Comments on adrianwarnock.com: INTERVIEW - Wayne Grudem, Part Eight - What Does t...

Tim,'clearly worded biblical support' is not the s...

2006-12-20T22:46:00.000Z

Tim,
'clearly worded biblical support' is not the same as the 'letter of the law'.
If we cannot rely on the Bible to be our sure and unchanging guide then we have nothing.

No, I do not feel 'just a little uneasy' at all about trusting God's word to be true and sure and unchanging.
What would make me very uneasy would be to allow man's opinions to reshape God's word.
I have re-read all of your comments above and all I see is your opinion and appeals to sources outside the Bible. Not enough by a long way.
A blessed Christmas to you and yours.

Glenn:It is historically true that some people arg...

2006-12-20T20:09:00.000Z

Glenn:

It is historically true that some people argued strongly, on theological grounds, that slavery was biblical. This is a matter of historical fact, not my opinion (an example can be found here). They felt that they were right just as strongly as you feel that you are right today.

(Semantic note: when I say 'strong theological arguments' in this sentence, I do not mean 'good theological arguments. I mean exactly what I said: people were absolutely convinced theologically that they were correct).

Second, I have already stated my biblical evidence in one of my comments above. I would simply add to it that I am not convinced by Wayne Grudem's case against trajectory arguments. If one compares the status of slaves and women in the Bible to their status in the surrounding culture, the movement is clear. Is further movement justified? In the case of slavery, we have clearly decided that it is. On what basis? On the basis of our common status as bearers of the image of God. Well then - 'In the image of God he made them, male and female'.

Finally, are you not just a little uneasy about being the one who is appealing to the 'clearly worded' biblical support - in other words, the 'letter of the law', to use NT terms? Seems to me that Paul took a different view on that issue!

I'm done, and will gladly give you the last word, Glenn. A blessed Christmas to you and yours.

Tim,Strong theological arguments cannot have been ...

2006-12-20T12:21:00.000Z

Tim,
Strong theological arguments cannot have been used if they don't exist in the first place, therefore, at best, you can say that people used arguments from scripture to try and support the practice of slavery.

The reason I keep repeating my statement regarding Biblical support for male leadership is that it is there, and neither you, Peter or Suzanne have ever presented anything that counters it apart from your opinions.
I can show Biblical (clearly worded) support for it, but you cannot show Biblical evidence against.
I am not going to change what I believe just because you say it is wrong. Show me Biblical evidence that what I believe is wrong and I will willingly change.

You misread my post, Glenn; I did not claim that t...

2006-12-19T09:44:00.000Z

You misread my post, Glenn; I did not claim that there were strong theological arguments in support of slavery in the Bible. I simply suggested that we remember the strong theological arguments that were used in support of slavery until abolition.

Yes, you have said over and over again that 'the Bible is unambiguously clear about male leadership'. I know that you believe this. Peter, Suzanne and (to a much lesser extent) I have tried to explain why we do not agree with this statement. Your response is to repeat the statement.

That's a pretty strong interpretive grid you got there, my friend.

Slight error there, inasmuch as there were actuall...

2006-12-19T01:02:00.000Z

Slight error there, inasmuch as there were actually no "strong theological arguments" in support of slavery in the Bible.
There were people who ignored what the Bible said so they could continue to own slaves, but that is different.

No matter what 'grid' you learned within, the Bible is unambiguously clear about male leadership.
It is not something that Dr Grudem or Dr Piper etc just came up with one day. The scriptures are clear.

Oh, just to be absolutely clear, I will repeat - for slavery there are no true supporting verses in the Bible.
For male leadership there is so much support from Genesis to Revelation.
For what has come to be called egalitarianism there is no support at all.

Like I said, interpretation...Look, Philip. Wayne ...

2006-12-17T21:50:00.000Z

Like I said, interpretation...

Look, Philip. Wayne Grudem sees evangelical feminism as a rejection of the authority of the scriptures. He sees those of us who hold to it as rejecting the clear apostolic teaching.

Well, funnily enough, this sort of language was used commonly by the early church fathers about those who rejected a pacifist interpretation of the scriptures. This is Hippolytus' 'Apostolic Tradition' (c. 200 A.D.):

A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God (Hippolytus 16:9-11).

Here are a few other quotes from the Church Fathers. Tertullian wrote,

‘the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.’ (On the Chaplet 11-12).

Origen wrote,

‘You can not demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.' (Against Celsus VIII.7.3 about 240 AD)

Justin wrote

‘We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One.' (Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4 about 160 AD)

So, Philip, you see pacifism as a matter of individual conscience, but Hippolytus saw it as so important that those who rejected it were not even allowed to be enrolled as catechumens. You, however, have been raised in a culture in which Just War theory is the predominant interpretive grid, and so you are surprised to discover that I see your view as a rejection of the clear teaching of scripture.

We are formed by our interpretive grids. I've been formed by mine. Wayne Grudem has been formed by his. You've been formed by yours.

I see Junia as one of the apostles. I see Priscilla and Aquilla sharing in teaching and instructing Apollos together. I see Jesus breaking the taboos against women participating in theological discussion by allowing Mary to sit with him and the apostles in the after-synagogue conversations. So no, for me the matter is not clear at all.

And I've got a prediction. Donna thnks that the view I hold is doomed to extinction, that it will go the way of the Shakers. Well, remember the strong theological arguments that were used in favour of slavery until the eighteenth century!

Tim, Rom 13: referring to the state in the third p...

2006-12-17T15:17:00.000Z

Tim,

Rom 13: referring to the state in the third person doesn’t imply Christians should not be part of the enforcement process. That is not the point Paul’s making – in saying Christians should be subject to governing authorities, he’s describing the role of the state, not discussing whether Christians should be involved in enforcement or armed services. Paul may be “assuming” Christians are not part of the enforcement process, but is not commanding they should not be. The prohibition of women from some roles is clear in 1 Tim 2:12 – it does not have to be imported into the text.

Rom 12:14-21: looking at the text itself for the context, this is very practical teaching for individual Christians about how Christians should respond to those who persecute them. We should seek to live at peace with all “if possible, so far as it depends on you” (v18), and we should love our enemies, overcoming evil with good (v20-21). This seems to be about the response the individual Christian should have towards another individual who’s persecuting him. Some Christians feel this passage forbids them to join the armed services, that’s up to them, but Scripture does not explicably forbid involvement. I think this should be a matter for a Christian’s conscience on the principle of Rom 14:12ff.

As regards it being harder for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, it does say just that: it is hard (presumably because a rich man has more material comforts that inoculate him against sensing a need to get right with God, and it is difficult for him to surrender his riches for God’s use), not that it is impossible. For with God all things are possible.

Luke 14:33: this says anyone who does not “renounce” (ESV) all that he has cannot be Jesus’ disciple. The context is Jesus saying to the crowd “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14: 26-27). So “all that he has” in context refers to more than just possessions (but would include them), and He cannot mean abandonment of ones’ family, although in some cases following him may mean that as some religions reject family members who are saved. Rather a giving up “all that we have” from the central place in our lives that He should have. We need to be cut off from everything that competes with Him as Lord, hence Jesus use of the strong word “hate” to compare our love for Him with that for our family. So Luke 14:33 cannot be used to impose a law that forbids wealth for Christians.

glenn:That you disagree is your privilege, but the...

2006-12-17T07:35:00.000Z

glenn:
That you disagree is your privilege, but the teaching in scripture is unambiguous, the wording is clear.
Egalitarianism ultimately undermines the clear teaching of scripture in regard to the leadership of God's Church and as such should and will be opposed.>>>>

I doubt that guys think along these lines very much, but actually, feminism in all its forms is pretty much doomed to extinction - at least as an influential movement. Think about it. Feminism will tend to go the way of the Shakers.

Exactly my point, you see. Interpretations which q...

2006-12-17T00:14:00.000Z

Exactly my point, you see. Interpretations which question the literal meaning of the texts are apparently allowed in these other cases, but not in the case of the role of women. Thank you, Philip!

To say 'Christian pacifism is not supported by scripture' is to reject the almost unanimous voice of the Church Fathers of the first two centuries. And in Romans 13, while Paul does allow the sword to the state, he describes the state in the third person, assuming that Christians will not be part of this enforcement process. His instructions to Christians are found in Romans 12 - 'Don't repay evil for evil, if your enemy is hungy, feed him' etc. etc.

The 'just war' position does not really gain ground until after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. He of course needed to defend his empire, and so theologians kindly came up with a theological rationale for this - a classic case of conforming to the culture around rather than God's Word. But of course, for many of us, it's the interpretive culture we've been raised in, so we don't see the inconsistencies.

I was not basing my argument about wealth solely on what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6. In fact, I was alluding to Jesus' words that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. I was then using Paul's words in 1 Timothy 6 to decide what 'rich' might mean. It's true that Paul doesn't say you cannot be rich and enter the kingdom - but Jesus does. In fact, in one place Jesus says that no one can be his disciple unless they give up everything they have (Luke 14:33). This is 'the plain teaching of God's Word'; do you follow it, Glenn and Philip?

So I repeat my point: if we're free to 'interpret' scriptural texts that mandate non-violence and that forbid wealth and the lending of money at interest, why are we not free to 'interpret' the texts about the role of women? I still haven't been given a satisfactory answer.

For me, I have long felt the root issue here is th...

2006-12-16T22:55:00.000Z

For me, I have long felt the root issue here is the authority of Scripture. What is our final authority: God's word, or the world? That Christian feminism seems to have arisen in an era of feminism in the world - this alone should be enough to make us cautious!

It has been said rightly that the Word of God has to be applied in today's world. But I have also heard it said that the Bible has to be interpreted in the context of today's world . A subtle difference. A common argument I’ve heard advanced in the UK by those who advocate women elders and pastors etc is 1 Timothy 2:12 only applies to the specific situation that Paul was addressing. But I’ve heard just this same sort of argument used against Jesus’ miracles, the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection: the society of Bible days thought in such terms of miracles and resurrection, but now we are a rational scientific age….That is, the Bible is a book written in a particular culture at a particular time, and so the parts that don’t sit easily with today’s society and culture can be disregarded or at least some different lesson drawn from that which is obvious in the text. So I feel evangelicals who argue for women elders and pastors are taking a ‘liberal’ approach to Scripture.

Another key for me that I cannot dismiss is Jesus didn't appoint women amongst His twelve, when He never hesitated to challenge many religious practices and traditions.

As for Tim’s other comments: Christian pacifism is not supported by Scripture. Jesus said there would be wars and rumours of wars. Also I understand that the Hebrew word “murder” (Ex 20:13) is distinguished from the word “kill” used for what happens in wars. Rom 13:4 speaking of the state bearing the sword must include just war. Of course Christians are called to be peacemakers and avoid war wherever possible where they have responsibility for those decisions.

As for 1 Tim 6:8, yes Paul says he is content to have nothing more than food and clothing. Just that. To say you cannot be rich and enter the Kingdom of Heaven is reading something into the text that is not there. 1 Tim 6:10 says the love of money (not money) is the root of all kinds of evil. It all depends on what “the rich” do with their money (v18-19), whether desiring to be rich is the dominant motivation in their life (v9) and what their hope is in (v17).

G'day Peter,I think taking Grudem at his word make...

2006-12-16T22:42:00.000Z

G'day Peter,

I think taking Grudem at his word makes more sense - he is basing his belief that Jesus will bring unity to the church on these issues on Eph 5:27. And should you import Gamaliel's argument into his comments, I think it clear he thinks both that the false will die and the truth will be vindicated.

However, the fact is that Grudem doesn't appeal to Gamaliel. To say that Grudem should therefore spend no effort on resolving these matters based on an argument he did not appeal to...well that, at the least, is ungenerous.

Instead, Grudem talks about the santification process in Eph 5:27 which involves our effort under God's sovereign work. This is true individually, and history has shown it to be true in terms of the Church as a whole - Why else the Church Councils? Why else the suffering of people like Athanasius?

So, yes, God will eventually purify his church, but he will use people to do it. And the desire of those he uses to champion what they believe is correct doctrine is not similtaneously a lack of faith in God. Instead, it is a desire to hasten the sanctification of the Church (there will be those outside it who continue in error, eg. JW's re. Arianism) so as to save as many people as possible from error and to bring glory to God.

But you also say, "How can we really know we are right?" This of course is one of the egalitarian arguments addressed early in the interview - "There is debate so we can't possibly sat we are right about a text while a significant number of others disagree."

One of the forms of humility is crying out to God for truth and being willing to be shown we are wrong - it all comes from him anyway. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't be confident in what we have weighed and come believe for ourselves, for the Church and for others. Where, then, would corporate holiness and evangelism be?

One last point: there is a difference between presentation of belief and belief itself. To modify how we communicate so as not to cause unnecessary offence is part of loving others; to modify what we communicate so as not to offend others is cowardice. Let's not mix the two up in what we request of other people.

I find Glenn's statements disappointing. The whole...

2006-12-16T18:22:00.000Z

I find Glenn's statements disappointing. The whole point of this discussion is to be absolutely sure that it is the scriptures we are actually hearing, and not some culturally conditioned reading of them. Peter has clearly and patiently set out, over and over again, why he finds the egalitarian reading of scripture to be convincing.

If the complimentarian reading is so plain and obvious, why do so many find it unconvincing? And to reply 'They are allowing their cultural assumptions to override the clear teaching of God's Word' begs the question, 'And the complimentarians are not?'

One last word. Since so many are so keen on taking a stand on the 'clear teaching of scripture', I look forward to their bold championship of the following, which are supported by equally clear teachings of scripture:
1. Christian pacifism.
2. Condemnation of the lending of money at interest.
3. The truth that rich 'Christians' (which, according to 1 Timothy 6:8, means anyone who owns more than just food and clothing) cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

But Peter this isn't about our fallibility, or our...

2006-12-16T16:22:00.000Z

But Peter this isn't about our fallibility, or our propensity for error.
This is about the clear teaching of God's word, not some hard to understand or esoteric verse.
That you disagree is your privilege, but the teaching in scripture is unambiguous, the wording is clear.
Egalitarianism ultimately undermines the clear teaching of scripture in regard to the leadership of God's Church and as such should and will be opposed.

Some movements will not die out as God uses them to test and refine His Church and His people.
As in, there will always be those who advocate false doctrine, inaccurate theology etc, etc.
For instance the Mormons or the JW's have not died out, but we would not count them as fellow Christians (I hope), then there is 'Liberal Theology' which continues to lead astray and misinform.

Then there are those, like your goodself, who, though dedicated to God, have allowed their own preferences to override what is plainly written in Scripture.

Well, it is interesting to see that Grudem seems t...

2006-12-16T13:37:00.000Z

Well, it is interesting to see that Grudem seems to be applying the first part of Gamaliel's argument, Acts 5:38, to the egalitarian movement in the church: if it is not of God, it will die out. Unfortunately church history has shown that this side of the argument does not always work, or at least does not do for many centuries: for many clearly heretical movements have survived and grown. But we can indeed have confidence that they will not survive the final judgment, but only God's work will survive.

But perhaps Grudem should consider the rest of Gamaliel's argument, 5:39: if it is of God, nothing will be able to stop its progress. I think we can be more confident of this side of the argument.

Gamaliel's point is of course that there is little point in opposing movements which we don't like. If they are not from God, they will die out anyway, and we are wasting our time arguing against them. Since Grudem is so confident that egalitarianism is not from God and that God will ensure that it does not succeed, why does he expend so much time and energy on arguing against it? And, since none of us have perfect knowledge until Jesus comes again (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, as understood by Grudem), we can never be sure that what we are opposing is not in fact God's work; so, as Gamaliel also pointed out, there is the danger that we will turn our limitation of knowledge into opposition to God.

So, perhaps what we all need on this topic is a bit less of an antagonistic spirit and a bit more humility. And let's leave it to God, rather than to our own theological positions, to show his rejection or approval of egalitarianism by how he works in egalitarian churches worldwide.