Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Logic and Gal. 3:28
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Logic and Gal. 3:28 Mark Hardgrove
I teach Systematic Theology at BHU and we use Norman Geisler’s books. These books were being used as the standard text when I arrived as the chair of the graduate division and because our online courses are built around his text, I was not able to change them. I’ve reviewed many others (Culver, Erickson, Grudem, Grenz, and Williams, to name but a few of the larger works), but as of yet have not found one that really stood out to replace Geisler. There is much I do not like about Geisler including the fact that while he seems so solid in many areas, he often allows his theological predispositions to override sound exegesis on occasions (for example when he argues only the 12 apostles spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost). So, for balance, I augment his moderate-Calvinism and anti-Pentecostal perspectives with readings form Dr. Arrington’s work.

Having said that, I will say that one thing I like about Geisler’s work is that he employs the use of logic to make his case. He argues that foundational logical reasoning is fundamental to theology.

For example, he argues that there are three “fundamental laws of thought” that are elemental laws of all rational thinking:

1) The law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A)
2) The law of identity (A is A)
3) The law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A)

Why are these three laws so important for theology? He explains:

1) Without the law of noncontradiction we could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God.
2) If the law of identity were not binding, we could not say that God is God (G is G). Without the law of identity, God would not be identical to Himself; He could be something other than Himself (e.g., the devil), which is plainly absurd.
3) Likewise, if the law of the excluded middle didn’t exist we could not affirm that it is either God or not God that we are speaking about. When we use the term “God,” we could be referring to both God and not God. This clearly is meaningless.

I said all of that simply to point out that when making a theological argument, it must also by logically sound. We cannot simply throw out opinions without some rational, reasoned, logical antecedents upon which to base our argument. Often, as in both deductive and inductive reasoning, we must demonstrate a rational progression of thought that builds upon previous proven sound statements or arguments, or the following views become non-sequitur (does not follow).

What does this have to do with the topic of women in leadership? Or more specifically my argument that women should be recognized as qualified, gifted, anointed and appointed by God in all areas of ministry without gender restrictions regarding leadership in the church?
I’m glad you asked.

First, if we begin with the premise that God is God (law of identity), then it follows with the universal affirmative that God is perfect. Further, to say that God is perfect would be to say that God does not make mistakes, and God does not contradict Himself. To say that God is perfect, is to say that God’s Word is perfect (inerrant and infallible). Therefore, God (and by extension His Word) is always consistent with Himself (to be inconsistent, or to contradict oneself, is to be less than perfect).

This is an example of deductive logic. If the premise is true that God is perfect, then the propositions that follow are also true. Again you ask what does this have to do with the topic of women’s equality in ecclesiastical leadership/ministry.

If the Bible cannot contradict itself (because God cannot contradict Himself), then any apparent contradictions lie not with the perfection of God, but with the imperfection of humanity to adequately understand the text, or to fail to appreciate the context, or to be missing some key element of the historical context in which the literary text was penned. In light of this, we can begin with those key texts that are clear and concise and which form the foundation for understanding other texts. For example, “The Lord our God is One.” This is a foundational truth with which all explanations of the Triunity of God must agree.

Some truths are placed in the context of theological statements, such as the example above, and others are placed in the context of historical narrative, Psalms, biblical poetry, prophetic statements, parables, and other literary genre found in Scripture. However, regardless of the genre, the theological perspectives and propositions must be consistent with one another as the Word of God.

So, what do we find in Scripture concerning women in various leadership positions in Scripture. I will argue that if God did use women in leadership positions, then God does use women in leadership positions. It would be illogical to argue that God does not, when we have historical, biblical, precedent that clearly demonstrates that God did. Some might argue that God did, but He doesn’t now. However, one would have to be able to demonstrate that from Scripture, and unfortunately for those who will take this line of argument, the Scriptural record from the Old Testament (Deborah, Huldah, Esther, etc.—though, in fact, only one example is enough to prove the point) through the New Testament (Lydia, Pricilla, the many women in the Gospels, Phoebe, Junia, etc.) is that God did and continued to use women in various leadership roles, and in many of those roles they had a leadership position in which men were led, taught, guided, or instructed by a woman. So I would argue that since God did, then God does and there is no biblical support for the position that God no longer does.

Second, with respect to Paul’s position on women in ministry (given that Paul’s writings are inspired scripture), one would do well to start at the beginning of Paul’s statements and then understand that everything that follows must be in agreement with the previous statements. Most NT scholars are agreed that the Epistle to the Galatians is one of the earliest, if not the first, epistle written by the hand of Paul. As such, his comments on the women in the kingdom become foundational for any other statements that follow, because the Word of God cannot contradict or be inconsistent with itself. What does Paul state in Galatians?

Gal. 2:8 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This is a seminal statement by Paul, and it reflects his view (in the Holy Spirit) that the racial, social, and gender distinctions engendered in the curse, and perpetuated in the law, are no longer the guiding principles for relations under grace. Under grace, through faith in Christ, the division between Jews and Gentiles in the kingdom of God are no longer in force. One is a an heir of the promises of Abraham through faith, not law or race. Certainly, there continue to be Jews and Gentiles, but Jewish and Gentile believers have absolutely equal footing in the kingdom with regard to all facets of ministry and standing before the Lord. There is no superiority of Jews over Gentiles in the kingdom of God through grace and faith in Jesus Christ. In a sense, through faith in Christ the spiritual “Israel of God” is Jewish and Gentile believers together--a point that Paul made publicly clear in his rebuke of Peter for acquiescing to the separationist views of the Judaizers.

The division between slave and master in the social context of slavery is no longer in force. Certainly, slavery continued to exist in the Roman Empire, and such social/cultural distinctions were there, but in the kingdom the slave could be the bishop of his master and as Paul tells Philemon, slave and master are brothers in the kingdom and should treat one another with mutual respect. This view laid the foundation for the demise of slavery in Christian nations. While we later see Paul telling slaves to obey their masters, no one would argue that slavery should still be in force. The theological precedent for the end of slavery is found in Galatians 3:28 and all other statement concerning slavery by Paul must be read in light of this seminal statement.

The division between male and female is also one that is found in the same sentence, in the same breath, at the same level, and in the same context as the two previous statements concerning Jews and Gentiles, slave and free. Just as there are no kingdom distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave or free, then by extension the same principle applies to male and female. This is an unavoidable and foundational truth concerning this passage. As such (as with the previous cases) everything else that follows in later writings by Paul must be read in light of this passage and not the other way around. Further, this is inspired Word of God and as such is not inconsistent with itself and cannot contradict itself. It follows, then, that later statements are not to be seen as the general theological position of Paul (and God) concerning women. Galatians 2:8 is the general rule, and all other statement which may appear to contradict are local issues related to historical context (some of which may be lost to us) and in no way negates the foundational statement.

The argument that there should no longer be slaves and that the comments concerning slaves obeying their masters must be considered in the historical context, while at the same time arguing that the same logic does not apply to male and female standing in the kingdom as equals, is in my view, inconsistent and more revealing concerning the agenda of the person who makes such statements, than it is about the position of Scripture on the topic. Logic demands a view of equality (Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female), and those who wish to dismiss a rational, logical approach to this topic simply cloud the waters with emotional a priori rhetoric that is not helpful in this discussion.

Also, please do not simply respond by arguing that my judgment is clouded and that I’m the illogical one. Instead, please take the time to respond with a scholarly look at my comments and sound exegesis. This discussion is important and good people can take different sides, but if possible let us dig deeper together as we explore the issues.

(By way of full disclosure, Geisler does not embrace the same view concerning women in ministry that I do. In my opinion this is another example of where his Reformist views cloud his judgment.)
_________________
Mark E. Hardgrove, D.Min., Ph.D.
Senior Pastor Conyers Church of God
http://www.conyerscog.org
Dean & VP for Academics at BHU
http://www.beulah.org/
Acts-celerater
Posts: 855
8/11/12 9:36 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
You had me at "Logic".

Neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female.

How much doctrine are you prepared to build on your application of those last three words, and to what end? You have already posted of sitting and listening to a speaker who agrees with you adding the next logical comparative: neither gay nor straight.

If 1 Tim 3 must conform to Gal 3:8 rather than Gal 3 being understood within the context of 1 Tim, then is this only true when we are talking about women in church? If there is no difference in the design, capability, and function of male or female in the church, certainly it must be true in the home as well. Statistically speaking, then, if the Cog had not been so wrong on this point for the last 100 years, then half our churches would be pastored by women today. But as far as I know we have always allowed women to pastor.

The AoG has had a more liberal but not completely open stance on this question. They dealt with it a lot in the 30's and commisioned a study on it again in the 1990.

But the percentage of Assemblies of God pastored by women has continued to decline.

.........................

I am a student of design and function. I own the fastest grumman cheetah on the planet. I have made some observations and done some aerodynamic clean-ups as best the FAA will allow me.

Woman have equal access to every license offered by the FAA, but their percentage of participation continues to be small.

Can they do it? Absolutely. Patty Wagstaff is one of the best stunt pilots ever, competing against the best men and beating them. Her sister is a Captain for an airline.

But it is harder for them. Their brain doesn't process information the same way. Men make a map in their head, and though they might not draw that map and it look like the real map, it is still an image they can rely on. Ask a woman how to get to a certain place, and almost without exception she will tell you certain landmarks at which to turn this way or that. But there are no landmarks inside a cloud on final approach. A man will give you road numbers and names and mileage estimates.

We are different. We are made different. Our strengths and our weaknesses remain in us, long after we have digested Gal 3:8

There is an order to a home that is functioning as God designed it to, and gender was a necessity in that arrangement, not an accident.

....................

I know this doesn't change your made up mind one bit. I fully expect you to keep at it just as you have promised. I tell you that you are fighting against nature and its designer.

I am telling you that if we let you re-write the MINUTES all by yourself, and the Lord should tarry another 100 years, the numbers would not change. The AoG numbers reveal the design.

....................

I expect you to live to see the day, Mark. What I don't know, is how you will be able to stop them when the next wave of seminary students make this exact same argument for ordaining God loving monogomous committed homosexuals. We are already questioning how a pastor who has an affair can regain the pulpit, but a pastor who has a homosexual affair can't.

And it is the same question. Did God know what he was doing when he designed humans, or didn't he?

.....................

Here is a quick read supporting (sort-of) your view.

http://ag.org/wim/roleofwim/0306_wim_questions.cfm

I hope I didn't make you mad. AFAIK this is the only thing I disagree with you on. Too bad it is your biggest goal.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
8/11/12 10:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob, bonnie knox
Quote:
I am a student of design and function. I own the fastest grumman cheetah on the planet. I have made some observations and done some aerodynamic clean-ups as best the FAA will allow me.

Woman have equal access to every license offered by the FAA, but their percentage of participation continues to be small.

Can they do it? Absolutely. Patty Wagstaff is one of the best stunt pilots ever, competing against the best men and beating them. Her sister is a Captain for an airline.

But it is harder for them. Their brain doesn't process information the same way. Men make a map in their head, and though they might not draw that map and it look like the real map, it is still an image they can rely on. Ask a woman how to get to a certain place, and almost without exception she will tell you certain landmarks at which to turn this way or that. But there are no landmarks inside a cloud on final approach. A man will give you road numbers and names and mileage estimates.

We are different. We are made different. Our strengths and our weaknesses remain in us, long after we have digested Gal 3:8

There is an order to a home that is functioning as God designed it to, and gender was a necessity in that arrangement, not an accident.


If your argument is that God intended a man to be the leader in his home because he is better suited to be, you would have to grant exceptions in the (you might say rare) cases where the woman is better suited. However, if your argument is simply that God commands the wife to submit to the husband, then that would be binding in all cases (even those in which the woman is a better leader).
Which way do you want it?
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/11/12 11:16 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
How rare it is for anyone to ask me, "Which way do you want it?" It is enough for me to determine, which way is it? Why is it this way?

I am on record on this topic as having a position I don't ever see repeated: I have no problem with women pastors, because I see no Bible or Minutes authority given pastors that women are prohibited from. (<<< that needs grammar editing)

But in practice, we in the CoG defer EVERY decision to the will of the pastor. THIS is our error.

................

I'll be honest with you Bonnie, If I were married to Patty Wagstaff, who is far better at radical extreme maneuvers as pilot in command than I am, and we had a mechanical malfunction, loss of power in flight, lives at stake... I would be the one trying to figure out if power could be regained while she got to best glide speed and started looking for a place to set down. Bottom line, she would be flying, but I would be decision making. My first decision would be that she fly the plane. And we would have established this before we ever left the ground.

From the very first couple, God required obedience from both. But He had a different expectation of accountability from Adam than from the woman. She was punished for disobeying God and believing a lie. HE was punished for listening to his wife when the call was his to make. (Go back and read it.)

....................

About a month ago we had to have our border collie of 17+ years put down. Tougher on me than I thought it would be. Gina is adamant that there will be no more dogs here. I would like to get another one.

I have decided that this is a question that will require two yeses.

Gina privately got on me once about me being harder on my son about something than I was on his older sister when she had made the same mistake. I told her, "I don't have to make a man out of Nicole." It had to do with checking the oil in their cars. Gina said it wasn't fair to Colin that I held him to a different standard.

.....................

My argument is not that God intended man to be the leader in his home (only) because he is better suited to be. My argument is that somebody must be. My argument is that God placed that burden on the man. And we do not follow it. The number of newly minted adults whose real mother and father are still together is plummeting. And MOST of that is because we have stopped making men.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
8/11/12 11:55 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
My argument is not that God intended man to be the leader in his home (only) because he is better suited to be. My argument is that somebody must be. My argument is that God placed that burden on the man.


If man is to be the leader because God decreed it, whether or not man is better suited is moot.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/11/12 12:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Excellent dialogue doyle
Thank you Mark for this excellent and interesting article. Thanks too for the time it took to write and post it. The work you've done has been a blessing and is much appreciated.

Doyle
writedoyle@yahoo.com
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
8/11/12 12:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
From the very first couple, God required obedience from both. But He had a different expectation of accountability from Adam than from the woman. She was punished for disobeying God and believing a lie. HE was punished for listening to his wife when the call was his to make. (Go back and read it.)


I have heard that line of thinking before. Because the Bible doesn't specifically record God telling Adam not to listen to his wife, I don't think that in itself was the problem.
Suppose Adam had constructed a scaffold to reach the fruit. The reading of the verse in that case might have been, "Because you made a scaffold and took of the forbidden fruit..." Making the scaffold in itself would have been how it happened and not necessarily anything improper in itself. Of course, if you go into the reading with the presumption that Adam was in charge of what happened, you would see "hearkened unto your wife" as a shortcoming and not just a detail in relating the event.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/11/12 12:44 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob, bonnie knox
I really liked this quote from the link you posted.

Quote:
Attitudes toward the role of women in ministry change little in comparison with the oceans of ink spilled on both sides of the issue. Reputable scholars search the Scriptures with sincere honesty trying to find God’s truth on the subject, only to arrive at completely opposite conclusions or at intermediate positions between complete exclusion from ministry and a completely open door for women in ministry. It is unfortunate when accusations of deliberately misinterpreting Scripture are leveled at sincere believers who want to please God in every detail.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/11/12 12:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post "The senior bull" bonnie knox
Mark Hardgrove wrote:
Second, with respect to Paul’s position on women in ministry (given that Paul’s writings are inspired scripture), one would do well to start at the beginning of Paul’s statements and then understand that everything that follows must be in agreement with the previous statements. Most NT scholars are agreed that the Epistle to the Galatians is one of the earliest, if not the first, epistle written by the hand of Paul. As such, his comments on the women in the kingdom become foundational for any other statements that follow, because the Word of God cannot contradict or be inconsistent with itself. What does Paul state in Galatians?

Gal. 2:8 [sic] “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This is a seminal statement by Paul, and it reflects his view (in the Holy Spirit) that the racial, social, and gender distinctions engendered in the curse, and perpetuated in the law, are no longer the guiding principles for relations under grace.


I have a little uneasiness about the way Galatians 3:28 is being used (even though I do agree with women in ministry and leadership). A good while back, I came across a comment by Don Veinot that made me start thinking more about the context of Galatians 3:28. He said
At times we can become so convinced of a postion on something, which may even be an accurate position, and then allow it to intrude into areas of Scripture where it may not belong. When that happens we can tend to begin drifting in to false teaching...
Galatians is talking about a separation but that separation is between God and all of humanity, not a middle wall of subcategories. ...As he points out that we are all “sons of God” he makes sure the Galatiains understand that this is all of humanity who come to faith in Him, Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, etc. ...
He goes on to say “You were no longer a slave but a son.” It is clear through the whole passage that the separation is between God and man not various segments of the human race and Christ is the mediator that moves us by faith from being under the Law to being a “son” of God. The sonship includes any and every human regardless of earthly position who comes to faith in Him.


N.T. Wright addresses this same problem of context. (Mark posted the content of Wright's paper on this thread.)
The first thing to say is fairly obvious but needs saying anyway. Galatians 3 is not about ministry. Nor is it the only word Paul says about being male and female, and instead of taking texts in a vacuum and then arranging them in a hierarchy, for instance by quoting this verse and then saying that it trumps every other verse in a kind of fight to be the senior bull in the herd (what a very masculine way of approaching exegesis, by the way!), we need to do justice to what Paul is actually saying at this point.
...The point Paul is making overall in this passage is that God has one family, not two, and that this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; that this is the family God promised to Abraham, and that nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through the faithfulness of the Messiah. This is not at all about how we relate to one another within this single family; it is about the fact, as we often say, that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/11/12 3:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post A flawed argument? Aaron Scott
While you are correct that God's Word would be inerrant, you make no logical argument--nor is there a persuasive one available to you--that ALL OF THE BIBLE is God's Word.

Yet your arguments--and mine, alas!--rely heavily on the assumption that all that is in the Bible is God's Word, when it is almost certainly NOT the case that that is true.

So, while this MIGHT deprive you of verses in your support (of course, it might be that everything you are relying on IS scripture), it also deprives me of the same thing...making it hard to argue that "God's Word" says women cannot be in leadership.

The Bible gives us to believe that the SCRIPTURES are inspired of God. The Bible itself, neither completed nor assembled nor approved at the time the "scripture is inspired" verse was written, came much later and at the decision of man. The Bible's OWN TESTIMONY is NOT that everything in the Bible is scripture, but rather that the scriptures are inspired.

Moreover, we KNOW (from the Bible, oddly enough) that there are scriptures that are not even in the Bible (e.g., the Book of Enoch and others are referenced as being prophetically valid, so, if they are out there somewhere, what are we to do?).

Lastly, we KNOW that all of the Bible is not inspired because Paul himself said in one place that "to the rest speak I, and NOT the Lord." There are other places of this nature, as well as some things that clearly are parenthetical at best ("I left my cloak..." etc.), and simply greetings and filler otherwise.

You can preach a sermon from a Superman comic book. Or an Andy Griffith TV show. There is truth to be found--"wisdom crieth in the streets"--everywhere. And if you are gifted and anointed, you can...why, you can "consider that ant" and bring out a truth.

As for me, while I may or may not agree in the end, I have a lot of respect for an argument that claims that only-men-in-leadership was a cultural thing that, like slavery, should be cast away as we grow in grace and wisdom. But to argue that the Bible (or scriptures) makes that claim simply will not work. It's not there...and to seek to impose our cultural feelings on the scripture without claiming that the scriptures SHOULD change as culture changes...well, it just won't work.


Last edited by Aaron Scott on 8/11/12 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/11/12 6:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dr. Hardgrove... Aaron Scott
I do admire your efforts and diligence in putting forth this argument. However, I think that while women OCCASIONALLY show up in scripture in a level of leadership (and never as a king, priest, or high leader in the church), we might ponder why we seek to have, I am sure, much more than an "occasional" women in leadership.

For instance, if we had a similar ratio to the Bible's records, we might have a woman in leadership for every 100 men in leadership. Would we settle for that? Or would we claim that, no, women should be equally represented, even though the Bible doesn't indicate that God did that back then?

I am also not sure that just because a woman was in leadership it is a model for the future. Consider that there are plenty of one-off instances in scripture--there'll never be another worldwide flood; to my knowledge there have been no more talking donkeys (myself excluded, of course), there have not been any instances of a Ten Commandments being given, etc. So while I accept your argument that if God did it then, He can do it today, I still must say that this is not necessarily the case...nor is it the case that He now be even pleased if we would place more women in leadership (ratio-wise) than He did in the Bible.

How do you propose that these objections be addressed?
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/11/12 6:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Tom... Aaron Scott
Indeed, it is a choice we all have to make. I felt FORCED to make the decision I did--that the Bible contains the Word of God as opposed to being the Word of God (though I hold all of it as precious)--because I knew that the arguments that were being used to prop up inerrancy were weak and often outright false.

I felt that the theory of inerrancy forced me to take an all-or-nothing view of the Bible. That is, if there is even a SINGLE error, then it cannot be the Word of God, and therefore is no more spiritually valid than Robinson Crusoe.

I knew good and well there were difficulties with the text that could only be "explained" by using arguments that often beggared belief, seemingly made up out of whole cloth as a way to win the argument, rather than a sincere attempt at truth (e.g., try to find an explanation for the various accounts of Jesus' resurrection that really makes sense).

So, concluding that I did not want to give up on the Bible if there was a single, solitary, minute flaw in it, I chose another path. I realized that while the resurrection accounts vary considerably, there is one thing on which all accounts absolutely agree: Jesus rose from the dead. I was not at all going to allow that truth to be stolen just because there were difficulties with the text.

And so I concluded that God would not have given us something that was not inerrant...so if something had logical or other flaws, it must not have been directly from God (thought that does not mean it isn't valuable--Shakespeare is valuable, but not inspired).

And there you have it.

I get to hold on to Jesus no matter how the textual battles go. But inerrantists(?) are logically forced to toss the Bible if there is a single error (of course, the way this is handled is to simply claim that it is a translation problem, and was absolutely correct in the original version, but I sensed that this was one of those snatched-out-of-thin-air arguments that, not being disprovable, was also not provable).

Now I must get busy reading the Reader's Digest so that I can prepare for Sunday School! Laughing


Last edited by Aaron Scott on 8/12/12 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/11/12 7:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Major Trammell... Aaron Scott
Yeah, I get that sort of response when people disagree with me, but don't have any reasoning behind them.

So, brother, since you disagree, I'll ask you some questions that you surely must know:
Quote:


"When did the Bible stop being written?"

"Did God ever tell us just what books to include?"

"Why does Jude quote from the Book of Enoch, validating it, but we don't include the Book of Enoch in the Bible, but do include Jude?"

"Can you give me a reasonable explanation of the four accounts of resurrection morning in the gospels?"

"On what divine grounds do men have the right to include entire books in the Bible, but none of us have the right to exclude even certain verses?"

"On what grounds do we believe that every single word in an entire book is inspired? Is it not possible that some of it is inspired, but the rest is simply a man giving his best advice, based on experience and good-intentions?"

Since I apparently don't have the logical skills necessary to address these matters, I will await your response.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/12/12 9:10 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Major Trammell... Patrick Harris
[quote="Aaron Scott"]Yeah, I get that sort of response when people disagree with me, but don't have any reasoning behind them.

So, brother, since you disagree, I'll ask you some questions that you surely must know:
Quote:


"When did the Bible stop being written?"

"Did God ever tell us just what books to include?"

"Why does Jude quote from the Book of Enoch, validating it, but we don't include the Book of Enoch in the Bible, but do include Jude?"
.


As to the resurrection, if you ever took a course on Courts, you would realize that eyewitness accounts vary, and are not always viewed the exact same way. Chronological sequence can be altered, memories fade, etc.

Canonicity is not based on who was quoted , if so we should obviously include greek poets, since Paul quoted them in scripture.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
8/12/12 12:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Patrick... Aaron Scott
Quote:
As to the resurrection, if you ever took a course on Courts, you would realize that eyewitness accounts vary, and are not always viewed the exact same way. Chronological sequence can be altered, memories fade, etc.

Indeed, Patrick, you are correct. But the doctrine of inerrancy claims that EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THE BIBLE was inspired VERBATIM by God (hence "verbally" inspired).

Did GOD forget the sequence of events? Or did HIS memory fade?

Of course not. Differing accounts is a HUMAN effect, not a divine one. Trust me when I tell you that I used all the "tricks of the trade" to protect my belief in inerrancy...before I came to the knowledge of the (what I believe to be) the truth.

We don't get to hold on to inerrancy while at the same time excusing "errors" or textual difficulties as being due to human frailty.

I have zero doubt that these accounts are the best the writers could gather or recall. But a reporter for the New York Times can do that. Divine inspiration means there are ZERO ERRORS, there are no faded memories that get this or that detail out of order.

But please allow me to reassure you that I do believe that every single scripture is inspired. I simply don't believe that every single verse in the Bible--though each should be cherished, studied, appreciated, and valued--is divinely inspired.

I have had my own father tell me things that I could sense were right from the throne of God. They were divinely inspired. At other times, I know that he was simply giving me his best thoughts and advice on a matter. BOTH are precious, valuable, and worthy...but both are not divinely inspired.

You cannot have textual problems in a divinely inspired text without running into a contradiction. Further, the claim that "everything was perfect in the original writings" is as convenient to use as was Joseph Smith's refusal to allow the public to see the golden plates that he supposedly used to write the Book of Mormon. That is, it is not subject to examination or argument.







Canonicity is not based on who was quoted , if so we should obviously include greek poets, since Paul quoted them in scripture.

The difference, Patrick, is that Paul did not claim any divine inspiration behind the Cretian's statement. On the other hand, Jude makes the implicit claim that Enoch was inspired of God and spoke prophetically about the future.

Some groups that trace from ancient Christianity DO accept the Book of Enoch. Some do not. But why? Jude accepts the Book of Enoch as speaking divine truth...why don't we?

The truth is that a "General Assembly," full of good men, good intentions, and at the same time having biases and limitations, decided what was and was not "the Bible." If we have changed past General Assembly decisions, finding them to be somehow wanting, then this much earlier "General Assembly" must also stand for scrutiny.

Is there any reason to claim that the the Canon is closed? If so, on what grounds do the gifts of the Spirit continue on?

If we never add another thing (and I'm not suggesting we do), we have a very good canon. But the doctrine of inerrancy is a MANMADE doctrine. It applies to the entire BIBLE what was meant to be applied ONLY TO SCRIPTURE.

If you have found a way to live with it all, then I applaud you and say more power to you. I could not. And so I found a way for my faith to survive without feeling I had to answer (or get a made up answer) to ever single textual difficulty that presents itself.









Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/12/12 1:20 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Bonnie...still interested in your reply... bonnie knox
Tom Sterbens wrote:
...


I re-read Galatians for context.

I feel I should point out a few things about the quote from Veinot. He was responding to someone in the comments of his blog, so I have in essence taken his comments out of context. (I think you'll appreciate that irony.) It's quite possible that if he had been writing an essay or giving a speech on Galatians in general, what he said would have been a lot different from the comment he was making in response to a very specific comment of another poster (who was bringing up the issue of "inheritance" or something). But, his comment was the starting point for me to examine Galatians 3:28 (which I referenced in a discussion once with my pastor, and in all likelihood butchered the context). That his comment was the springboard for my reflection was the reason I included it.
Wright's comments are more focused on addressing a symposium entitled "Men, Women, and the Church." He was requested to speak specifically to women in ministry (and not the relationship between the sexes in general or in marriage). So, Wright's comments were very specifically directed toward the topic that Mark undertook in the OP.
I only took excerpts from some of Wright's comments. One of the comments he made which I thought was interesting with respect to Galatians 3:28 was that the more accurate translation of "neither male nor female" was "no 'male and female'":
First, a note about translation and exegesis. I notice that on one of your leaflets you adopt what is actually a mistranslation of this verse: neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. That is precisely what Paul does not say; and as it’s what we expect he’s going to say, we should note quite carefully what he has said instead, since he presumably means to make a point by doing so, a point which is missed when the translation is flattened out as in that version. What he says is that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no ‘male and female’. I think the reason he says ‘no male and female’ rather than ‘neither male nor female’ is that he is actually quoting Genesis 1, and that we should understand the phrase ‘male and female’ in scare-quotes.


In reference to your post

Quote:
While what follows in 3:28 may not be limited to the discourse and remarks with Peter, it certainly must include it. To that end it would not be unfair the "Jews-by-nature" overtone in approaching, especially given the continuity of the theme of "justification." Thu verse 28 could fairly read: (I will use the language you writer/scholars have provided as the point, i.e., "the wall")

Though I have been born a Jew by nature, in Christ there is no such wall of limiting designation.
Though I have been born a Greek (gentile) by nature, in Christ there is no such wall limiting designation.
Though I have been born a slave by nature, in Christ there is no such wall of limiting designation.
Though I have been born a free man by nature, in Christ there is no such wall of limiting designation.
Though I have been born a male by nature, in Christ there is no such wall of limiting designation.
Though I have been born a female by nature, in Christ there is no such wall of limiting designation.


I would probably interpret Galatians 3:28 this way,
Though I have been born a Jew by nature, I still must go through the cross.
Though I have been born a Gentile by nature, I am no longer alien to God if I go through the cross.
Being free or male does not advantage me in reaching God, since I must go through the cross.


Last edited by bonnie knox on 8/12/12 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/12/12 3:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Quote:
I would probably interpret Galatians 3:28 this way,
Though I have been born a Jew by nature, I still must go through the cross.
Though I have been born a Gentile by nature, I am no longer alien to God if I go through the cross.
Being free or male does not advantage me in reaching God, since I must go through the cross. ~ Bonnie Knox



THAT is about the most enlightening thing I have ever read on topic Bonnie.

It is one of those occasions where the KJV has a weakness exposed when compared to the most literal translation(s) available. One might argue that the KJV did no harm to the writer's original intent. And it would be a mistake to say with certainty that Paul rephrased the third comparative pair to keep this verse from being misused. But the literal version is less at odds with his many other writings on the topic of gender preference (if not specificity) for certain assignments in the body of Christ. It certainly makes more sense to me than an argument that if one scripture appears at conflict with another, then the one written first is trump.

Even if the literal version was just how it came out, the understanding it reveals, as stated in your quote above, would still be the logical one.

Good work on your part.

FWIW, it is my opinion that your interpretation (wording) nails precisely what the author was trying to get into our heads.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
8/12/12 3:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Doesn't it make more sense to let Paul tell us what he means by looking at other scriptures he wrote? The context is regarding being heirs according to the promise. Later, he writes to Timothy that he does not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, and continues on to say that the bishop must be the husband of one wife. He also tells slaves to submit to their masters. He tells the circumcised to seek not to be uncircumcised. He circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewess, but not the Gentile Titus. He argued against the Galatians getting circumcised, but paid for the sacrifices of some Nazarenes in the temple to demonstrate that he did not teach Jews to not circumcise their children.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
8/13/12 5:37 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
Later, he writes to Timothy that he does not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man...


Wright addressed that too, which I'm sure you will dismiss because he puts it into the context of the culture of Ephesus i.e. female priests in the cult of Diana.

Anyway, in part of his introduction to his comments on I Timothy 2, he says
When you look at strip cartoons, ‘B’ grade movies, and ‘Z’ grade novels and poems, you pick up a standard view of how ‘everyone imagines’ men and women behave. Men are macho, loud-mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own way. Women are simpering, empty-headed creatures, with nothing to think about except clothes and jewellery. There are ‘Christian’ versions of this, too: the men must make the decisions, run the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; women must stay at home and bring up the children. If you start looking for a biblical back-up for this view, well, what about Genesis 3? Adam would never have sinned if Eve hadn’t given in first. Eve has her punishment, and it’s pain in childbearing (Genesis 3.16).
Well, you don’t have to embrace every aspect of the women’s liberation movement to find that interpretation hard to swallow. Not only does it stick in our throat as a way of treating half the human race; it doesn’t fit with what we see in the rest of the New Testament, in the passages we’ve already glanced at.


I really got a chuckle out of him saying that interpretation was hard to swallow and sticks in our throat. As a "girl raised in the South," I wanted to say, "Stick in their throat??! Why, honey, that slides right on down like boiled okrie for some of the folks I know!"
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/13/12 11:04 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Logic and Gal. 3:28 Link
Brother Hardgrove,

That was a long post for Actscelerate. I know I can get long-winded, but it sure seems like you took a long time to make a very small point.

And it seems to me that your premise here that the first time an argument is made should color the interpretation of other scripture is just plain wrong. I think a better approach would be to say that specific passages explain less specific passages. That is a Jewish approach to scripture. For example, if a passage in the Old Testament says not to chop down fruit trees during war, and another passage in the Old Testament clarifies that the Israelites are not to chop down fruit trees when at war in the land, and we read a prophet telling them to chop down fruit trees in some other land beside Israel, we shouldn't conclude the prophet was telling them to break the law of God. The law, as we see from the more specific passage, was against cutting down fruit trees for warfare in the land given to them, not outside of the boundaries of that land.

I just think your whole approach is wrong. You keep arguing that scripture does not contradict itself, yet your assertions lead one to read contradictions into scripture. Paul writes that a bishop must be the husband of one wife.

Using logic, we can see that a woman does not meet the qualifications.

All husbands are men.
Women are not men.
Therefore, a husband cannot be a man.
The Bishop must be the husband of one wife.
The bishop must therefore be a man.

The Greek for 'husband' can be translated 'man' so my use of logic is a bit superfluous. My point is that we need to use logic on other passages, too.

And we should take the more specific passages to interpret the more general ones.

Mark Hardgrove wrote:

This is a seminal statement by Paul, and it reflects his view (in the Holy Spirit) that the racial, social, and gender distinctions engendered in the curse, and perpetuated in the law, are no longer the guiding principles for relations under grace. Under grace, through faith in Christ, the division between Jews and Gentiles in the kingdom of God are no longer in force.


Should we pull a bunch of conclusions out of the air and say that is what Paul's point is, or should we stick closely to the actual point made in the text?

Galatians 3
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(NIV)[emphasis mine]

The context is our being heirs according to the promise. If Paul was saying that in this earth, we should recognize no role differentiation between Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free--rather than a point closely tied to the context about being heirs with Abraham-- we should expect that to carry through throughout his epistles. It doesn't.

Paul tells slaves to submit to their masters, though it is preferable if they can gain their freedom. Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands. He writes that the bishop must be the husband of one wife.

Regarding Jews, he tells those called in circumcision to seek not the uncircumcised and those called in uncircumcision to seek not to become circumcised. Paul circumcises Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother, but not Titus, a Greek. Paul writes to the presumably predominantly Gentile Galatians whom the Judaizers are trying to circumcise that if they be circumcised, they have fallen from grace. Yet, he agrees to pay for the animal sacrifices of some (probably fellow) Nazarites in the temple partly to demonstrate that he does not teach Jews among the Gentiles not to circumcise their children.

I think it is important that we understand the specific point Paul is making in context. With all the lengthy talk of logic, and ignoring the specific arguments of the actual passages that put some limits on women in ministry, sorry, but your article seems a bit like sophistry to me.

Quote:

One is a an heir of the promises of Abraham through faith, not law or race. Certainly, there continue to be Jews and Gentiles, but Jewish and Gentile believers have absolutely equal footing in the kingdom with regard to all facets of ministry and standing before the Lord.


I don't see any reason to think that a Gentile cannot be in the same type of New Testament ministry Jews operated in. They couldn't go offer the sacrifices in the temple, but they could and can be in Ephesians 4:11 ministries and bishopricks. There is good evidence for Gentile prophets, for example. There may be a good case for Epaphras being a Gentile. I need to search that out. But there can be Gentile church planters. Titus was a co-worker of Paul's, who was a Greek, and he appointed elders. So the case is pretty good for Gentiles.

But when it comes to women, there is a certain ministry role for which one has to be a man, and we see this specifically in the scriptures. Paul commended a woman deacon, apparently. Women could prophesy. So there are plenty of roles for women. But a bishop must be the husband of one wife.

Women are also not allowed to operating in the role of husband or father.

Quote:

The division between slave and master in the social context of slavery is no longer in force. Certainly, slavery continued to exist in the Roman Empire, and such social/cultural distinctions were there, but in the kingdom the slave could be the bishop of his master and as Paul tells Philemon, slave and master are brothers in the kingdom and should treat one another with mutual respect.


Could a slave be a bishop? That is an interesting question. Logistically, that would be hard. What if his master worked him so hard he couldn't serve? The bishop must 'rule his own house well.' If he has no house of his own, can he be a bishop? I am not so sure about that.

Quote:
This view laid the foundation for the demise of slavery in Christian nations. While we later see Paul telling slaves to obey their masters, no one would argue that slavery should still be in force. The theological precedent for the end of slavery is found in Galatians 3:28 and all other statement concerning slavery by Paul must be read in light of this seminal statement.


That is a bit of a stretch given his statements in the passage. The apostles could have set up underground railroads. They could have gone in with swords and liberated slaves, starting a Sparticus rebellion. Short of that, they could have taught all Christian masters to free their slaves. Given how extreme and life-threatening Christian requirements were in regard to not sacrificing to idols, adding this requirement would not have seemed that much more extreme, would it? But the apostles did not do that. They told masters to treat their slaves fairly. Paul wrote to Philemon to convince him to either free Onesimus or to grant him as a slave to Paul, perhaps, based on the debt Philemon owned Paul, apparently a spiritual debt. But he never said slavery was forbidden.

You may say no one in this age says there should be slavery. That would be an overstatement, since you can find someone who will say just about anything if you look hard enough. But I think attitudes toward slavery are more indicative of the present philosophy than the teachings of scripture per se. You would have a hard time finding someone advocating genocide. Yet from scripture we know that it is not necessarily sinful to own a slave or engage in genocide. God commanded genocide in certain cases. We are all glad that's not a standing rule for all cases.

Quote:
The division between male and female is also one that is found in the same sentence, in the same breath, at the same level, and in the same context as the two previous statements concerning Jews and Gentiles, slave and free. Just as there are no kingdom distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave or free, then by extension the same principle applies to male and female.


You stretched the statement about slave and free far beyond what Paul says taking his writings as a whole, and you do the same with the male-female distinction.

Quote:

This is an unavoidable and foundational truth concerning this passage. As such (as with the previous cases) everything else that follows in later writings by Paul must be read in light of this passage and not the other way around


How about we look at what Paul's actual point is in the passage, instead of straying from that, and then we look at more specific passages to clarify our understanding of the general principals he lays out?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
8/13/12 5:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.