, Tanchuma Tzav 13]

Micah 6:4 indicates that Miriam is a leader at the level that Aaron is, that is Moses, Miriam and Aaron form a leadership triad but she is not on the same level as Moses. Being subordinate doesn't mean that one is not a leader. In fact in most denominations everyone is subordinate to some agency. In the Catholic church deacons to priests, priests to bishops, bishops to cardinals, cardinals to the pope and the pope to the councils (usually council of cardinals). So if your point is that someone is that woman can hold any position as long as they are in some sort of submission to something other group, then for most woman that won't stop them from holding any position in their church at all. And arguable within the baptists, which is your focus, that would allow for woman, because the elders individually are in submission to the plurarity of elders.

_______

As far as aner.... I apologize if I misquoted you it was not my intent. I'm having trouble understanding however that if you agree that

aner does not necessarily mean husband
aner in fact doesn't necessarily imply maleness in and of itself, that is it can mean "someone"
that the expression "of-one woman man" puts the focus on fidelity not maleness

Then I have trouble seeing any grounds for asserting it bans woman. Obviously aner in reference to a woman would tend to imply maleness but that begs the question since the woman (gunE) could be just as generic in an expression context. And I've sited about a 1/2 dozen highly respected sources who back my reading and translation.

Q#2 for CD-HOST

2008-06-20T04:42:00.000-07:00

I was impressed with your list of women you propose were "leaders" in the Bible -- because in some sense all of them did things other people had to obey. However, I think there's the question -- which you have not yet resolved -- of whether any of these women did what they did without being subordinate to any man, and whether or not that constituted "eldership".

The best example to start with is Miriam, the sister of Moses. Num 12 describes what happened to Miriram when she and Aaron began to "talk against" (NIV) Moses, saying they are at least his equal. God rebukes them, and specifically punishes Miriam.

What reason does God give for doing this, and how do you account for it in saying Miriam was a "leader" of the people of Israel?

A#2 for CD-Host

2008-06-20T04:21:00.000-07:00

It'll be tough to keep this answer to 500 words.

On the question of "sin", and the effects of "sin" in these churches, I'd make four broad comments:

[1] I think it's a mistake to confuse "ordination" with "eldership". While the groups you mention here do all "ordain" women even into eldership, that doesn't mean that the proposition is all-or-nothing.

[2] I think that several of your groups bulleted are too broad. For example, it's a little disingenuous to say "Baptists" have been ordaining women since 1920. The largest two sub-groups of the "Baptist" monicker (SBC and IFBx) in fact do not ordain women and will not fellowship with churches that do. That being the case, it's not very helpful to say "Baptists" ordain women when in fact "most Baptists" do not.

[3] I think your question ignores what it means to feel the effects of sin. Of the groups you listed, when we look at the segments which do in fact practice what you are advocating, these are dying churches -- shrinking up to fractions of their former size and influence. They are also an odd mix of morally-permissive and morally-oppressive groups, contrasting traits which I would argue are two sides of the same coin -- namely, the loss of moral authority. Your list also includes a variety of sects that are ordaining and condoning homosexual ministers -- which is an open expression of moral decline. Are these groups all flagrantly flouting their sins? In the popular sense, maybe not. In the sense that they are not able to fulfill the commission of God to His church, I would say, "indubitably".

[4] Last, even if there are no present effects of sin in any of these groups, that has no bearing on whether or not the NT gives strict qualifications for elders -- namely, that they should be men.

Now, that said, I have a problem with something you said in your last answer. You have misquoted me -- misrepresenting what I have said about the word "aner" in the NT. Plainly, my statement was about how to read the word "aner" when the person it refers to is in relationship to some woman, as in the phrase "μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ".

Does it have a generic sense? Sure it does -- but while you have cited BDAG, one thing painfully obvious in BDAG 3rd edition (that's what I have access to) is that the meaning of "aner" in Titus 1:6 is -not- the generic sense, but in fact, the "husband" sense.

Q #2 for Frank (Denominations with Female Ministers)

2008-06-19T07:44:00.000-07:00

The bible argues that the effects of sin are negative and noticeable. Your position is that woman in positions of leadership teaching with authority is sin.

Many denominations today have female ministers in large numbers, for long periods of time. Just picking American churches:

Quakers since at least the early 1800s
The Congregationalist church since 1853
Salvation Army since 1865
United Methodist church since 1880
Church of the Nazarene since 1889
Church of God since 1909
Mennonite Church since 1911
Assemblies of God since 1914
United Reformed Church since 1917
Baptist churches since 1920
PCUSA since 1930
Anglicans since 1942
Hussite Church since 1947
Evangelical Lutheran Church since 1948
Old Catholic Church since 1949
Church of the Brethren since 1958
Metropolitan Community Church since 1968
Evangelical Lutheran 1970
Reformed Church in America, elders 1972
Episcopal Church 1976
Luthern Ministry 1976
Reformed Church in America, minister 1979
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1984
Church of England, 1992
Seventh-day Adventists 1995
Christian Reformed Church, 1995
Worldwide Church of God, 2007

What we see is according to your theory rampant sin yet the churches involved seem to be aware of no ill effects. Why is that?

Answer #1 for Frank

2008-06-19T05:37:00.000-07:00

I cited R. C. Sproul as someone who would agree with my translation of Titus 1:6. I will quote him directly:

the husband of one wife. This difficult expression ([1Tim3:12]; Titus 1:6 cf.[1Tim 5:9]) has been understood to prohibit polygamy, remarriage after a divorce, or marital infidelity. Given the widespread immorality in the Greco-Roman world, the last would seem to fit Paul's focus best. (Reformation Study Bible)

R. C. Sproul is on the board of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he would most certainly not agree with me regarding female elders. He is a key example, that is a damning piece of evidence for two reasons:

He along with Dallas Theological Seminary provides evidence that is my interpretation and translation is upheld by by both liberal and conservative scholarship. In Sproul's case this includs a persons who is actively and not just passively opposed to female elders.
R. C. Sproul was a leader in forming the Standard Bible Society (the money behind the ESV) and has been a major endorser of it. That is in addition to authoring and editing a Study Bible using it. So his comment indicates that the SBS itself would probably agree your interpretation of their product (the ESV) is improper.

Now in your second rebuttal you disputed Sproul's claim that the Greek "aner" was not exclusive to men "but there are no places in the NT where the word 'aner' is used in reference to a someone other than a man". I'd present Romans 4:8, as a quick refutation; since to assume otherwise would imply that woman are not blessed when the Lord will does not count their sins. For a specific cite that aner can be used to mean "someone" I'd cite the Bauer-Danker Lexicon.

Q#1 for CD-HOST

2008-06-19T04:52:00.000-07:00

You have cited R. C. Sproul as someone who would agree with your view about women having ruling authority in church. Yet at ligonier.org, he says this specifically:

As I study the patterns of that in the New Testament, I think that what Paul is saying is that women can be involved in all kinds of functions of ministry in the church but that the role of juridical authority or of governing authority is not to be held by women. I would add that the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars through the years have agreed with the position I have just stated.How would you reconcile your previous statement about Sproul vis. the NRSV and Sproul's explicit statement here?

A#1 for CD-HOST

2008-06-19T03:22:00.000-07:00

I would stipulate to -all- of the activities CD-HOST listed as acceptable for women except for two, and even those would depend on what one means by asking them.

The first objection would be regarding what it means to be "ordained". I think women could be ordained as deacons; the ordination simply states publicly that the church accepts this person for service -- and by "service" one means "particular care-taking acts, such as distribution of food and care for the sick".

The second objection would be regarding whether a woman could "serve on the governing board" or "chair it". "The governing board of what?" would be my clarifying question. Can a woman serve as an Elder of a local church to govern it by teaching and correcting those who are out of line -- for example, rebuking those spreading rumors (a moral failing) or correcting someone who is teaching false doctrine? No, she may not. Can she serve are the chairman of the finance committee and assist in making sure the church has a clean financial bill of health and deliver the findings of the committee to the church/elders for action? Yes, certainly.

Let me say this clearly: many churches do not allow women to take these sorts of roles. Some of that is excessive but within the rights of the local church to determine how to govern itself.

Again, what is evident in CD-HOST's persistence on this issue is that he wants to argue against something I have not hardly presented at all. The question is only if differences in sex are clearly lined out in the NT as providing consequences in the way the church is lead. All these other issues -- can a woman "talk in church" (I would say, "not if she is being disruptive, but that would be true also for a man") or other such issues -- are frankly incidental.

Q#1 for Frank (Specific Acts)

2008-06-18T20:39:00.000-07:00

I will simply repeat my question from the first rebuttal where I made a list of acts and wanted to know which were prohibited, and which are allowed. So for context please see the original. An "allowed" or "prohibited" is fine, with any justifications room permitting. Additionally any other examples for clarity as well. The claim outstanding is that the distinction between leadership and ministry is clear so these should all obviously fall on one side or the other.

Can a woman speaks in church.
Can she speak during the service
Can she command men individually, “Stand third from the back two over to the left”
Can she correct/rebukes men on their behavior, “You’re dropping to an A# when you should be singing in C”
Can she command mixed groups, “Strings, you need to come in one beat earlier on the D”
Can she attending divinity school
Can she be ordined
Can she acceptance a paid position in a church to perform ministry. I.E. being a music minister and not just a music lead.
Can a woman act as a landlord for a church?
Can women make financial decisions unrelated to doctrine, i.e. determine which carpet the church should have should have?
Can a woman serve on the governing board or only work for it?
Can a woman chair the governing board?
If the 501c3 is governed by an individual can that be a woman, i.e. can the pastor(s) be a woman’s employee(s) from a legal perspective?

Clarifications

2008-06-18T18:25:00.000-07:00

Frank has asked for a list of clarifications regarding his points, so I will take that opportunity. So I will present areas where I believe he misstating the case but not argue any points. That is I will simply clarify areas where he is misquoting or misunderstanding but will not attack any of the areas where I think he is presenting weak arguments. Franks comments are in italics mine in plain text.

Is Scripture clear about the things it teaches us about the faith?
CD-Host's answer to this question is "no", with some exceptions noted. The problem is that when the text says something clearly, if he can find some advocate who disagrees with what the text says, he counts the text as unclear, rather than noting the biases or presuppositions of the dissenting readers.

That is actually not my point at all. We can determine what the text says by reading it. We can only determine what it means through interpretation. For a text to be clear it must mean the same thing to most readers under most circumstances. In the first round I gave an explicit test for scriptural readings as a whole to meet those criteria, I went on at length about this criteria. Scripture is unclear if substantially contradictory positions can be held and justified based on scripture for long periods of time by large groups of readers.

Does CD-Host miss the fact that I have conceded that all Christians are called to serve in ministry in the local church?
See above. The thesis of this debate is whether or not the NT says that differences between the sexes results in different roles in the church – not whether or not women can ever do anything but meekly look out from behind their veils.

I didn't argue at all. I asked for exact clarification on what was meant by ministry and what distinguished it from leadership in your opinion. Those were honest questions I was looking for details. In fact question 1 will be to repeat those questions, since I want an answer.

13. Does CD-Host really not understand the difference between the substantive use of "pas" in John and the contextual, particular use of "aner" in Titus?

The extremely disappointing part of this problem in CD-Host's argument is that a comprehensive lexicon of NT Greek is available on-line at BlueLetter Bible. That resource could have told him that no word meaning "men" exists in John 12:32 in the Greek, while the word used in Titus 1 means "husband" when it is in reference to a "wife" in every occurrence of this construction in the NT.

Again, this argument must call into question CD-Host's qualifications to make the nuanced interpretations his argument needs to stand when he cannot make the somewhat-rudimentary work a passage like Titus 1:6 requires.

This is a misquote pure and simple. The context here was an example of where the ESV used gender neutral that the KJV didn’t. I didn’t the mention the Greek of John 12:32 at all, and a claim that I did is simply false. I never asserted that the ESV was incorrect in making this change, what I discussed was how making the change here (and yes I agree with respect to a neuter pronoun) but not in other places strengthened the sexist interpretation of Titus 1:6.

That is I was discussing the inconsistency of the methodology of the ESV, not asserting that the KJV was correct.

Why does the text itself say "one-woman man" and not something more generic, as we might find in ...

Because it doesn't say that at all. This was a misquote, that gets repeated again and again in the response and misstates the translation. What it say is of-one woman man. Very very different, and that is what allowed Dodd, Dallas Theological Seminary, R.C. Sproul, American Bible Society, NRSV (Bruce Metzger) .... to translate it as they did.

CD Host Rebuttal #2 (Curse of Eve)

2008-06-18T17:45:00.000-07:00

Well, in reading the 2nd round from Frank he didn't disagree with my points, which I find very odd. It appears that we have one remaining detail of disagreement on my positive case (and I’ll have to await his response on my negative case) and that mainly boiled down to implications:

But this leads us to my second comment: as difficult as this passage is, it has little or nothing to do with the political life of the church – and certainly nothing to do with male eldership in the church. It seems to me that CD-Host wanted to establish that some parts of the Bible are difficult to understand, or have had many interpretations over the centuries – and I say that's a fine point. Unfortunately, the issue of whether the Bible speaks clearly about male eldership is what's at stake in our thesis, and his first point here is applicable only if the New Testament doesn’t have any clear passages regarding how the church ought to govern itself.

To which I'll respond, perspicuity is a key component of his positive case, his whole case absolutely rests on the belief that the bible points to only one structure. Lose that and the debate is over. But even more directly, virginity ties in to church government and the issue of male eldership. The change of moral status as a result of virginity is a regular theme of scripture, I did the study on 1Cor 7 but we could just as easily have used Rev 14, and how the choir of virgins is absolutely pure “And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.” To repeat, Frank proposed a theory of sexuality, and a biblical interpretation to go along with that theory that banned female elders. Grimké disagrees with his interpretation, while Jerome and Herecleon attack at his theory of sexual differentiation at different points.

I’ll be using terminology as per my first rebuttal, and be more specific. Frank’s analysis is that a class of people, solely on the basis of their female sex are to be denied leadership (which he has defined as essentially a teaching ministry plus some form of governing authority I'm still attempting to get clarity on), forever and regardless of behavior. And further his argument is that the bible is quite clear not ambiguous on this issue. One of the things I showed in my first round is that the bible can be read as proposing a theory of gender and not sex, and if this is true that undermines the argument right then and there. That is any loss of leadership for females would need to be connected to acts, not simply their status. In my Rebuttal #1 I took the very passage Frank had used for his original argument (Tit 1:6) and showed how the “husband of one wife” could be read to imply a status feature using a politicised translation; but that a far better read was a actions oriented read regarding issues of sexual propriety.

And to show this understanding of scripture alters rules regarding ministry even more explicitly lets turn again to Jerome. His most famous letter is De custodia virginitatie, a letter to Eustrochium where Jerome quite explicitly indicates that the curses of Eve are a result of loss of virginity (that is a property of gender) not due to being female (sex), and thus don’t apply to her since she is a virgin:

I would not have you subject to that sentence whereby condemnation has been passed upon mankind. When God says to Eve, “In pain and in sorrow you shall bring forth children,” say to yourself, “That is a law for a married woman, not for me.” And when He continues, “Your desire shall be to your husband,” Genesis 3:16 say again: “Let her desire be to her husband who has not Christ for her spouse.” And when, last of all, He says, “You shall surely die,” Genesis 2:17 once more, say, “Marriage indeed must end in death; but the life on which I have resolved is independent of sex. Let those who are wives keep the place and the time that properly belong to them. For me, virginity is consecrated in the persons of Mary and of Christ” (De custodia virginitatie #18)

This was not just theory. Saint Eustochium later ran the convent, showing both leadership and teaching responsibility. Frank could retort that was only teaching woman, so lets talk about Eustochium's teacher. Jerome in his epitaph for Saint Marcella, "it was in Marcella's cell that Eustochium, that paragon of virgins, was gradually trained. Thus it is easy to see of what type the mistress was who found such pupils." Marcella not only engaged in training virgins and widows but engaged in public disputations:

9. While Marcella was thus serving the Lord in holy tranquillity, there arose in these provinces a tornado of heresy which threw everything into confusion… It was then that the holy Marcella, who had long held back lest she should be thought to act from party motives, threw herself into the breach. Conscious that the faith of Rome— once praised by an apostle Romans 1:8 — was now in danger, and that this new heresy was drawing to itself not only priests and monks but also many of the laity besides imposing on the bishop who fancied others as guileless as he was himself, she publicly withstood its teachers choosing to please God rather than men.

Now what was Jerome's point in mentioning Marcella teaching and leading. The purpose of this letter was so that Principia (another nun) and other woman would come, “to know and to imitate.” In other words based on the doctrine of virginity, directly from scripture Jerome makes the case that an act (having sex) is required before a woman loses her right to lead and teach.

Other leading teaching who been sainted, which shows approval, so the position is not unique to Jerome. From the same generation we have:

Saint Catherine of Alexandria, who again conducted public disputations.
Saint Marcellina (Saint Ambrose’s older sister) also frequently taught, was second in command and led a young woman’s study.
Saint Macrina a leading intellectual.

So we can see the doctrine of virginity is key. It clearly established that based on a reading of the bible one can conclude that virgin females can teach and can lead. And if so then the bible can be understood to be proposing a theory of gender and not a theory of sex with respect to the prohibition on woman.

Now the question becomes what about non virgins who are chaste, for example widows. I'd argue they were deacons, that chastity was starting to be seen as sufficient, they could lead and teach. Woman could not perform the sacrifice or hear confession, the two functions prohibited to woman today. An explicit reference from the same time period comes from Biship Epiphanius of Salamis. Epiphanius wrote against Collyridianism which was a Christian cult that identified the Holy Spirit with the virgin Mary, in the same way the Logos was identified with Jesus. Consequently Collyridians believed that woman could offer Eucharist to Mary just as men offered Euchrist to Jesus. Epiphanius argues that this treatment of Mary is blaspheme and moreover woman cannot be priests. What’s important is that Epiphanius distinguishes the sacrificial role from teaching and other ministry which he argues explicitly that woman can do, including elders and deacons. And while it is not apparent from the quotes below he derives this position from his read of scripture. He has to do this because scripture is the common bond between the Catholics and the Collyridians. I’ll quote the relevant excerpts:

undertaking to do something blasphemous and forbidden and performing in her name, by means of women, definitely priestly acts… [long biblical history of woman not offering sacrifices dropped] Deaconesses serve bishops and priests on grounds of propriety…. This you must also carefully observe that only the office of deaconesses was necessary in the ecclesiastical order; also ‘widows’ are mentioned by name, and among them the senior most are called ‘elders’ (Greek: presbytidas), but they have never been made women presbyters (presbyteridas) or women priests (sacerdotissas)…. “Never has a woman been appointed amongst bishops and priests. But, someone will say, there were the four daughters of Philip, who prophesied. Yes, but they did not exercise the priestly office. And it is true that there is the Order of Deaconesses in the Church. But they are not permitted to act as priests or have anything to do with that office. (Panarion 79, 1-4 )

Now this is an official statement from a Bishop, not an off the cuff comment. The Synod of Laodicea upheld his ruling on the analysis on the role of woman, that is widespread agreement that his understanding was correct which implies scripture could not possible be perspicuous in prohibiting these acts.

But the Collyridians themselves also throw some evidence but we need to be a bit more speculative. Christian history has Epiphanius being successful and this group as dying out around 450, but it has no evidence for this claim. However there is some strong counter evidence: they are a docetic group of Christians having as their Trinity Allah, Jesus and Mary, with a large core of their following in Arabia. Seeing as this is exactly the “Christianity” the Qur’an describes its not unlikely they not only survived but thrived in Arabia, lasting another century and become even more popular. The world looks different in Rome than in Mecca. Going even later Saint John of Damascus wrote about them in 728; and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, even asserts that Summa III.25.5 was directed at this group's practices, putting their death later still.

If all this is true, then we have a group of woman who believe not only can woman minister but they can in fact even perform the sacrifice. Now we know that Epiphanius' entire apologetic is biblically based so this group must have held a high view of scripture. We know that Islam had the same opinion of them “people of the book”. Again speculative but if so it points towards scripture being much less clear on the issue.

Next we move on to one small point in Frank's rebuttal, an ESV mistranslation of "at leasure" as "in silence".

Worse, however, the NT does make explicit statements against [female teaching and rebuking]. For example, Paul says to Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man", the context being what is acceptable in the public worship of the church

This is very similar to the Titus 1:6 case where the ESV makes a questionable but defensible translation and then implications are drawn from the English which not supported by the Greek. I’m running out of words, so rather than go through the same process again I'll just quote and site N.T Wright’s Translation of 1Ti 2:9-5

9 In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hair-styles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes; 10 instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works. 11 They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12 I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed. 13 Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. 15 She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence. (Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis)

Second Rebuttal

2008-06-18T17:44:00.000-07:00

In a sincere effort to stay inside the time limit this time around, I have re-read CD-Host's second rebuttal and have broken it out into sections or points in order to respond to each part. Because he used his word limit, it's not going to be possible to respond to him word-for-word, so if I have misconstrued any of this points, I ask him to clarify for me so that we can continue to have an exchange in good faith.

To begin my response, I have created an outline of rebuttals in the sequence they appear in CD-Host's Second Response. My comments on each will follow each bullet point, insofar as space allows.

1. Is Scripture clear about the things it teaches us about the faith?

CD-Host's answer to this question is "no", with some exceptions noted. The problem is that when the text says something clearly, if he can find some advocate who disagrees with what the text says, he counts the text as unclear, rather than noting the biases or presuppositions of the dissenting readers.

The case in point:

2. Do all people who call themselves Christians rely on the Scripture as their formal authority for deciding matters of the faith?

CD-Host gives a short list of groups which disagree on "how the church should be lead". The odd part of his list is that they all agree that the leaders of the church should be male, in spite of broader matters of polity.

What is worse, however, is that CD-Host brands all of these differences as differences in interpretation of Scripture – when, in fact, the Roman Catholic church makes zero appeal to Scripture to affirm its view of its own polity because it advances a view that Scripture flows from the church, and not that the church is under the sole or even primary authority of Scripture.

2a. Does the Scripture speak to the qualifications of elders, and if so is it clear?

What he has left for his own re-interpretation (see below) is that the Scripture makes really no mistake or vague statement about the sex of those who are to be called "elders" in the church. I have made my case in my previous two entries, and I will address his handling of that argument, below.

2b. Is the scope of this debate "an assertion of an overall constitution for the church", or is the scope of this debate "The Bible, particularly the NT, is clear about the God-created differences between men and women; those differences normally have consequences in ecclesiology"?

This may be the second-most disappointing mistake I think CD-Host makes in his last rebuttal. He has here broadened the thesis far wider than I have made it – because, for example, I would concede that both conservative Presbyterian and Baptist polities are wholly-acceptable ways of running churches because the NT doesn’t tell us everything about running churches, as if it was a Chilton's manual.

But it does, specifically, address the impact of clear differences between men and women, and it does, specifically, name men as candidates for being "elders" and never names women as elders.

3. Gender vs. sex - does Scripture only recognize "gender", or were my examples explicitly about the distinction between whether a person is a "man" or a "woman"?

This is also an unfortunate problem for CD-Host. It is an over-reaching of a grammatical fact (the generic use of various words that mean "man") which overlooks context and usage. He has also ignored my argument that the NT plainly, repeatedly, uses the words meaning "woman" when it means "woman" in particular.

4. Does CD-Host misconstrue my argument regarding what marriage means?

My argument in Eph 5 doesn’t have anything to do with whether they become "one flesh", but in fact has to do with the fact that the man and the woman are given different instructions regarding how they are to submit to one another.

Plainly, the "husband" has one set of obligations, and the "wife" has another set. They are certainly congruous and are meant to fit together, but they are not the same obligations.

5. Does CD-Host overlook particular aspects of what Eph 5:21 is interpreted to mean by Paul in the passage in question?

In Eph 5:17-21, Paul is giving general instructions to all the Ephesians, and in good form gives particular instruction to those of certain classes he is concerned with – husbands, wives, children, slaves, masters. CD-Host's rebuttal overlooks the specific nature of Paul's subsequent words.

6. Does the issue of "mystery" overcome Paul's specific instructions to husbands and wives?

I would be willing to concede without any discussion that the making of "one flesh" is a the mystery Paul is referring to when he says, "I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

The difficulty for CD-Host is that it doesn’t overcome matters such as v. Eph 5:23 which says something that CD-Host's argument cannot explain. How can the man be the head of the wife if this is a matter of grammar and gender rather than a matter of sexual and spiritual identity?

7. Is CD-Host sort of trolling for a fight?

I leave this question, for the sake of word count, to the reader to decide. In several places, it seems to me, he is trolling for a hyper-fundamental or perhaps Mennonite view of the role of women to fight against, and that's not hardly the position I am defending in this exchange.

8. Does CD-Host miss the fact that I have conceded that all Christians are called to serve in ministry in the local church?

See above. The thesis of this debate is whether or not the NT says that differences between the sexes results in different roles in the church – not whether or not women can ever do anything but meekly look out from behind their veils.

9. Does CD-Host miss the distinction between types of ministry, thereby overlooking that being an "elder" is different than being a generic "minister" (for example, being a minister of joy, or of faith, or of hospitality)?

There is no question that one of CD-Host's problems in engaging the topic here is that he construes everything as "leadership". However, the Bible gives us a very narrow definition of what it means to lead or shepherd the church – and that's teaching doctrine and rebuking error – both doctrinal and moral. Every other task turns out to be a general task of Christians and the church body for which we are each variously gifted.

Missing this, and calling all Christian work "leadership", misses the point entirely.

10. Does CD-Host overlook how leadership works in any group?

This is an important point to make, as it connects to the one above. CD-Host listed a number of items which he asked the reader to discern if they are matters of "leadership" – for example, telling people where to stand during worship, or asking the congregation to rise, or picking carpet for a building.

What is interesting to note is that not only do none of these items show up in the NT as part of the description of leadership, even a secular thinker about the subject of "leadership" can easily point out that making decisions does not equal leadership. In fact, one of the attributes of a good leader is to give people who make good judgments the freedom to make them.

Comparing these activities to the work Paul describes to Titus is, at best, conflating unlike things. If we are going to attempt to make a nuanced leap with CD-Host (below) into the realm of interpretation, we first have to have some kind of confidence in his ability to handle interpretive issues a little more obvious.

11. Does CD-Host overstate his case? Was Paul a life-long batchelor?

This is a minor point, but we have no evidence that Paul was either married or unmarried – and to stake the matter of criteria for eldership on Paul's marriage history when we have almost no data on it seems a little enthusiastic.

12. Does CD-Host confuse a list of criteria with an "ingredient list"?

This is probably the more-important objection in this section, however – because CD-Host wants to dismiss the problem of a list of qualifications by saying that he can find someone who doesn’t meet all of them. The list is a list which says to select a man of a certain type of character. There is no question that a single man could have that type of character.

But as we shall see below, there is no question that Paul is commending Titus to select men as elders.

13. Does CD-Host really not understand the difference between the substantive use of "pas" in John and the contextual, particular use of "aner" in Titus?

The extremely disappointing part of this problem in CD-Host's argument is that a comprehensive lexicon of NT Greek is available on-line at BlueLetter Bible. That resource could have told him that no word meaning "men" exists in John 12:32 in the Greek, while the word used in Titus 1 means "husband" when it is in reference to a "wife" in every occurrence of this construction in the NT.

Again, this argument must call into question CD-Host's qualifications to make the nuanced interpretations his argument needs to stand when he cannot make the somewhat-rudimentary work a passage like Titus 1:6 requires.

13a. Why does the text itself say "one-woman man" and not something more generic, as we might find in Eph 5:21?

This problem runs deep, since CD-Host is plainly aware of at least one passage where Paul seeks to speak broadly, and chooses appropriately-broad words. If Eph 5:21 really does mean "everyone in the church should be subject to each other because of their faith in Christ" (and it does), why wouldn’t Paul say something that broad if he meant that anyone – man or woman – could be qualified to be an elder? What use a term as specific as "one-wife husband" to qualify elders if what he meant was "a faithful spouse of either sex"?

In CD-Host's view, a "one-woman husband" –is- a generic term – but there are no places in the NT where the word "aner" is used in reference to a someone other than a man – a "husband" – when that person is the "aner" in relation to some woman.

13b. How does CD-Host qualify "leading translators"?

I leave this to the reader to decide without any comment.

I am sadly out of words before I am out of rebuttal, but the reader should carefully consider the rest of these question for himself or herself. They are what is left of CD-Host's argument, and I think that some simple reading of the Scripture in these cases will dispel the affirmations made by CD-Host about these people.

14. The litany of females from the Bible

14a. Are these women leaders: Huldah, Tabitha, the daughters of Phillip, Phoebe, Pricilla, Elizabeth, Anna, Mary Magedelene?

14b. Miriam - was she equal to Moses?

14c. Was Deborah a "judge"?

14d. Nympha was a founder of a church?

14e. Did Euodia and Synthyche lead a church?

14f. Is Junia a woman? Is Junia an apostle?

15. Does the Thecla cult have any mention in the NT? It is outside of the scope of this discussion.

16. Citing a whole document like the "Apostolic Constitutions" is a ruse, given that this document says far more which is damaging to his case than CD-Host even alludes to, let alone actually cites.

16a. There is categorically no mention of women to be appointed as a bishop

16b. Women are listed as able to be deacons in this document - but CD-Host needs to consider what that role meant in the 4th century church if he is going to present that as an argument for women being "leaders".

17. Are all prophets leaders?

And as an administrative point, after CD-Hosts's second rebuttal, we will enter the 10-question cross-examination stage of this exchange, in which he has the priviledge of asking the first question.

CD-Host Rebuttal #1 (Titus 1:6)

2008-06-11T17:11:00.000-07:00

I’d like thank Frank for hosting this excellent discussion. My original post was written before his intro. So yes I’m willing to extend based on a posted requests. So without further ado lets get onto the meat. Throughout I will use “sex” to mean biological male or female status, and will use something like “sex act” or “intercourse”… for human reproductive behavior. I will use “gender” to mean cultural differences between male and female. So using this language having a penis is a sexual property of being male, while carrying a wallet in the back pocket is a gender property.

This rebuttal is going to consist mainly of agreeing with the facts and disagreeing with the inferences. The first is an inference based on Paul’s view of scripture from Frank:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work, it seems a little reductive to say that Paul’s view doesn’t extend to thing like, for example, how the church is lead.

And here I would comment this is simply begging the question. One of the points that must be shown is that scripture in a perspicuous way teaches how the church should be led. Clearly, people throughout time have had vastly different opinions. From the Catholics who hold that scripture teaches a hierarchy of all baptized Christians, the Anglicans who argue for national churches, to the Orthodox who argue for city wide bishops that meet as equals in conference, to the modern Presbyterians who argue for hierarchies based on theology and not geography, to the independent Baptists who dispute that there should be any structure above the local church at all. And I haven’t begun to address the minor groups. I think the evidence is overwhelming that scripture in a perspicuous way does not teach how the church should be led, otherwise we today wouldn’t see dozens of different forms of governing structures all based on scripture. Moreover I consider this part of the debate. So Frank, while you may consider this reductive I think there needs to be evidence presented on this point. That is scripture never actually says it will instruct on how the church should be led, what it does give is a variety of details which may or may not sufficient on this point. We will address those as the debate progresses but I think it is assuming facts not in evidence to argue that scripture makes an assertion of an overall constitution for the church or anything remotely like that.

Does the Bible recognize that there are differences between these two sexes? I hate to begin with the ridiculously-obvious, but the NT uses the word “woman” or “women” more than 150 times, and the word “man” or “men” more than 650 times – granting, of course, that the Greek occasionally uses “man” in the sense of “humanity” or “mankind” [rest truncated]

Scripture recognizes the use of gender in language, that is our pronouns are based on gender not on say economic class or age; here I agree. This is absolutely true, and absolutely true in the Greek as well. But what can we infer from that? As the church said in Dei Verbum, “God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in human fashion”. Humans use today and used 2000 years ago gendered pronouns heavily. Based on this usage in scripture we can assert with authority little more than that scripture does not object to the practice.

That is, somehow marriage is made by God in order that the mystery of the relationship between Christ and His church may be displayed in the union of a husband to his wife, and a wife to her husband [Quotations from Eph 5:25-33 and discussion]
The submission of wives to husbands is correlated by Paul to the submission of the church to Christ, speaking to the purpose of marriage in God’s economy, God’s working out of His will in this world.

He then expands on that via Jesus/ Matthew into the issue of one flesh. Here we have a big area of disagreement in terms of the meaning of “and the two shall become one flesh” (Mat 19:4-6, Eph 5:31). Frank’s introduction points this to female submission. I think this is unlikely. While “one flesh” is obviously not to be taken literally, the two don’t share skin or use a commonly bloodstream. As far as I know "one flesh" has in all times been interpreted as intercourse or marital intercourse. That is, I'd assert this is an area where scripture is perspicuous and I think if Frank wants to argue for alternate interpretation we would need substantial evidence that the text means to refer to submission within leadership of the family rather than intercourse. To do so would overturn two millennia of Christian doctrine that have held that the act of consummation not the act of submission is the sealing act for a marriage. Should a man be able to annul his marriage to a bossy woman, the same way he can now to a marriage never consummated?

Moreover the passage itself doesn’t even argue for female submission, the heading (Eph 5:21 ) “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”. The great mystery here is not the submission but rather the act of the joining. And the word used for "mystery" here is the same one used for mystery rites in other Greek religious works. So I'd consider the mystery an act one performs (like having intercourse) not an act one fails to perform (like rebellion against authority). I also think the Eph 5:25 explains the sacrificial role quite well without the need for submission, “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her”.

This is a key point of disagreement because it is where Frank derives this teleological importance of sex differences. So I'll await this defense of this position.

I have a hard time finding any evidence against women leading worship in song – even though we express that activity as “leading”….

Let me just state for a moment how close the practical positions are at this point. I’m not infrequently debating people who argue that woman who wish to make a prayer request need to hand a letter to a male relative so as to avoid speaking in church; so here I may get an opportunity to debate fine points rather than broad strokes. I’ll need to follow up with some additional questions, about what actual acts are still prohibited. Frank lists one below (teaching of doctrine) and I’d want some clarity on whether that is the only one or there are others. That is are we really down to debating a single act?

And the reason is a musical leader does a heck of a lot of activities that are otherwise questionable.

She speaks in church, and during the service
She command men individually, “Stand third from the back two over to the left”
She corrects/rebukes men on their behavior, “You’re dropping to an A# when you should be singing in C”
She commands mixed groups, “Strings, you need to come in one beat earlier on the D”

So now assuming that all of those activities are acceptable lets move on. There some differences between a music lead and music minister.

Attending divinity school
Ordination
Acceptance of a position at a church, that is leading music in exchange for money.

Which of any of those activities are prohibited? If none then we have music ministers; not just music leads.

OK now a church in addition to being a religious entity exists as secular entity, that is a 501c3 non-profit . A non profit has a governing board, in Frank’s circle probably called the board of governing elders, which are distinguished from the teaching elders.

So lets start start working our way up here.

Can a woman act as a landlord for a church?
Can women make financial decisions unrelated to doctrine, i.e. determine which carpet the church should have should have?
Can a woman serve on the governing board or only work for it?
Can a woman chair the governing board?
If the 501c3 is governed by an individual can that be a woman, i.e. can the pastor(s) be a woman’s employee(s) from a legal perspective?

Because if you combine the acts of music minister with the acts of church president you end up with more power than a chief pastor with the one exception the Sunday sermon. So is the issue exclusively teaching doctrine?

Assuming so for now, lets address the argument regarding doctrine:

[commening on Tit1:5-8] Paul says to Titus that these who are qualified must be disciplined – that is, one must be self-controlled, not subject to the various passions and impulses people might experience. One must be “holy”, which I would take to mean clearly established as a member of the church by action (especially baptism, but not merely baptized). One must be “upright”, which is to say that one must demonstrate sanctification by practice of what’s right. And, I think, no one would dispute these qualifications because they are very clear in this passage to Titus.

The problem, then, is hermeneutical – because with the same clarity which Paul says to Titus that one must be a virtuous member of the church with self-control and the ability to rightly teach God’s word, Paul exhorts Titus that “elders” must be “the husband of one wife”. That is, in the church, the role of teaching the word and rebuking errors is the function of men.

First I should mention the literal interpretation can be rejected out of hand, under the "one wife" criteria neither Jesus nor Paul qualify since both are bachelors; a more nuanced view is called for. And as soon as we apply this view, we immediate hit an issue that Frank noticed in his comments, the entire passage deals with issues of behavior not status, except apparently this whole thing about men. If one found a condition that ministers must be male, in the middle of a passage like “A minister of the Lord needs to be a man over 40, who owns his home, stands more than 5’ 6” tall while being under 230 lbs” it would fit. But in this passage everything addresses behavior with the exception of the ESV’s translation of Titus 1:6. Now let me just point out that Frank's inference is a perfect example of what people who advocate for gender neutral bibles complain about when modern readers are exposed to masculine singular bibles. Modern readers of English simply do not interpret the masculine singular as applying to both sexes equally most of the time even when warranted and this leads to problems in interpretation. The verse is written in the ESV in terms of husbands and wives and thus he concludes it must only apply to males.

And so we are fundamentally need to address the issue of an interpretative translation. Since Frank makes use of the ESV, and the ESV is the default bible for this blog , I think the burden of proof as the guest falls upon me to argue why the ESV is a particularly bad choice for this debate. In general and then move on to discuss the specific problem with Titus 1:6. I think I should at least indicate that in line most conservative translation I believe the ESV mistranslates to support conservative positions (see my treatment of the translation of Isaiah 7:14 for an extended discussion).

But that doesn’t happen that often, rather what happens on many many verses is that the ESV makes reasonable and defensible decisions that in their totality alter the meaning of scripture. Titus 1:6, is an example of this. The KJV consistently uses the masculine so for example John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” is in the masculine singular in the KJV. So then the KJV's use of the masculine for Tit 1:6 not out of character. But the ESV doesn’t do that. They use the neuter quite often so for example in John 12:32 “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”. However, in those places that conservative Christian culture draws support for their positions vs. liberals, like Tit 1:6 suddenly they don’t. And that tendency in translation is going to present a problem in this debate, since the ESV most certainly is designed to support the anti-woman’s movement. To quote the translators, “In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture” (site) , where what they mean is that they leave textual aspects in place that support conservative positions and remove them when they do not. So the ESV tends towards a defensible but misleading literalism, on a verse like Titus 1:6.

So our next step is going to be to retranslate this verse, looking at what the bible actually meant rather than what would be most convenient for the promoters of the ESV. That is to use I’m going to argue for a dynamic equivalent translation rather than a formal equivalence translation in this verse since formal equivalence will lead to a misinterpretation, exactly as it did.

To do this, lets start with a hyper literal word for word translation interlinear style:

IF (ei) ANY (tis) IS (eimi) UN-indictable (anegklEtos) OF-ONE (heis) WOMAN (gunE) MAN (anEr)

It becomes obvious from this that the key to interpreting this verse is then to determining what “OF-One Woman Man” (in the ESV “husband of one wife”) means.

The American Bible Society in their CEV translation notes address the 3 standard translations for "of-one woman man":

A non polygamist
Never been divorced
Sexually faithful

None of which are particularly male as long as we consider polyandry a form of polygamy. The CEV thus chooses, “be faithful in marriage”; but offers (“be the husband of only one wife" or "have never been divorced." in their translation notes). The NRSV disagrees on which is preferred but agreeing this is an issue of behavior not status, makes use of the plural to get rid of the sex and translates as “married only once”. The NEB chooses the traditional “husband of one wife” but then mentions that whole list presented in Titus 1:5-8 is a common Hellenistic list of virtues so in effect what they assert is that the broader meaning of all of Titus 1:5-8 is “virtuous in a societal normal sense”. The NET, a much more accurate evangelical translation has the same breakdown as the CEV in their notes:

The husband of one wife
Married only once
Devoted solely to his wife

That is, leading translators all agree the use of male here, is a grammatical form and doesn’t imply anything in the meaning. This usage is very similar to the use of 3rd person singular male as representative of humanity, in the King James’ translation of John 12:32. Which is to say that maleness is hinted at by the Greek literally, and in context its discouraged. And this seems to makes much more sense than the ESV's translation, why would Paul have been ambiguous and used vague expressions that mix maleness with fidelity issues?

But that may not be entirely convincing, especially to a conservative audience that mistrusts the NEB, the NRSV and the CEV. We can comment that Dabney (in the article linked below) saw this verse as a prohibition against polygamists not woman, and we was no liberal. And even the ESV Reformation Study Bible notes that Titus 1:6 is "Probably a reference to marital fidelity" while offering prohibition on polygamy, remarriage after divorce as alternatives. But these are yet more appeals to translational authority. So a good way to verify the dynamic equivalence translation within this frame, which sees scripture as a unified whole, is to ask the question, what does scripture think of female ministers? And the answer is it knew of them and respects them, and shows nothing but encouragement towards woman who taught doctrine:

Miriam, Exodus 15:20: Miriam, the sister of Aaron was a prophetess and one of the triad of leaders of Israel
Deborah , Judges 4 & 5:, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.
Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22 a prophet, verified the authenticity of the "Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses."
Tabitha, Acts 9:36-43 a female disciple
4 daughters of Phillip, prophets.
Nympha , Col 4:15 has being the founder of a home church
Euodia and Syntyche, Philippians 4:2:. Paul refers to two women, active evangelicals, spreading the gospel.
Phoebe , Romans 16:1: Paul refers to a minister/ deaconess; (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. In the second verses she is called "prostatis" which is a leader.
Priscilla, Romans 16:3-5, Paul refers to as another of his "synergoi", (colleague); and these verses mention her founding 2 churches (Rom 16:3-5, 1 Cor 16:19). Note Priscilla is mentioned before Aquila in (Acts 18:18,26, Rom 16:3, 2 Tim 4:19) which likely means she is the more prominent one of the pair.
Junia, Romans 16:7, a female apostle in the post ascension sense (Acts 14:14, 1 Cor 15:7).
Tryphena & Tryphosa, Romans 16:2, are sandwiched in this list though their function is unknown.
Elizabeth, Luke 1:39-45, is given a prophecy
Anna, Luke 2:36-8 is a prophet
Mary Magdalene, is a leader of the early church (Luke 8:1-4), the first to speak to the resurrected Christ and the first be given the great commission (John 20:10-8), she is also present for Jesus’s death unlike the other disciples (John 19:25). I should also mention, though I can't admit into evidence, that because Mary’s followers become the strongest source of opposition to the Petrine (Catholic) Church the standard canon has her playing the smallest role of virtually any possible canon of 1st and 2nd century works. Most non-canonical books from the early centuries have her coequal if not superior to Peter and occasionally to Paul. For example in the Pistis Sophia she is the greatest of the apostles with a representative verse being, “Mary, thou blessed one, whom I will perfect in all mysteries of those of the height, discourse in openness, thou, whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren."

Still one could argue that Paul was aware of female teaching, liked particular female teachers but disapproved of the practice in general; like Dabney's position on Sarah Smiley (NYTimes on context). However we note that in 1Cor 11:5 he gives specific instructions for female prophets. So not only was Paul was aware of it, he encouraged female teaching. Finally, we note that Acts 2:18 gives a specific promise from God that woman will be given prophetic powers, so at least in scripture's view female prophecy is a gift from God that should be utilized. So the first century opinion is answered.

The record for the second century is very clear as well. In fact more clearly than the first century; the founding of the Thelca cult (a female ministry) was attributed to Saint Thecla of Iconium, who was claimed as a companion of Paul’s (see Acts of Paul). The Thecla cult became the convent movement that has survived to this day. It is almost impossible to believe that the Thecla cult could have attributed its founder to being a disciple of Paul’s were he known to be against woman teaching.

And not only that, woman’s prophecy continued in the mainstream church. The Apostolic Constitutions, a manual for organizing and governing the church talks at length about female prophets and their role during services, indicating they remained active in church services well into the 4th century.

I think we have shown the evidence is overwhelming for what the scriptures teach on this issue. That is quite simply the ESV translation / conservative interpretation depends on placing a low priority on the local or the global context within scripture, in a way that is not normally done. As a result most other interpretations and the historical witness contradicts it.

I will quote Grimké from 2 centuries ago on how prophecy is a key promise of God to woman:

On a candid examination and comparison of the passages which I have endeavored to explain, viz., 1 Cor. ch. 11 and 14, and 1Tim 2:8-12, I think we must be compelled to adopt one of two conclusions; either that the apostle grossly contradicts himself on the subject of great practical importance, and that the fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel [Joel 2:28-32 quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-21] was a shameful infringement of decency and order; or that the directions given to women, not to speak, or to teach in the congregations, had reference to some local and peculiar customs, which were then common in religious assemblies, and which the apostle thought inconsistent with the purpose for which they were met together. No one, I suppose, will hesitate which of these two conclusions to adopt (Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes XIV)

So at the end of the argument what we have is a simple problem. If scripture is perspicuous than it is perspicuous in allowing and encouraging female ministry. That is to win the debate on perspicuity Frank would need to undermine the conservative position, and vice versa. That scripture prohibits female ministry and allows woman only to serve men; is simply unsupported by the evidence as understood by most readers.

What we've seen using the very example he provided is a perfect example of what characterizes the progression required to make scripture clear on this issue:

The ESV chooses a defensible but somewhat misleading translation (husband of one wife)
The reader interprets it in an overly literal way (the reference is exclusively to husbands)
The reader than draws an inference which requires a particular weighting of contrary messages in the rest of scripture (this prohibits woman)

I should of course mention, that the above interpretation is well within the 21st century American mainstream. As I showed in the first argument I could have interpreted Tit 1:6 in a much wider range of ways, by pulling on traditions outside that mainstream and yet still be fully consistent with the text.

But even assuming, 21st century mainstream Protestantism I'll need clarity on one more point. Above I've made a strong case dependent on the assumption that if woman are permitted to teach directly from the Holy Spirit (prophecy) they are also permitted to teach indirectly from the Holy Spirit (biblical ministry). That is a non obvious assumption and it would be perfectly logical for Frank to deny it, and attack the argument there. So I close by putting the question to him; do you believe that the one implies the other?

Rebuttal #1 to CD-Host

2008-06-11T17:10:00.000-07:00

Let me begin this rebuttal first by apologizing to CD-Host for being tardy. A confluence of events came together this week for me that simply stopped me from finishing this response, and I take full responsibility for it.

There is another reason this post has taken so long: I simply can't get it up to 2000 words, which was a requirement of the original terms of this exchange. While CD-Host has used every word of 4000 to make his opening point, I find myself stuck with only two comments about what he said.

The first is this: there is no question whatsoever that 1Cor 7 is a somewhat difficult passage to handle, and that I think the case can be ably made that this passage has gone through many filters in 2000 years, and that it doesn’t have a definitive reading upon which we can base our doctrines. There's no sense arguing with him about something we would agree on: this is a difficult passage, and it shouldn’t be used by itself to establish any doctrine.

But this leads us to my second comment: as difficult as this passage is, it has little or nothing to do with the political life of the church – and certainly nothing to do with male eldership in the church. It seems to me that CD-Host wanted to establish that some parts of the Bible are difficult to understand, or have had many interpretations over the centuries – and I say that's a fine point. Unfortunately, the issue of whether the Bible speaks clearly about male eldership is what's at stake in our thesis, and his first point here is applicable only if the New Testament doesn’t have any clear passages regarding how the church ought to govern itself.

What's left for me, I suppose, is to further flesh out my thesis that the Bible is clear on the matter of male eldership. Last time, I made these points:

1. on the matters which are necessary for faith and doctrine, the Scripture speaks –sufficiently- and it speaks –clearly-.

2. the Bible recognizes that there are differences between these two sexes.

3. Specifically, the Bible calls marriage the union of one man and one woman.

4. The submission of wives to husbands is correlated by Paul to the submission of the church to Christ, speaking to the purpose of marriage in God’s economy, God’s working out of His will in this world.

5. The differences between men and women have practical applications.

6. The key matter which qualifies one to be an “elder” is the ability to teach faithfully, and to rebuke those who contradict sound teaching.

7. Paul exhorts Titus that “elders” must be “the husband of one wife”. That is, in the church, the role of teaching the word and rebuking errors is the function of men.

I would extend that reasoning in a few ways, since I have the opportunity here.

8. It's interesting that all of Paul's disciples – the ones he trained to teach and rebuke the church – were all men. Of specific interest in the list of people he speaks about to Timothy in 2 Tim – because not one of them is a woman, yet plainly they are the ones Paul had prepared for ministry. I am sure it can be argued that the letters to Timothy had a very limited audience, but in listing all the ones who have either stood in the faith or failed. You'd think Paul would have sought out any one who was still faithful with which to exhort Timothy to stand firm – man or woman. But only men are listed by Paul as either successes or failures.

9. The exceptions, of course, are Timothy's mother and grandmother, and Priscilla. In the latter case, Priscilla is listed along side her husband and not as a church leader – she is merely a tentmaker. In the former case, it is of special interest to recognize that they are credited by Paul as being faithful as parent and grandparent to hand down the faith, not as leading or establishing a church.

So I would say briefly that it is in Paul's personal examples that we learn a bit more about how he thinks about church eldership.

10. In that, however, comes another kind of objection as I understand it. Jon Zens has it called "the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham’s daughters painted in the New Testament". In his essay on this subject, Pastor Zens argus that women did all kinds of things in the NT – and what's interesting is that I agree with him. I think it's sort of impossible to say that women were not full members of the first generation church, doing all kinds of church work.

The problem, as I outlined in the four blog posts I made on that essay about a year ago, is that "activity" does not equal "leadership". I think women are qualified for all kinds of –ministry- by the NT; However, the NT never makes any explicit affirmative statements about their qualification for teaching and rebuking in the church.

11. Worse, however, the NT does make explicit statements against such a thing. For example, Paul says to Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man", the context being what is acceptable in the public worship of the church.

That makes roughly 3000 words on this subject from me, from last post to this one, affirming this subject, and I honestly don’t have anything else to include as the scope of our discussion is the NT. While he has been gracious to me for being late in posting this rebuttal, I ask CD-Host also to be gracious to me in failing to hit the 2000-word requirement for this post.

I look forward to reading his first rebuttal, and continuing this exchange at his convenience.

wow. 10 days already?

2008-06-09T18:48:00.000-07:00

For those of you patiently waiting, I am the one gumming up the responses this time, and today is the 10-day limit for new posts. CD-Host has been gracious enough to let me slide this time, and I expect to have first rebuttals up inside 48 hours.

thanks to him for his broad spirit, and to you for your patience.

Perspicuity (Intro) CD-Host

2008-05-30T07:01:00.000-07:00

In those areas in which scripture is obviously perspicuous such as substitutionary atonement the historical record shows a wide consensus on the doctrine emerging quickly and easily that has held over the centuries. That is there was little initial debate, and as time went on the analysis was upheld by a variety of churches over a long period of time. Conversely in those areas where scripture is vague like limited vs. unlimited atonement one sees an ongoing debate. That is, when scripture is vague presuppositions brought to scripture influence the read of scripture. In the case of the role of woman, it is my assertion that the historical record shows clearly that persons reading the scriptures arrive at an analysis of the scriptures that upholds their own cultural preconceptions; this is the behavior one would expect given scripture which is vague. The effect of this is that scripture acts like a mirror, reflecting to the reader their own vision of morality. This is a behavior which would be impossible were the scriptures actually perspicuous on the issue.

In the modern protestant context the debate on woman's roles is primarily on the left to right axis. Patriarchy Christians disagree with Complementarians, Complementarians disagree with Egalitarians and Egalitarians disagree with Feminists. Normally Protestants debate one another on these issues via. addressed by directly reading scripture followed by a debate on the meaning of verses. It is my assertion, and I believe that 200 years of history back up this assertion, that this process does not lead towards a successful conclusion. The debaters are rarely able to agree on the relative importance of various scriptural concepts and one side attempts to read the verses with different emphasis which in the end lead to deadlock.

The fact is that both sides are reading the scriptures “faithfully” relative to their own preconceptions, but this is often not obvious because the underlying assumptions are quite close to one another. So to demonstrate how this process works we will focus on interpretations with vastly different preconceptions and demonstrate how they derive their interpretation directly from the text. The point being that if the text faithfully supports interpretations 10 steps removed the differences only 1 or 2 steps removed are not caused by poor reading skills or poor exegesis but rather by the inherent contradictory and vague nature of the text being interpreted.

I will focus this study primarily on 1Co7 as a good example. The issues with this chapter are representative of what one finds in other verses on the topic. No Christian denomination now or historical does not believe it addresses relations between the sexes. The historicity is not questioned as contrasted with say 1Ti2, so both the liberal and the conservative can focus on hermeneutics and not be drawn into issues of authenticity and authorship. This means the liberal Protestant and the conservative Protestant interpretations are very similar; they both read it through the Luther’s interpretative frame. Finally, on a personal basis I have already studied this chapter at length.

The first interpretation to be examined is the Catholic one.

And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, Gen1:28 "Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth"; and "Cursed is the barren woman that bears not seed in Israel," they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, 1Co7:29 "The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none": cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because "He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Why do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman. 1Co7:34 "She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit." A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit, for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind. (Saint Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary)

Note even here we see a subtle shift in interpretation. Jerome reads the passage as implying a theory of gender separate from sex “the virgin is no longer called a woman”. This goes right to the issue of eldership, since Jerome will hold that rules pertaining to married females do not apply to virgin females. He even argues elsewhere directly from scripture that virgins are more beloved:

And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask, he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen, they both ran to the sepulcher, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, "It is the Lord." … whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. (Against Jovinianus ch 26)

Now, I have no way of knowing which verses Frank Turk is going to choose to address, but I doubt Jn13:25 and Jn21:7 even occurred to him as addressing sex and gender roles. And this is because Frank doesn’t share Jerome’s underlying cultural assumptions about the importance of virginity. He simply isn’t looking at the text the same way. To use Derrida’s term, his “center of the text” is different, and because the text does not force him to be recentered (that is on this issue it is not perspicuous) that leads to an entirely different interpretation of the message. In 1Cor7:1-40 Paul expounds for verse after verse after verse on the elevated state of virgins, yet the modern Protestant reads a simple comment that marriage is better than fornication due to their underlying assumptions that virginity and chastity aren’t normative desirable states except in the young.

Now it’s important to stop here and expand a bit on who Saint Jerome is, so that the reader does not believe this is some obscure half baked interpretation. Saint Jerome is one of the four “early doctors of the Roman Church”, he is the man who essentially invented the norms still used today for biblical translation, as the primary author of the Vulgate. He was considered in his day, for many centuries thereafter, and is arguably still considered the greatest authority on scripture ever. This is not only due to his blazing genius, but also by virtue of the period in which he lived that gave him direct access to linguistic interpretive resources from the earliest centuries of the church that no longer exist, and finally the enormous institutional support that the late 4th century church, as the state church, could provide. That is he had access to the greatest Christian minds, of his day, and arguably the greatest minds for the next five hundred years.

Seven hundred years later when Saint Thomas Aquinas needed to answer critics of the doctrine of virginity he turned to Jerome:

I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1Cor7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking "on the things of God" [Vulg.: 'the Lord'], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think "on the things of the world," as the Apostle says (1Co7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence. (Summa Theologica 3.152.4)

In the interest of brevity, that is without developed these ideas further in quotes, I’m going to state without proof the key differences between the Catholic position of the 5th century and the modern conservative protestant view on this chapter:

That a woman's highest calling is wife and mother, rather the orthodox position was that motherhood and marriage carry a female away from God. Though some sort of limited holiness is still possible inside of a sexual relationship abstinence is still the preferred option and lifelong abstinence carries with it a fundamental change in nature in one's relationship with God.

That females cannot preach and cannot teach men, these prohibitions do not apply to virgins. Woman inside a sexual relationship need to be submissive since the primary good they are still capable of achieving is though creating the sort of discipline needed to create Christian virgins in the next (or later) generations; but that reasoning is a function of marriage not intrinsic to them being female. To use modern language the prohibition is a function of gender not sex.

That God's intention is to work through families (i.e. the conservative interpretation of 1Co11:3) , rather the orthodox position is that God would like to work through sex segregated collections of men and woman unified in their desire for absolute purity knowledge and holiness as one sees the monastic and convent movement.

These are not minor differences on how society should be organized, with respect to the church. Yet a Catholic can point directly to scriptural support for their position and I would argue they are in fact more faithful to 1Co7 than the Protestant read of the text. But what is key for this debate is not whether the Protestants or the Catholics are right, but rather underlying ambiguity of the text. Paul gives several different justifications for his position but does not develop a cohesive framework. The construction of the framework requires the reader to assign different degrees of importance and those degrees of importance require a pre-existing set of assumptions.

And before the objection comes that this doesn’t take the entirety of scripture into account, I should comment that there are dozens of books on these issues within Catholicism and I have chosen passages related only to 1Co7. Other passages, like the creation passage are often incorporated by Jerome:

Marriage replenishes the earth, virginity fills Paradise. This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, "God saw that it was good," on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. (Against Jovinianus I.16)

The creation story plays a huge role in the modern Protestant analysis of sex and gender roles, yet this point isn’t addressed. It isn’t even noticed in most Protestant study bibles.

But, Catholicism if the father of Protestantism. The two faiths are very close in their interpretations. To even further demonstrate how flexible the text is consider something like the Christian Gnostics. For them neither Catholics nor Protestants fully account for Paul’s heavy use of metaphor and simile throughout his writings, the language of the bible is metaphorical first and foremost.

In Joh4:16, “He said to her, ‘Go and call your husband and come hither.’”) It is clear that he was saying something like this, “If you wish to receive this water, go call your husband.” The husband of the Samaritan woman mentioned by Jesus is her Fullness, so that, on coming with him to the Savior, she may obtain from him power and union and the mingling with her Fullness. For he was not speaking to her about her earthly husband and telling her to call him, for he knew quite well that she had no lawful husband. . . The Savior said to her, “Call your husband and come hither,” and meant by this her partner from the Fullness. . . In the spiritual sense she did not know her husband, in the simple sense she was ashamed to say that she had an adulterer, not a husband. . . (The words) “You have rightly said that you do not have a husband” (Joh4:17) mean that in the world the Samaritan woman had no husband, for her husband was in the Aeon (i.e. Fullness). (In Joh4:18 “You have had five husbands and the one you have now is not your husband.”) The six men indicate the whole of the material evil in which she was involved and with which consorted, when she lived irrationally in debauchery, and was insulted, rejected and abandoned by them (the men). (Heracleon, Fragment 18, on John 4:16-18)

Human marriage is used symbolically by scripture to represent how the pneumatic comes into relation with the divine syzygos. To the Valentinians a syzygy is a divine active-passive, male-female pair emanations of God called aeons, that are complementary to one another. So the pair form 3 beings: each individual aeon and their syzygy “for they will cleave together and become one flesh” (Mar10:8). In their totality the syzygy comprise the divine realm of the Pleroma (Col2:9), the Gnostic God.

Another place one can see the Valentinian understanding of marriage symbolism is in the Gnostic eucharist of the Marcosians, "Prepare yourself as a bride expecting her husband, that you may be what I am, and I what you are: place the seed of light in your marriage chamber; receive me a husband, and be received by him."

This sort of analysis applies equally well to 1Co7. 1Co7:2-3 refers to avoiding spiritual fornication which is avoided by psychics, 2nd order Christians, joining with divine syzygies; and by hyclics, 3rd order Christians, joining with psychics in rituals like the eucharist. Now the Gnostic Christians felt that a literal interpretation, to avoid physical fornication, might be useful since fornication was more distracting than marital sexuality; but the key point in understanding the passage for them is symbolic and metaphoric not literal. That is yet another example of how a shift in interpretive center leads to a shift in interpretation. They have a different view the material world hence a different philosophy of physical actions and this attitude about the physical as so very unimportant is the key assumption which drive their analysis.

And then of course 1Co7:10-14 the holy children are the relationship with God formed by the apolytrosis (redemption) sacrament. (Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Paul should be consulted for further details on Valentinian interpretation of 1Co7).

The physical interpretations were actually mocked, wearing hats in church (1Co11:2-16) being a matter of actual spiritual importance was be dismissed out of hand by the Valentinians. In their mind understanding these verses literally would lead to ridiculous conclusions about either Paul’s state of mind or God. The argument would go something like:

The position is just silly if read literally
God is not silly
Paul is not silly enough to believe this opinion about God

Hence: The verses should not be read literally.

Now before this reading is dismissed it should be understood the Valentinian reading lasted over a thousand years. The Cathar religion developed indirectly from the Valentinians by way of the Bogomils and from the Catholics. Consequently they maintained a syncretic interpretation of 1Cor7 combining both Jerome’s and Valentinus’. To them the argument that its better to married than fornicate reads more like “its better to commit burglary than robbery”. The sex act itself was so depraved that Perfecti (observant Cathars) not only were chaste but in fact would not even consume the products of sexual reproduction, like milk and meat. They subsisted on a diet of plants and animals that reproduce without intercourse, like fish. They accepted the material view of the verse, though they brought to it a Valentinian and not a Catholic understanding of the nature of man’s role on earth. Yet at the same time the Perfecti married because marriage was not for sex but rather for reuniting the syzygy.

I believe I need to prove 3 things to disprove the perspicuity of scripture on the topic of sex and gender roles:

These positions were justified based on scripture, which shows that scripture can be read to support them

These positions were held historically by large groups of people over a long period of time and those people saw scripture as justifying these positions. This proves that the supported reading of scripture in part 1 was not seen as some “crackpot theory”; but rather given their cultural context was a “natural reading”.

These positions contradict one another to their core.

That is quite simply if reasonable people in large numbers cannot read scripture on a given issue the same way, when their underlying cultural assumptions change then scripture cannot be said to be perspicuous on that issue. This is the argument for my introduction. Everything above is exposition and evidence that these 3 criteria were met. Simply, these positions were in fact held and were based on a reasonable reading of scripture.

So with this in mind lets start looking at Sarah Grimké’s, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes. In here we will see a reading of scripture that supports woman’s rights from someone who shares the majority of our cultural assumptions. This style of argument, I suspect, is the this blog's readers are interested in addressing. Grimké is not the best source for the woman’s rights argument but one can see in it the developments that lead to the current egalitarian position, and being 200 years old we cannot argue that these arguments did not have influence and have not found a ready audience. Again note she derives her interpretation directly from scripture:

Independent of the fact, that Jehovah could not, consistently with his character as the King, the Lawgiver, and the Judge of his people, give the reins of government over woman into the hands of man, I find that all his commands, all is moral laws, are addressed to women as well as to men. When he assembled Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai, to issue his commandments, we may reasonably suppose he gave all the precepts, which he considered necessary for the government of moral beings. Hence we find that God says, -- "honor thy father and they mother," and he enforces this command by severe penalties upon those who transgress it: "He that smitheth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" -- "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" -- Exo21:15, 17. but in the decalogue, there is no direction given to women to obey their husbands: both are commanded to have no other God but Jehovah, and not to bow down, or serve any other. When the Lord Jesus delivered his sermon on the Mount [Mat5-7], full of the practical precepts of religion, he did not issue any command to wives to obey their husbands. When he is speaking on the subject of divorce, Mar16:11, 12, he places men and women on the same ground. And the Apostle, 1Co7:12, 13, speaking of the duties of the Corinthian wives and husbands, who had embraced Christianity, to their unconverted partners, points out the same path to both, although our translators have made a distinction. "Let him not put her away," 12 -- "Let her not leave him," 13 -- is precisely the same in the original. If man is constituted the governor of woman, he must be her God; and sentiment expressed to me lately, by a married man, is perfectly correct, "In my opinion," said he, "the greatest excellence to which a married woman can attain, is to worship her husband." He was a professor of religion -- his wife a lovely and intelligent woman. He only spoke what thousands think and act. [discussion of Milton’s Paradise Lost deleted]
This much admired sentimental nonsense is fraught with absurdity and wickedness. If it were true, the commandment of Jehovah should have run thus: Man shall have no other gods before ME, and woman shall have no other gods before MAN. (Sarah Grimké 1837, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Letter XIII: Relation of Husband and Wife)

We close with a comment, which I think is important to ward off potentially wasted round of the rebuttal. And that is that the conservative Protestant hermeneutic feels more natural to a conservative Protestant. Of course it does. Heracleon has an entirely different cosmology, an entirely different theology, an entirely different ecclesiology; his thoughts sound like nonsense to the untrained ear, because they so alien. The distance is smaller between the conservative Protestant and Jerome since Jerome was on the side of the winners and his ideas became incorporated into Western cultural development. Yet sixteen centuries are not that easily overcome. Grimké fundamentally believes that God is just, and sexual discrimination unjust; for her the burden of proof will be quite high, to argue the conservative position.

To prove perspicuity it does not suffice to prove that persons that share ones viewpoint will derive the same meaning. Rather what is needed is to show that anyone faithfully reading the text will via a chain of finite length arrive at the same conclusions. How is it possible that interpretations this varied could exist among large numbers of people for long periods of time without the book itself being unclear? I anxious await the response.

At the same time, I've held off on the issue of 1Ti2:9-15 so that I can lay this groundwork, on the issue of virginity. We next show how these teachings on virginity and chastity of 1Co7 prevent us from taking 1Ti2:9-15 at their face.

Opening Statement: Affirmation of the Thesis

2008-05-30T06:59:00.000-07:00

Let me begin today by thanking CD-HOST for his patience in waiting for my opening statement. Professionally, my life has been a little more than a little busy. As we have lead up to this exchange, he has been a gracious guest and cordial correspondent.

I have a feeling that I have him at a disadvantage – because, frankly, I haven’t written much on this subject and he really spends most of his time writing about it. That’s a disadvantage to –him- because he’s sort of shooting in the dark at what I think is at stake here.

The thesis of this exchange is:

The Bible, particularly the NT, is clear about the God-created differences between men and women; those differences normally have consequences in ecclesiology.

It's an interesting thesis as it sort of combines several matters:

- Is the Bible "clear" about what it teaches?

- Is it "clear" about the differences between men and women?

- Is it clear about what it teaches about the church regarding these differences?

So there's plenty of places where CD-Host may engage my affirmation of the above statement, but I'll make my case in my own way in the hope that the case I make reflects what the Bible teaches and therefore what God has revealed to us about the question at hand.

Let me make three concessions before we begin.

[1] There has never been a time, in the history of the church, including today, that the church demonstrated perfect doctrine.

[2] There have been no men in the history of the church, after the writing of Scripture, who have perfectly received and therefore demonstrated perfect doctrine.

[3] Even those men who have rightly understood the doctrine expounded by Scripture have failed – because they are human – to live by their convictions perfectly.

And I make these concessions for one simple reason: to underscore that they say a lot more about –us-, and about our condition as humans, than they do about Scripture. One of the key arguments CD-HOST makes over at his blog is that because people have had conflicting interpretations of Scripture, it is a problem about the clarity of Scripture and not a problem that men approach Scripture with varying degrees of openness to conform to it.

Let me say frankly that even in churches which claim that the Scripture is the normative authority for faith and doctrine, often men confuse what they have been taught with what the Scripture actually says. How much more difficult would it be, then, in generations when Scripture was not viewed that highly, and when cultural issues like politics and corruption have infected the operation of church life, to say that it is Scripture’s fault by being obscure that men have disobeyed it?

In order that this exchange be as clearly-defined as possible, let me also admit that I think that the Scripture does not define everything for us with 1200-DPI granularity – because in some things, it grants us either liberty or simply does not speak to the subjects at all. For example, the Bible never tells us whether it’s right to own an SUV rather than a hybrid. It never tells us the rules of baseball. It never speaks to the question of how much time is rightly spent on entertainment except that it forbids outright sloth.

But this underscores the point at hand: on the matters which are necessary for faith and doctrine, the Scripture speaks –sufficiently- and it speaks –clearly-. When Paul said to Timothy that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work, it seems a little reductive to say that Paul’s view doesn’t extend to thing like, for example, how the church is lead.

As I say that, it seems really obvious to reply, “well, that’s Paul’s opinion, dude. And even if it’s –your- opinion, I don’t have to receive that as my opinion. You’re exposing your own biases by telling me that because Scripture says that Scripture is sufficient, I should believe that Scripture is sufficient.”

Indeed. Let me say frankly that if you’re not a Christian, there’s no reason to receive that affirmation; and if you are a Christian who doesn’t want to receive Scripture as sufficient, I wonder why you’d bother being a Christian – because apart from Scripture, there aren’t really a lot of other substantive places to go to find out what Jesus and His disciples believed about the question of what a “Christ” is and why we should care.

Nevertheless, let me be clear that the necessary premise of my argument is that Scripture is sufficient, and in that when we read the passages related to this question of the roles of men and women in the leading of the church, I think Scripture will demonstrate in itself that it is clear to what is and isn’t required, and to what end we have a degree of liberty.

Let’s begin, then, with the question of “God-created differences between men and women”. Does the Bible recognize that there are differences between these two sexes? I hate to begin with the ridiculously-obvious, but the NT uses the word “woman” or “women” more than 150 times, and the word “man” or “men” more than 650 times – granting, of course, that the Greek occasionally uses “man” in the sense of “humanity” or “mankind”. But for example, Jesus met a woman at the well in John 4; he meets a man at the pool in John 5; men who stare at a woman in lust are warned by Jesus in Matthew 5; Mary and Martha as distinguished as sisters of Lazarus, and he is called their brother in John 11. So it is obvious, to begin, that the Bible is neither oblivious to, nor does it gloss over, the fact that men exist distinct from women – that the distinction means something, at least on the surface.

But that distinction is not merely superficial. At the risk of opening up a different can of worms, Jesus goes out on a limb in Matthew 19 to say that marriage is a union of a man and a woman – not just any two people. And in saying this Jesus makes it plain that he means something specific:

from the beginning made them male and female

That men and women exist as separate, distinct sexes is God’s intention from creation and not a mistake or some kind of opportunistic circumstance.

God intended that there be both male and female among mankind.

What is interesting from an ecclesiological view is that Paul, the apostle, wants to tell us for what purpose we are created this way, in the letter to the Ephesians:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. [ESV, Eph 5:31-33]That is, somehow marriage is made by God in order that the mystery of the relationship between Christ and His church may be displayed in the union of a husband to his wife, and a wife to her husband.

The display of this mystery, as Paul elaborates it in this passage, is the display of a relationship of sacrificial love and of what he expresses in Greek as “hupotassw” – an arrangement in which one surrender rights for the sake of establishing order. A great parallel use of this word is in 1 Cor 15:28 where it is said that Christ will “be subject to” the Father – not that Christ will be somehow diminished, but that even in the Godhead there is a loving relationship of subordination for the sake of ultimate purpose.

Here’s how Paul puts that in Ephesians, and to make my point I’m going to deal with the men first:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. [Eph 5:25-30]The position of a husband is to be Christ-like to his wife in their marriage, loving her as his own body, making her a holy thing by his care for her.

But in that, the Christ-likeness of the husband is not merely a pouring out. When Paul exhorts wives, he says this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. [ESV, Eph 5:22-24]This is important for our thinking about the church because it extends the differences between men and women from the superficial (mere sex differences), past the ontological (differences for a created intentionally), to teleological -- that is, these differences have a purpose to which they are to be used. The submission of wives to husbands is correlated by Paul to the submission of the church to Christ, speaking to the purpose of marriage in God’s economy, God’s working out of His will in this world.

But so what? None of this speaks to the way the church governs itself – in fact, it may actually speak to the fact that the church is subject to Christ and not some mere man or men who think they have a special place in the world, and that place above all women. That may be specifically true of this passage. However, what this passage makes specifically clear is that the NT is not hardly silent, nor is it unclear about the differences between men and women, nor is it silent or unclear that those differences have practical applications. In that respect, I think the first part of the debate thesis is almost unquestionable.

However, does the Bible speak clearly to the question of whether those differences normally have application in the leadership of the church? That’s an interesting question because last year I began addressing a paper by Jon Zens at my blog which wanted to argue in favor of women in church leadership – and one of the classic errors there, I think, is an error we’ll see in CD-Host’s argument. That mistake is misconstruing the matter of “service” in the church with “leadership” in the church.

For example, I have a hard time finding any evidence against women leading worship in song – even though we express that activity as “leading”. What we mean by “leading worship [in song]” is in fact a service opportunity rather than a governance opportunity, and I think that as long as one if gifted and willing, and one has the right view of the role of song and music in the worship service, there are no rules barring a woman leading the signing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs during worship. You can make your own interpretations from there about what qualifies as “service”.

What qualifies as “leadership” or “governance” is not a derivative activity like singing. Paul made this clear to Titus when he wrote:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you -- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. [ESV Tit 1:5-8]Think about this: the key matter which qualifies one to be an “elder” is the ability to teach faithfully, and to rebuke those who contradict sound teaching. Those who lead the church are those who are teaching the church and thereby also turning those in error away from their mistakes. In that way, leadership is framed by Paul not as the exercise of political power or the administration of the church’s affairs but as the instruction of the church in doctrine.

But if that is the definition of leadership, who, then, does Paul say may conduct this leadership?

Paul says to Titus that these who are qualified must be disciplined – that is, one must be self-controlled, not subject to the various passions and impulses people might experience. One must be “holy”, which I would take to mean clearly established as a member of the church by action (especially baptism, but not merely baptized). One must be “upright”, which is to say that one must demonstrate sanctification by practice of what’s right. And, I think, no one would dispute these qualifications because they are very clear in this passage to Titus.

The problem, then, is hermeneutical – because with the same clarity which Paul says to Titus that one must be a virtuous member of the church with self-control and the ability to rightly teach God’s word, Paul exhorts Titus that “elders” must be “the husband of one wife”. That is, in the church, the role of teaching the word and rebuking errors is the function of men.

Let’s not get distracted, then, about questions of whether women can serve as other kinds of ministers in our churches. I would affirm without any questions or qualifications that women are called to serve in the church. All believers are called to serve in the church, and that service is a broad field of service, including some forms of teaching and public ministry. But what is at stake, as far as I am advocating here, is that the normal leadership of the church – the teaching of the local body, the establishment of trustworthy doctrine, and the rebuke of those who are in error – falls to men who are rightly gifted and trained for that work.

I look forward to this exchange, and I thank CD-HOST for his patience in waiting for my opening statement. I hope to be more timely in future installments of this exchange.

-2544 words

Male Eldership and the NT

2008-05-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

I recently got an e-mail from a fellow who wants to be referred to as “CD-Host”, who wanted to engage in an exchange on the matter of ecclesiology – particularly church eldership. CD-Host runs what he calls “the church discipline blog”. He has a series he is proud of, which he calls “the defense against patriarchy”, which he has described to me as, “in which [it is] argued that was no clear doctrine within the New Testament and the views expressed by most of the ‘religious right’ ... are essentially 19th and 20th century reactions to feminism and not derived in a purely theological way from the bible at all”.

So the general topic of this exchange is “church eldership”, particularly male eldership. And for the first time, I’m blowing up the format to a full-bore Debate with a capital “D”. After a long discussion (fruitful, not contentious), CD-Host and I have agreed to terms where I will affirm the thesis and he will deny the thesis.

Briefly, the terms are:

An opening statement of not less than 2000 word and not more than 4000 words
First Rebuttal of not less than 2000 word and not more than 4000 words
Second Rebuttal of not more than 2000 words
D-Blog style cross examination – one party asks a question (300 word limit), the second party answers (500 word limit); second party asks a question (300 word limit), the first party answers (500 word limit). The exchange lasts 10 questions for each side
Closing statements (2000 words)
Guest posts closing remarks (1000 words)

The schedule looks like this:

The only other terms here are that each side has 10 days to respond for each stage of the opening/rebuttal period, and has 3 days to respond to questions in the cross-ex period. I can’t speak for CD-HOST, but I offer freely the opportunity to extend any of those time limits if he requests such an extension, granted that the request is made publicly here.

Here’s the thesis statement:

The Bible, particularly the NT, is clear about the God-created differences between men and women; those differences normally have consequences in ecclesiology.

One other thing: the reader will find that the posts will be formatted differently than in other D-Blog engagements. I think that formatting will help you follow who has said what. My intention is to add clarity to which side of the discussion is making what point.

My thanks in advance to CD-HOST for his participation here and his time in engaging this topic.

Opening statements will be up within the next 10 days.

Yeah, that's a shame

2008-05-19T14:19:00.000-07:00

For the record, he's the full text of the e-mail I sent to Mike:

from: Frank Turk [email@debateblog]
to: Mike Rucker [email@bellsouth]

date: Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM
subject: Re: One other thing
mailed-by gmail.com

Insight for you to consider, Mike:

My original invite to you at JT's blog was:

"You can read the general terms of a D-Blog exchange" means "read the terms and agree to them before we start". That's not language failing to communicate: that's Mike ignoring (or more generously, "overlooking" or "missing") what's written to him. Maybe one of your problems on the internet is that you don't really read what's written to you.

Don't play wounded puppy, dude. You're really sharp until you cut yourself, then you want to blame someone else's knife.

You've had two opening statements, and I'm willing to chalk that up to my failure to communicate. Review the rules of engagement and abide by them. They are neither difficult nor are they complicated, and to be honest I don't count words that closely. Abide by the rules -- spirit and letter -- and we can have a productive exchange. Ask a question and start the exhange.

Behave in a less-than-forthright way, and expect to be shut down.

You choose.

~Frank

Thanks to Mike for, um, his few words of wisdom.

and that's the ballgame...

2008-05-19T08:54:00.000-07:00

after my post, Frank sent the following in an email to me:

You're way out-of-format at D-blog. Before we go further, please take a look at at least one of the other exchanges I have had there and review the e of engagement at the sidebar.

Ask a question, get an answer, then answer a question. It makes the exchange easier for readers to follow.

this is my response, and with it, i bid you all adieu:

then so be it, Frank. your initial comment at BTW said you wanted to discuss my statement, then you gave two of your own.

you asked me what to discuss, and i said "let's look at the second of your assertions."

your first post dealt more with me than the topic at hand - and you never gave any evidence to back up the statement - your's - that i suggested we discuss. instead, you gave three more assertions, which i identified and responded to in full.

i closed my post trying to narrow down the discussion, asking you a straightforward question, i.e., give the reasons you hold to the second assertion you made.

if this is the way the game is played here, then i won't waste my time, or yours, or our readers.

yes, it is your ballfield. and your rules.

thanks for (not) playing.

mr

mike's second post re: God's nature

2008-05-19T08:14:00.000-07:00

thanks Frank. let me see if i can summarize your three assertions in your previous post.

your position is:

(1) That "grace" implies salvation is done for reasons God alone is motivated by, and that salvation is something not owed to men.

(2) That there is something which compels God to save and, according to Frank, that must be that man "deserves" saving, which would be something apart from God (that thing: what man deserves) - that God's nature is obliged to do.

(3) That Mike judges others with a yardstick he doesn't apply to himself, one which conveniently measures others as lacking, and himself as the New Messiah. :)

let's look at them one by one.

(1) That "grace" implies salvation is done for reasons God alone is motivated by, and that salvation is something not owed to men.

i'm not sure the word "owed" ever came into any of my comments. and, i would somewhat agree with you, that God does not "owe" man anything.

but the key thing is that God did and does approach man - even your Calvinist theology is built upon that. so the idea that we may not know the exact reasons, the fact remains that he does have reasons. whether or not they obligate him to do something i don't think is relevant. but He is making the first move - and i think we can look into scripture and see what some of the reasons are that He does so.

of course, "obligated" and "reasons" are finite terms that we are using to describe something infinite; they most likely fall short of fully expressing God's nature.

but it's God's very nature that scripture tells us God cannot act against. which, i think, leads us to your second assertion:

(2) That there is something which compels God to save and, according to Frank, that must be that man "deserves" saving, which would be something apart from God (that thing: what man deserves) - that God's nature is obliged to do.

here, i think you're limiting God's reasons. you're saying that the single reason God would be compelled to save is that man must be deserving of saving. i'm not going to argue the second point just yet - and as i'm typing this, i might not argue it at all. but i will argue the first point, because it isn't logically valid. God could be "compelled" to save man - not "obligated" - because that's what His nature cries for.

and i think the very fact that scripture shows Him making the first move in so many places - calling Abraham, working to save Noah, Christ dying "before the foundation of the world," Christ dying "while we were yet sinners," the prophets and their messages of warning - the instances are practically endless.

but the best picture of course is the prodigal's father, who goes and sits on the porch in anticipation and expectation of His son's return.

so, if God is acting in some way, and He cannot act against His nature, then His nature must involve the desire - again, not the obligation - to save. in fact, scripture tells us that it is God's desire that "all men be saved" - and that, i would argue, is the very nature upon which He's acting.

the second half of my statement originally was that "His very nature pointed him toward reconciliation, not judgment"; i think the whole redemptive thrust of scripture bears that out.

now, granted, my statements don't necessarily follow logically: that since God acted, God must see us as deserving, or God's nature must be that He wants to save us.

but, scripture clearly tells us that your assertion is, in fact, wrong: that God's nature is not to reconcile. His actions then would be against His nature.

(3) That Mike judges others with a yardstick he doesn't apply to himself, one which conveniently measures others as lacking, and himself as the New Messiah. :)

touche. i am trying to do better - honest. i try very hard not to "judge" people, simply ask questions back to their positions and perhaps make them see things which they are overlooking. now, if i'm guilty of anything that can be called "judging," it's that i believe - and generally imply - that my discussion partners are "overlooking" these other things by choice, prefering to give certain verses more weight than others, even in the process denying that they do so.

just as an addendum (and, as you can tell, i'm not counting words...), my view of your position - correct or not, and i'll let you correct me - is that the Trinity sat around one day talking about how the angels think the Trinity is great - magnificent - words could never even begin to describe it. One of them then spoke up and said, "Hey - guys - I've got this great plan to make the angels - heck, the whole universe - think we're even greater and more glorious than our press clippings make us out to be. Here's how it will work...". and He laid out the plan of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption - all for His infinite opinion of Himself (Themself?).

my view is that the whole redemptive plan of scripture is that man was created for relationship with God, and when that relationship was broken, God must have wanted to mend it - because He did. And He put in place a plan to do that very thing - perhaps in some measure for "His glory" - a pretty nebulous term that has very little meaning - but just as much for us, and His love for us.

which makes more sense?

so, i guess my question back to you is this: What makes you say that, "God’s “nature” is not to “reconcile” (your words, emphasis mine)?

one final request: please make your next post deal less with opinions of me and more with the subjects at hand. otherwise, berny's going to call you out for not knowing enough theology...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Opening statement for Mike

2008-05-19T03:09:00.000-07:00

I think it's a little odd that Mike asked for an opening statement from me as he has, frankly, listed my opening statement: the class of men who deserve to be saved is a set with no members; that is to say, if we use the word "grace" to convey what God does to save men, we are admitting that what God does in salvation is not because something is earned by or owed to men, but that God has done something which He alone can do for reasons He alone is motivated by.

In that, Mike's focus on the second half of the statement is interesting -- because if what he means is that God saves for His own purpose, I'd agree with that with no reservations. But it seems clear to me that what Mike is saying is instead that there is something which compels God to save (that thing: what man deserves) which is apart from God, and God's nature is then obliged to do the saving. Because the actual thesis statement is a restatement of something Mike actually said, I leave it to him to, eventually, sort that out.

Last thing, and then Mike can ask his first question: I like it that Mike's view of me is that I just "recite" theology, and his opinion of himself is that he's mostly just misunderstood because writing is an inferior form of communication. It exposes Mike's biases about himself, about others, and about language -- meaning that Mike thinks he's far better than writing allows him to express, and others are not really as honest or forthright as he is about their convictions, even if the only way by which he knows them is (ironically) through writing.

I am sure Mike is going to say a lot in the exchange here. The reader should decide if he answers the questions I will put to him.

line drive up the middle

2008-05-18T13:26:00.000-07:00

are you so fast that you cannot see that i must have solitiude?
when i am in the darkness why must you intrude?
do you know my world? do you know my kind? or must i explain?
will you let me be myself or is your love in vain?
- bob dylan, is your love in vain, off of street legal, 1978

sitting on a park bench eyeing little girls with bad intent...
aqualung my friend, don't you start away uneasy -
you poor old sot, you see it's only me...
- ian anderson, aqualung, off of aqualung, 1971

hello everyone. my name is mike rucker, and i live in fairburn, georgia.

i have a blog at: http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

the subheading of my blog, and the opinion of my posts that i hope you'll come to have, is: "thoughts from the heart ... and both sides of the brain".

please feel free to read these two recent posts there for a little more background on what i'm writing here:
half & half, but twice the pounds
press down while lifting

i was invited here by one Frank Turk, who i've run into here and there around w's internets, usually in the comments sections of posts where i unveil briefly to the world what appear to be great gifts of sarcasm, irony and arrogance. occasional brilliance, too, but i remain - in my mind, anyways - the lone judge of that; sorry. however, if you knew me in person, you'd think quite differently about me, simply because this printed form of communication doesn't lend itself to expressing everything we humans transmit with each message we attempt to move from our hearts and minds into others'.

my entire raison d'etre, at least at this point in life, is to try to be a bridge between the various extremes that i see all around me. and, fairly or not, i lump Frank in with the group i call the purveyours of "recitation theology" - i.e., they simply repeat lots of what they've heard, seldom realizing that the heart needs to be engaged with their usually quite functional brains. in all honesty, that's clearly a straw man of who and what Frank is and believes; i'm sure Frank has a heart almost as big as his head (ta-dum). most of our shortcomings on these topics are due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of us stating our views are, quite simply, male, and we find the left sides of our brains easier to work within than the touchy-feely areas of the right. my gift - or curse - is that i spend mostly equal time in each half, the proof being my possesion of a degree in electrical engineering from Georgia Tech, along with a masters degree in divinity from what is now Phoenix Seminary.

my challenge in life is that i find most answers to be one-half; frustratingly, the real world we live in almost always forces us to decide, if only for the moment, upon either 1 or 0 (betraying my twenty-five years in software engineering...). so i play devil's advocate in most arenas of discussion, trying to show the limitations each side makes when it remains firmly encamped in one extreme, while at the same time trying to help everybody see that all of our poop, in the end (or just out of it), still smells.

Jesus seems to have been the only one to effectively walk the line between truth and grace; each of us - me, Frank - tends to err on one side or the other simply because that's our human nature. Jesus, however, had a leg up on us, possessing a godly nature along with the human one - no doubt resulting in great bouts of schizophrenia and MPD, some glimpses of which we are allowed to see in the gospels.

(just kidding.)

which brings us to our topic. at his Between Two Worlds blog, Justin Taylor had a post within the past week entitled, Is Jesus the Only Way to God?. in it, he posted a link to an internet article he had written entitled, One More Way To God Than I Deserve. the discussion in the comments section, currently sitting at twenty-nine entries, found Frank posting the following in response to a sentence of mine (in bold):

________________________________

Rucker:

I’d be open to a 5-question exchange on my DebateBlog on [your statement]:

God obviously saw us as deserving and His very nature pointed him toward reconciliation, not judgment.

My thesis is that this is not God’s motivation for saving anyone — that God doesn’t save anyone who deserves saving (because that’s a class of ZERO members), and that God’s “nature” is not to “reconcile”.

________________________________

we thus have two topics on the table, listed here as Frank proposed them:

God doesn’t save anyone who deserves saving (because that’s a class of ZERO members);

and,

God’s “nature” is not to “reconcile”.

so, to begin this interchange, let's start with the latter, that God’s “nature” is not to “reconcile”. my understanding is that Frank will respond with a post making his case, and then i will respond in kind, and we'll go from there.

just for the record: i picked the second proposition out of sheer laziness, really. Frank, i'll try not to return your first pitch in a line-drive back to the mound; it'll hurt less if you just turn and watch it fly over the outfield fence...

(you, the reader, can file that one under "sarcasm, irony and arrogance".

of course, you already know what folder i've placed it in...)

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Announcements

2008-05-18T04:41:00.000-07:00

I'd like to thank Kent for his vigorous engagement. 10 questions is a long commitment, and Kent stuck with it to the end.

Coming up next, I was over at Justin Taylor's blog when I found a comment by a fellow named Mike Rucker, and from that comment I proposed to Mike that he defend the following statement:

God obviously saw us as deserving and His very nature pointed him toward reconciliation, not judgment.

The question is about Salvation, and whether man "deserves" to be saved -- or if God has something else in mind.

Mike is receiving his invite to post here right now, and we welcome him to the D-Blog.