Image via Wikipedia
Yes, yes, yes, and yes, yes, yes. Beth Moore is a huge problem, and not only in the Methodist Church, but anywhere her work is used:
Beth Moore is a Southern Baptist author, teacher, and evangelist, and the founder of Living Proof ministries that offers videos, bible studies, and events for women. She is very popular and is probably the #1 moneymaker for LifeWay Christian Bookstores, a Southern Baptist affiliated chain of bookstores (similar to Methodist’s Cokesbury).
Because she is massively successful, her videos are inspirational, and her events are empowering to women, it is not uncommon to find a Beth Moore bible study in a United Methodist Church in the Bible Belt. It used to be that pastors could prohibit it by saying “We only allow curriculum from Cokesbury” but Cokesbury sells her materials now. Also, there’s usually pressure for male United Methodist ministers to allow this dynamic woman into their Sunday Schools or else they get accused of misogyny.
Therein lies part of the problem of Beth Moore. One of my facebook friends described Beth Moore as Methodist Kudzu: a plant that was taken from its natural habitat and now runs wild causing havok. While Moore is perfectly at peace and in sync with the Baptist tradition (other than being a female teacher in an anti-women-preacher denomination), her brand of theology and way of reading the bible conflicts with the Wesleyan tradition and the United Methodist Church’s doctrine to which it has spread.
Methodist Kudzu – The Problem of Beth Moore « Hacking Christianity.
Lot of great stuff there.
Thanks to the OC, via twitter
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
Thanks for the link, Joel! I worked about 3 months on that post so glad it is making the rounds.
It is a great post, Jeremy, a great one.
This is sad that there are people and Churches out there writing negative stuff about another sister in Christ, Beth Moore, she is awesome speaker and has touched many people and their lives here on earth as well as eternal (the book of life) life. She has a calling and there several women I know that is called to being a speaker. I think whoever wrote the original message should spent more time being an encourager to those who don’t know Christ, than a discourager, where they can turn people away from Christ. May God Bless you and give you grace. Sister in Christ!
Laura,
it is not out of the way to call attention to the negativity of Beth Moore, to the wrongness she teaches. This is not about her speaking, etc… but what she talks about.
I was thinking about this as I was doing the dishes this morning; I’d take it one step further and say Beth Moore is more than Methodist Kudzu. We could safely lump the Lutheran and Anglican traditions in there as well.
btw, I updated that google doc.
I fear you are correct
Throw in Catholics too. I was at a diocesan meeting last week where I learned there were some people pressuring to hold Beth Moore studies in a couple of parishes. I was flabbergasted.
While I have prob’s with her approach…I would say that the founding fathers of Methodism (Wesleys) had no problems with having had a sense of God revealing / speaking to them and within this regard she has a lot to do with Methodism.
Except… she isn’t basing it on Scripture…. But, I have no issue with God still speaking, but I don’t think He’ll change.
Nope..I don’t think so either.
I expect i’ll hear her preach when she is in Sydney in March 2012.
I find her teachings to be be biblical and spot on. She is a woman “teacher” (note – not preacher) that teaches to other women (not men). That also is biblical. The bible is clear that women are not to teach or preach to men. And she is not doing either.
no, that is not clear. Further, Beth Moore is not biblical.
so the original article says she’s not a Methodist, but a Southern Baptist, she’s very popular and very successful…. but where is she not Biblical?
In reading the expanded article it looks like the bigger issue is she is Calvinistic in her theology. However the Bible is not completely clear on that issue which is why there are such large camps on both sides.
Besides the Methodist church disagreeing with the Calvinist slant, where/how is she unbiblical?
for one, she teaches that men cannot be taught by women. For other, she relies upon her own understanding of scripture, for another, she is an inerrantist, and I could go on
could you please? And I mean that sincerely…. where in the Bible does it say that men should be taught by women? where specifically is she inerrant?
I’m totally confused by the statement that she relies on her own understanding of Scripture…. when I taught confirmation classes in the Methodist church many years ago and attended the Discipleship 1, 2 and 3 classes there (I think that’s what they were called)… we had great discussions about controversial issues and one of the points that was repeatedly made was that one of the “great” things about Methodism… is that people were to read the Bible and then figure it out for themselves.
Barbara, do you know what inerrant means? Where does it say that men shouldn’t be taught by women?
I’ve taken those classes – it is not about figuring anything out for yourselves. Those classes provide solid scholarship. And, if you are Methodist, do you reject women pastors?
When you ‘figure things out for yourselves’ you aren’t reading Scripture. You are telling Scripture what it should say based on your own needs. American slavery was upheld by ‘figuring it ourselves’ as was attempted Genocide. And, look what the German Church did for Hitler in ‘figuring out for ourselves’ that it was okay to kill Jews by the truck load.
Joel, I would not say that Beth is an interrantist. If anything she says over and over again how God has shown her mistakes that she has made over the years in her teaching. That is the work of the Holy Spirit is it not? The continual revelation of the nature of our LORD. Here is a direct quote from Beth…”We will never outgrow our need to be taught by others who are wiser and more knowledgeable. The body of Christ would nearly collapse without the gift of teaching. We must be carefull, however, not to fashion our faith secondhand. Christ taught that students reflect thier teachers (Matt. 10:25). Our faith is unlikely to exceed our most studied teachers. That’s why we’ve got to make sure that our primary teacher is Jesus Christ, and that our student-teachers agree with him.” Joel,I would also like to remind you of 2 Cor. 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. That my friend, is Biblical!
Liz, an inerrantist is one who believes that the bible is ‘inerrant’ – usually according to the Chicago Statement. Beth Moore has repeatedly demonstrated that this is according to what she believes, unfortunately, which creates twists, turns, and mental backflips and in my opinion, further destroys the inspiration of Scripture.
Got it. Thanks Joel, I never knew there was such a council as the Chicago Statement. In the heart of the Bible belt, my life experience has been you are an inerrantist or you aren’t Christian. I am wondering what you see as the inspiration of Scripture? Also currious, what exactly is Rhetorical Criticism? Finally, and with respect, if you don’t believe scripture to be accurate, why are you teaching it? Do you feel it is your duty to enlighten others out of their faith? I am sincere when I say I am asking respectfully. I find your position fascinating.
First, I never said Scripture wasn’t accurate; however, placing upon it the confines of inerrancy, especially of the Chicago statement, is inaccurate. What you have said – “if you aren’t an inerrantist…” is a major issue with the American Church. They have superimposed upon Scripture their own false view of it, making it a hallmark of salvation. Surely, anyone can see the problem with that, right? Nothing in Scripture portrays Scripture as inerrant. But, Scripture is portrayed as Inspired. The inspiration of Scripture does not deny it’s divine source, but takes into account the “writers of old” who served as a human witness to the divine revelation. Here, this is Scriptural and verified by Tradition. In other words, inerrancy wasn’t the found in the early Church, and only lately, especially in the United States, with biblical literacy dropping dramatically.
Rhetorical Criticism is getting to the cognitive environment of the New Testament writers. Are they using ancient rhetoric to deliver their points, and if so, what does this tell us about their audience and their over all goal. Further, it helps to get us to the original sources.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
For more on the subject – this excerpt is from http://www.gotquestions.org:
A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam’s only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).
In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.
The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
You have the opinion that Mrs. Moore is not Biblical, however, I have not seen any exact examples that have brought you to this conclusion.
As a female Bible student (of many qualified teachers), and as a female who has studied through a couple of Mrs. Moore’s study’s personally, I have not found anything that she teaches to be unbiblical. And, I am very skeptical of all teachers – seeking to hear the Lord only through man’s teachings. She is only a human, and if there is something she has taught that is not biblical or consistent with the Word of God, then as a brother or sister in Christ, it would then be our responsibility to follow Matthew 18, and discuss it with her directly in love – not to gossip about her in a public forum.
Blessings,
Lisa
I don’t consider Got Questions? to be a reliable source.
“Correction” Seeking to hear the Lord NOT only through man’s fallible teachings. Sorry about that!
yeah, got questions is really not a good source. Lisa, you have every right to teach men as a man does – that is, if you believe the Scriptures.
So if you believe the Scriptures, would you mind pointing our where the Scriptures say that women are to teach men?
Although I’ve read the Bible, I’m sure I haven’t studied it as thoroughly as you have; I don’t recall ever coming across a Scripture that gave that directive.
Have you read Acts? Where Priscilla led her husband in teaching? Or Chloe who was a leader of the Church in 1 Corinthians? Have you properly translated and applied the right context to the other passages?
Context is usually one of the first things to be thrown out the window. A perfect example…the Beth Moore supporters here!
Agreed.
Again, I guess I am coming back to my original thoughts – You are expressing a lot of opinions, but I don’t see Scripture to back up what you are saying, or examples of Mrs. Moore’s inaccuracies. Lastly, again, your opinion on gotquestions.org is that it isn’t reliable. Again, I have tested and continue to test what they say with the Word of God and have not found any inconsistencies.
There are many passages where men are told to preach the Word such as II Timothy 4:2, but there is no such equivalent for women. Men are told in Titus 2:9, “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”
Women are not told to teach the Word, but they are given a list of items like: teaching young women, to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet keepers at home, good, obedient to own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed.
Promoting women to teach men, to stand up for their “rights”, to encourage them to have leadership in the home is most certainly, not biblical. It is a tool that the enemy of our soul uses to destroy families and prevent us from being effective witnesses for Jesus.
I am only following Jesus, and what He has put forth in His Word.
No, Lisa, you aren’t following Jesus here. You are following someone else.
Wow Joel – that is a pretty strong statement. I can assure you – I follow Jesus – the one of the Holy Bible (ESV and KJV) – He is my Lord, Master, Savior. He is the Son of God, crucified for my sins – resurrected bodily and seated in heaven. The Holy Spirit indwells me and I sit squarely in the palm of my Father’s hand.
I have shown scripture to solidify my opinion, but I have not seen anything like that from your viewpoint. I would love to see the scriptures that support your view.
Thanks!
Blessings,
Lisa
Lisa – you are oppressed.
What you have done is proof-texted. You haven’t shown scripture.
Also, the ‘Holy Bible’ isn’t just found in the ESV and KJV and if you believe so, you are following a man more than Jesus.
I don’t doubt your Christianity – your salvation, but you aren’t getting your understanding of Scripture from anyone else but someone who dismisses Scripture and the value of women
okay even if you say that Lisa is “proof texting”, how is that not Scripture? She has provided many Biblical passages which are Scripture. I could have respect for your comment if you said they were out of context, but are you denying they are Scripture?
They may not agree with your point, which appears to be the larger problem. The bottom line is she is providing Scripture to back up her statements. So far I haven’t seen anyone else in this “discussion” (including the original article) use Scripture to a make a point. As far as I can tell all the points in the article were based upon someone’s interpretation or opinion, but doesn’t appear to be based on the Bible.
Scripture says that we should kill unruly children, that there is no God, that the rapist must marry her assailant. This is what proof-texting leads too. Scripture acts as a whole, not in pulling verses out.
Now, she is providing verses.
Anyone can cherry pick to prove a point. That is not what I have done here though. I do agree with you that the Holy Bible isn’t just confined to the ESV or KJV. I was merely stating that I was using an accurate version of the Bible and not a NWT or Catholic translation.
And I do beg to differ in your last statement – the comment before you said I was following someone else, not Jesus of the Bible, but now you say you are not doubting my Christianity or salvation. If someone is not following the Jesus of the Bible, they are not saved. So, which one is it you are saying about me? No room for middle of the fence living.
And lastly, I am no living an oppressed life. I am free in Jesus. The Bible … God… is clear about mens’ and womens’ roles in the church and the family. Honoring my husband is not about honor a man, it is about being obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you Joel!
Blessings,
Lisa
Wait? The Catholic versions, such as the NAB and the NJB isn’t an accurate version of the bible? Could you prove that? Are you anti-Catholic?
Honoring your husband is different than believing that he rules over you. That is not following Jesus, but following someone else.
You can be wrong and still be saved – or else, your salvation is based solely on what you know – and believe perfectly – and not what Christ has done.
PS – I never ever said women are not valued. On the contrary – God values women very much so. We are His precious daughters…. heirs of the King. The Bible shows that all throughout Scripture. And, my understanding of Scripture comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But I am a follower of Jesus. I don’t try to lead. Not Him, or my husband or other men.
So, you understanding is based on what you or someone else thinks Scripture says and not what it might actually say? That has led to slavery, killing witches, homosexuals and creationism
Are you an evolutionist?
I believe that Science is teaching us the foundations which God has established. If further believe that Genesis 1 (not to mention the various other Creation accounts in the Hebrew Text) is not intended by the ancient authors to represent an event 6000 years or so ago. Plus, since I’m not liberal, I cannot so easily place my view points into Scripture, so I try to read it as best as possible like the authors intended.
apparently my ability to reply to your last comment to me has been shut off….
No, I am no longer a Methodist. I had a lot of issues with the “theology” in the Methodist church and the cafeteria style Christianity where people were encouraged to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they wanted to adhere to as long as they stood by the General Conference on the organization of the Church. The final straw for me was when I learned that the Pastor and Associate Pastor didn’t believe in Satan.
When I left the Methodist church I actually became a Southern Baptist (gasp). There I found I could read the Bible, explore my questions and rest soundly on the Bible and Scripture (as a whole… not proof texting or taking verses out of context)
And yes, I have a problem with women senior pastors. I’m fine with women teaching in the church and teaching alongside their husbands, but I do not believe it is Biblical for women to be the head of a church. My mother still goes to a Methodist church in a small town… I dearly love the pastor as a person, but I don’t believe she is being Biblical in serving as the only pastor of that church.
Barbara, what you’ve done is to substitute your expectations for the Scripture.
Tell me – why didn’t they believe in Satan, what does that mean, and do you not? Would it surprise you that many more haven’t than have?
Clearly, what you accuse the Methodists of doing, you have done yourself. Something about a speck and a log or something…
I just read the last part of your comment to me… and I have to say your point of “You are telling Scripture what it should say based on your own needs.” is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Many of the comments you have made strikes me as very arrogant and an attempt for you to tell Scripture (and us) what you want it to be versus what Scripture says.
In other words, Barbara, you don’t like the color of the pot you see yourself becoming.
Okay, very interesting. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?? I will try not to be too long winded
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
You can ask as many questions as you like.
I try to follow Christ.
If it is true that I’ve substituted my expectations for Scripture, I must be in good company as I believe you are guilty of the same.
That is good – but that wasn’t my question –
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
I said you could ask – I didn’t say that I was going to answer. Your question is not one that can be answered easily enough. If a person was to say yes, by what merit can they say as such? If they so, and they are a believer, then they dishonor Christ. Further, what merits a ‘good person’ any how?
I will not judge myself – but I will only say that I try to follow Christ.
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/07/rebecca-groothuis-biblical-submission-within-marriage/ This link will care you to a great article written on the subject, although seemingly only within marriage. However, it is a good start.
It wasn’t a trick question – I promise! haha! Let me ask you this then – have you ever lied?
Lisa, I didn’t say it was a trick question, but it is a question which is misleading.
Yes, I have.
Gotcha! I have as well. What do we typically call people who tell lies?
Lisa, I don’t have all night to play games.
There is a lie by omission. There is a lie told not on purpose, but because of misinformation or ignorance, and then their is the purposed lie. Is Beth Moore a liar? She is spreading false information. Call her as you wish.
Further, what we call a person is hardly fair. A person – like God – is not defined by his or her actions.
Hang in there with me on this Joel – I have a method to my madness – and it has nothing to do with Beth Moore, I assure you. Truthfully, a lie is a lie is a lie, regardless of the intent. Typically, when someone tells a lie, that would make that person a liar.
Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
No, actually, as I said, I do not have all night. You can get to the point, or cannot not. You can ask as many questions as you want, but in this manner, I do not have the time to waste.
Joel – I appreciate that – I can see you are on the East coast by the time stamps. I am truly not trying to play games or waste your time. So, as I asked – have you ever stolen anything? (I just need yes or no…. no need for long details – that should help with speeding our conversation along).
What will help in speeding the dialogue along is to be concise in your point. I was a sinner, assume from that as you wish. As for now, I am going to sleep.
Have I said something to offend you? You seem very angry with me. I just have a few questions and if you could answer them – we will get to the finishline – and it isn’t what you think it is. So, again, have you ever stolen anything?
Lisa, I’m not going to say up all night while you get to a point which you could easily get too in one comment.
Since we didn’t get to finish our conversation tonight, I wanted to finish out what I had to say.
So, I am going to go under the presumption that in your whole life you have stolen something (I have stolen… a lot) – and anyone who steals anything is called a thief.
Another question – have you ever used the Lord’s name in vein – as in a cuss word, or not in proper reverence to Him? I am also going to presume that you have that as well. – As have I. God gave us eyes to see beautiful things, ears to hear amazing music and life. And we repay Him by using His name as a filthy cuss word. That is called (as you know) blasphemy.
Have you ever looked upon a woman with lust? Jesus said that if you even look upon a woman with lust you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.
So, assuming you are human, you probably answered yes to all the questions I just asked – and, because I am human – I answered yes to them all too. So, by that assumptive admission – you (and I) are a lying, thieving, blaspheming adulterer at heart. We are completely in violation of God’s perfect law. God is holy and just. Because of that, there has to be a fine, a penalty to pay for our sins.
On judgment day, when God judges everyone, do you think you would you be found innocent or guilty?
Some people would say innocent. They believe God is all love and forgiving and will forgive their transgressions. But the problem is, a crime has been committed. And our judge is righteous and the crime cannot be simply dismissed. A human judge in a court of law would not dismiss our case simple because we were sorry. The fine or punishment would have to be paid.
Even if you never sinned another moment for the rest of your life – you would still be found guilty. Thankfully, and as you know, a legal transaction took place on the cross 2000+ years ago, and Jesus paid our fine. But salvation doesn’t just happen. We have to make a decision to receive that gift. To receive that free gift, to receive salvation, we have to repent, turn from our sins, and put our trust in Jesus Christ.
Think about it this way – lets say you and I are on a plane and the pilot says it is going to crash. We both see that we have parachutes in front of us. We both believe they are parachutes. We both believe that they would save us. But, if we don’t actually strap that parachute on, put our faith in it, we will die in the crash. It’s not enough to just believe. We must put our trust in Christ.
See, even satan believes in God. Unless we are willing to come under His authority and give our life to Him, we are not following the Jesus of the Bible. God is not interested in making our lives comfortable. It doesn’t say “come follow me and I will make life easier for you” – no, it is really the opposite. We are to be in this world… but not of it. Therefore as He changes us, our hearts change and we no longer want to conform to society (ie – homosexuality is ok, abortion, is ok, creating a God in our minds that conforms to how we want to live comfortably….)
Now, why did I say all of that? Because…. In reading your replies to me, it became very clear that you haven’t put your trust in Jesus. You have some head knowledge, and you might even have a heart for the person you think Jesus is. But you don’t appear to have a saving knowledge – trust – in the real Jesus. Maybe you once knew the right path and have become lost. I don’t know. I do know that your responses are not consistent with someone who has a relationship with Jesus.
I say all of this because I recognize myself in some of your responses. Defensive. Annoyed. Arrogant. Self-righteous. Avoidance. Angry even. I am not trying to hurt you, or anger you. I really, really care about your salvation.
It is very hard to have someone hear your heart thru a blog. But I pray you will know that I am so very sincere in my message to you. I love you, and I don’t want you to perish. If I am wrong, please forgive me. But Joel, if I am right, you can’t afford to not seek Him and repent.
God bless and I will be praying for you.
Blessings,
Lisa
wrong. Christ is supposed to have changed your heart.
Further, you are teaching substitution atonement. That is not the only image of atonement, and it only fits if Christus Victor is the primary one.
As for your, um, attempt to save me, I appreciate it, but Lisa, I would suggest that you humble yourself just a little bit more. Wow…. Thank God that I am no longer like you. I was at one just like you, but when I found myself humbled before Christ, he changed me. I don’t even know what to say to you, really except to say that I look at you and thank God that I have come from that, to where I am now. Wow… When you hit your wall, when you realize that things like this will haunt you, come back here and we can talk about letting these sins be forgiven like the other ones you think you’ve mentioned. Lisa, your mind is not with the heart of Christ. I pity you because I was once there. Leave Beth Moore behind. Leave this silliness behind. Go to Christ, fully.
Yay! Soul Winning fail! Love it.
Good morning Joel! Yes, we are sinners – not was – we are. If one repents and puts their trust in Jesus, then we have been saved. But, we still live in a fallen world, we are still living in a sinful natured body. Yes, the Holy Spirit indwells us and we are in the process of sanctification, but we are not holy this side of the Cross. Today, many people have heard the gospel of grace, which is good. Many preachers preach it, but they also proclaim that if you only believe and confess Jesus as your personal savor, you will get into heaven and you will have eternal security. But the Bible clearly teaches that if we don’t repent, we are not saved. Repentance isn’t just a one time act. It is necessary to repent whenever one commits sins. Otherwise, one will live in sin and risk dying in it.
Matthew 4:17
17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Luke 13:3
3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Mark 1:14-15
14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. [Repent, and then believe. Not vice versa]
When Jesus began to preach, he didn’t ask people to confess and believe in the gospel and then repent, but he first asked people to repent. Repentance is the first thing that Jesus asks of us.
If we don’t repent, which is the first thing Jesus asked for, then how can we receive the rest of the “salvation package”? Later, Jesus revealed other truth to his disciples, but the first step was to repent.
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
Acts 3:19
19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Acts 26:20
20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Anytime the Holy Spirit convicts you of a particular sin (John 16:7-8), you have to repent and confess it right there and then, no matter how long ago you have committed it before. (1 John 1:8-9
Joel, forgive me, but your attitude toward me, and the other lady Barbara in this post, seems less than humble. “Wow, thank God I am no longer like you” – is very self-righteous. On the contrary, you and I and Barbara and every other person is just the same – we are sinners. Anytime we proclaim to be humble… we aren’t. We can be humbled in a moment by something, but we are prideful by fallen nature. I ask God daily to make me more like Christ in nature. Humble, patient, kind, …. I have moments, but never fully there. We fall short of the glory of God. When one is saved, we don’t become sinless….we do sin less though because the Holy Spirit indwells us. Paul, Peter… all of them had the Holy Spirit indwelling them – and they were not sinless either. It is foolishness to think we are sinless. Only Christ was sinless.
See, you are wanting to wash your hands of me – even though, (mistakenly) in your heart you see me as lost. But I don’t want to wash my hands of you…. I am concerned for your eternal destiny. My heart grieves when the Jesus of the Bible is isn’t known.
Through all of this conversation, you still haven’t shown me, through Scripture, your side.
Self-righteous =
By your statements, then, neither Jesus nor Paul would have been ‘saved’ because they both used the same tactics that I have. Lisa, I’m not sure how to get through to some one who thinks they are right, such as yourself. What you have done is tried to show that Scripture is own your side, forgetting that you should be on the side of Scripture.
I worry for you, and others like you, who condemn without knowledge.
You present a non-proof-texted argument and I will respond. Until then, you have yet to show me where Scripture expresses states that women are not to teach men – although I’ve given you examples of it happening.
Craig – soul winning fail – love it? That is so sad.
Seeing as how I see “Soul Winning” as works righteousness, no it’s not sad. It’s sad that people feel the need to try it. In other words, It’s just plain bad theology!
The Bible is clear that we are to go out and share the Gospel to everyone.
Soul winning is sharing the gospel in a way that is meant to guilt someone into “converting”. True soul winning is done by God, through the Holy Spirit, not by what we tell someone. In other words “soul winning” does not equate sharing the gospel.
Joel and Craig, I’m curious if either of you (or both) have ever worked in politics?
Bill Clinton received a lot of publicity when he re-defined the word “is”, but I think you two could give him a run for his money when it comes to redefining words (and re-writing what people have said). If you haven’t considered a career in politics you might want to look into it, you both have a gift when it comes to spin.
Lisa, I admire you for even taking on this spiritual battle. I pray that seeds are planted and the Holy Spirit will work in those that may have read your words and didn’t participate in the “discussion”… and those that did.
Passive-aggressive much?
And I did not re-define anything. The great commission refers to making disciples, not winning souls. Discipleship can only happen after conversion. But thanks for playing.
Barbara,
Would you mind giving us an example where we have done such a thing?
The Bible calls us to evangelize. Evangelism is at the heart of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Christians are called to be witnesses of their faith to a watching world (Acts 1:8). In fact, the word “martyr” comes from the Greek word for “witness.” Early Christians were often put to death for their “witness” to Christ. Clearly these people were so motivated for winning souls that they gave their lives to that cause. If someone we knew was dying and we had the cure for their disease, would that motivate us to share that knowledge with them? The reality is that all people have a terminal, spiritual disease (sin), and, as Christians, we know the cure for that disease (Jesus). This truth should be great motivation for us to bear witness to gospel of Jesus Christ. Knowing that those who reject the “cure” for their spiritual disease will spend an eternity in hell should be sufficient motivation to urge them to consider the dire consequences of their decision.
If Christians are not motivated for evangelism, it could very well be because we aren’t hearing the gospel preached faithfully and fully in our churches. In some parts of the world, churches have attempted to make the Christian message more marketable for modern sensibilities. As such, preaching about sin, judgment, hell, and salvation through Jesus alone is not emphasized as much as messages about how Christianity can make our lives better— improve our marriages, help us raise our kids, and assist us in eliminating bad habits. The pragmatic has replaced the theological in many churches. This brand of Christianity may appeal more to a post-modern world, but it fails to confront people with the truth of their sin and their need for salvation available in Jesus alone. Souls are won not through promises of a better life in the here and now, but through the power of the gospel as the only solution for our sin.
When trying to decide how to share Christ with someone, the starting point should be the same as that of John the Baptist and Jesus Himself. Matthew 3:2 tells us that John began his ministry with the words “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” Repentance refers to a “change of mind,” which implies sorrow for past offences (2 Corinthians 7:10), a deep sense of the evil of sin as committed against God (Psalm 51:4), and a conscious decision to turn from sin to God. The first words Jesus spoke when He began His public ministry were identical to John’s (Matthew 4:17).
While many well-meaning Christians begin their evangelistic efforts with the good news of God’s love for mankind, that message is lost on unbelievers who must first come to grips with the extent of the bad news. First, man is separated from a holy, righteous God by sin. Second, God hates sin and is “angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11). Third, death and judgment are inevitable (Hebrews 9:27). Fourth, man is wholly incapable of doing anything about the situation. Until the full extent of this bad news is presented, the good news cannot be effectively communicated.
What is missing from much modern evangelism is the holiness of God. In Isaiah’s vision of heaven, God’s holiness is being extolled by the seraphim around the throne. Of all the attributes of God they could have praised, it was His holiness—not His love—of which they sang. “And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory’” (Isaiah 6:3). When we understand just how holy God is, we can begin to understand His hatred of sin and His righteous wrath against sinners. Zechariah 8:16-17 and Proverbs 6:16-19 outline the sins God hates—pride, lying, murder, false witness, those who stir up trouble, and those with evil in their hearts. We cringe at the idea of God actually hating, because we are more comfortable with Him as a God of love, which He certainly is. But His hatred is real and it burns against evil (Isaiah 5:25; Hosea 8:5; Zechariah 10:3).
Romans 3:19-20 – “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” Similarly, Galatians 3:24-25 declares – “…the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” Psalm 19:7 also proclaims that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” When self-examined under the mirror of God’s law, man’s heart is prepared for the seed of the gospel. If the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the individual to receive truth, the heart of man is then able to understand the message of God’s holiness—His justice and perfect righteousness, and the glorious salvation made available through the sacrificial provision of Jesus Christ.
So, “I” cannot save you. But I (and ALL Christians) do have a responsibility to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a dying world. Not a watered down, politically correct version – but the Gospel of the Bible. I can only be obedient to Him. Once I have shared the Truth, only the Holy Spirit can draw man’s heart and create an opening for the person to repent and receive Jesus.
You realize that plagiarism is a sin and theft, right? Copying and pasting only shows that you are still following a person – not Jesus.
Looks like an answer from Got Questions?
Yup, most of it. As I do with my students from time to time, I use a plagiarism checker. This is GotQuestions interspersed with individual writing, it looks like.
Okay – so you are deflecting from the points at hand now. How about actually answering some of what I am asking and presenting? You have both been hostile – is that Christ-like? I am guessing that if you are rebuking me, it isn’t in love. So, back to my points – sharing the Gospel is indeed Biblical. It is a command from God. And why wouldn’t a Christian – a wretch – want to loudly proclaim that salvation is needed and we have a Savior?
In other words, you won’t admit that you are stealing, or at the very least pretending to write your own work, so that you can accuse me of not being saved?
I would suggest that you examine the Great Commission and the various translational issues which surround it. Further, I would suggest you examine your understanding of Gospel – unless you think you are singularly right on this and beyond examination? Already, you have shown that your understanding of the Gospel is different than mine.
And please – instead of attacking my character, and the character of the other poster Barbara, why won’t you address the questions we pose? I am not wanting to create discord, but to have a conversation based on the Bible and the Truth of Christ, not lies of this world.
They do not post items without properly citation.
Tell me, again – are you anti-Catholic? Lutheran? Methodist? Where in the Text does it say that women aren’t allowed to teach men?
Joel – I have already stated that I have and will continue to refer to Got Questions. They are a Biblically based storehouse of information. If you would like me to preface every one of my utilizations of theirs, I am happy to do that. I just expect that since you have already voiced your dislike for the site, that you will move past that and answer the actual issue at hand.
It appears you feel you are singularly right and beyond examination.
The Gospel is plainly written in the Bible. No need for an interpreter, The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ. God gave us the law to act as a mirror so we could see our sins. How we fall short of His perfection. His amazing Holiness! When we see that, then the message of Jesus makes sense. If you walk up to someone and say I have a cure and it will save your life! They will think you are nuts if they don’t know they are sick.
Again, instead of attacking me, show me your points in Scripture. I have done my best to show where I hold my beliefs in Scripture. I have yet to see where any of your beliefs are Scripture based.
What religion I am is really not a factor – But I am happy to answer that I am a Christian. Non-denominational. I belong to a Bible teaching, disciple making church. I am not anti anything. But I do believe that many denominations are not following the Bible. They are following a set of guidelines and rules made my men many years ago and holding those higher than the inerrant Word of God.
Yes, you should. You presented a work as yours. That’s about the one thing that riles me up.
I’m not sure I could call them biblically based. Sure, they use the bible, but so do Jehovah’s witnesses.
Nope – I say examine and examine away.
So, you can’t define the Gospel. No verse, just cliches? Come on, Lisa. If it is so vital to you, use Scripture.
You haven’t shown anything. You proof-texted. I’ll ask again – give me a place where it says it plainly. Give me the exegesis of the passage. If you can’t, then don’t, but don’t expect everyone else eo line up behind a belief which cannot be supported.
You mean like non-denoms? Baptists? GotQuestions – they are following rules made up by men a long time ago, without question.
Oh, and while you are at it, could you show me where the bible says it is inerrant?
Lisa, I want you to understand that I come from pretty much a similar background, but I thank my God everyday that he has saved me from silly superstitions and bad, soul damaging doctrines.
Lisa, I suggest you read Scot McKnight’s new book.
Really? I will again post Scripture – but I really, really would like you to reciprocate and post some that shows your views:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Romans 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
John 1:14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
Other scriptures:
John 6:35, Ecc 7:20, John 8:12, John 10:9, John 10:11 & 14, John 11:25 & 26, John 14:6 (a personal fav), John 3:36, 2 Cor. 5:21.
The Bible is indeed inerrant. The Bible is God’s Word.
2 Tim 3:16 – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Hebrews 4:12 – For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
John 6:67-69 – So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
2 Tim 2:15 – Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Acts 17:11 – Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so
Psalm 19:7 – The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
Psalm 12:6 – The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
Proverbs 30:5 – Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him
The Bible cannot be only partially correct. You either believe all of it, or none of it.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 – Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Timothy 3: 1-7 – The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
I love Scripture and will quote it all day! It is THE Word of THE Living God!
I don’t see the word ‘inerrant’ in any of the verses provided. God breathed does not mean inerrant.
Plus, she quoted verses that undermined her position.
Even the devil quoted Scripture.
Psalm 12 is a bad translation. The Law wasn’t perfect – says the book of Hebrews, further, you haven’t yet show where inerrancy comes from.
Your notion of truth, correct, and perfect comes from a post-modern, or post-Enlightenment mind. That’s not biblical.
1st Tim is taken out of the historical context. I would suggest that you read this essay by Tom Wright – http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm That is what exegesis v proof-texting does. It takes Scripture, respects it, and seeks to understand it not verse by verse, but what the original authors intended. Now, there is more exegesis to be added to 1 Tim 2, but I’ll let you start there.
So, that is corrected, then I think the others will be corrected as well. I also note the link I sent previously.
Context, context, context.
Oh, and no, the Scriptures aren’t called the Word of God either. Proper terminology is important in understanding how mistakes creep in.
Considering your position is that of one that “values” women, you both have a habit of seeming to be talking down to me / being condescending. The word “inerrancy” is not in the Bible. It is a descriptive word and it means exempt from error, or never making an error. The Scriptures are clear that God does not make any errors, and Scripture is God breathed, therefore, it is without error. Just like the trinity – the word “trinity” is not in the Bible, it is a descriptive word that describes 3 – God is 3 persons in 1 being.
I am sorry – but I will trust Scripture everyday over the “exegesis” of man. Man is fallible. God is not.
Word of God: It is clearly seen when Paul says to Timothy –
2 Tim 3:15-17 – “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” The Bible is the Word of God. And we are warned not to remove or add to it. It doesn’t matter if we live in 2011 or 400BC…. It is God’s Words to man.
So, I have shown you why I stand behind Scripture. You have sent me an article. Please, show me your scripture references for your belief. You keep saying women have all these “rights” – and there are no “rights” given in the Bible – so please, I am still awaiting what has convinced you.
Some of your comments indicate to me that you don’t believe that EVERY word in the Bible is 100% Truth. Am I correct in that conclusion?
I have to break away now until late tonight. I have a few things to get done with my kids and off to church.
Until then,
Blessings,
LIsa
Ok, so you do understand that biblical interpretation only happens in community? Interpretation does not happen in a vacuum. So by excluding exegesis, which is a part of interpretation, you have just thrown out the whole Christian community! [sarcasm] Great! No need to get up early on Sunday. I don’t need church! Just need me and my Bible! [/sarcasm]
Seriously, I assume you listen to a sermon on Sunday? That’s exegesis.
Craig, I would submit to you that Lisa’s attitude is the root of the problem in American Christianity. It’s why we have turned against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and instead uphold the Gospel of Fox News
I’m talking to you as I would to anyone.
So, Adam was without error? What you are doing is placing your thoughts in Scripture. I understand that, but if we are to talk on equal ground, let’s consider what Scripture does and does not say.
Boy oh boy – do you even know what exegesis means? Do you even know how interpretation is formed? It if is not based on fact, what good is it? Wow.
Okay, so you throw out a verse. That doesn’t describe anything. All it does is show that you can quote Scripture. Herod did the same thing.
Actually, we are given that warning only twice – once in Deuteronomy, about Deuteronomy, and once in Revelation, about Revelation. What you are doing, however, is to remove the whole of Scripture and add to it your understanding.
Regarding your straw man – tell me, what is truth? How do we know what the words mean unless we get to the root of it? You know, with exegesis? I can already tell you, that the only thing you believe is inerrant is your own interpretation, not Scripture.
So you expect us to bow at the foot of GotQuestions, but suddenly articles are bad? Wow.
Like Wow…A guy gets away from the net for a few days and finds his inbox suddenly filled…no wonder my phone couldn’t cope
Lisa…if a woman isn’t allowed to teach men…why are you commenting on a blog with the aim of correcting what seems to be primarily men who are engaging with you?
I was wondering who was going to bring that up
LOL! Great insight Craig.
I am saddened by the level of sacastic and really unkind spirit in which all of you are responding. This conversation is not out of love of Jesus. It is coming across as bullying, sarcasim and condescending. Yet, I am not angry with you. Just sad.
You proclaim how equal women are, yet you are clearly finding joy in demeaning me.
I am not trying to teach or preach to any of you. But, I am trying to witness to you, to share the Gospel of the Bible, and have a heart level conversation about the Creator of the universe.
You seem more interested in just being right, making off-hand comments and gang-up to intimidate me. High-fives among the boys as they belittle a human… A child of God. I sense a lot of bravado.
If I have misunderstood any of your intentions or words, I apologize. I am simply stating what I see.
You have yet to provide me with any Scripture that proves your belief on women preachers of men. And you seem more happy to mock me than anything else.
I have shown quite well that God has given indication of a woman’s role and a man’s role in the Bible. I know the Bible to be without error (the comment about Adam made no sense – the people in the Bible made mistakes, as we do now – but the Bible itself contains no contadictions, lies or mistakes, and if you think it does, then you are not following the Jesus of the Bible).
I am going to make this my last post now.
I am and will continue to pray for each of you.
Blessings,
Lisa
Lisa, you haven’t yet shown anything – and your understanding of the Gospel, not to mention your ability to judge the salvation of another over the internet, is simply wrong. I have given you evidences. I have given you exegesis, and all you do is proof-text.
Tell me, where is your proof?
You have none except what you formulate by believing that you know how to read the Scriptures.
Lisa..what is the difference between your witnessing to men and the Biblical the seemingly Biblical injunction for women not to teach men? Within your commenting – how and where does one draw the distinction between teaching and witnessing?
One of the issues of the commented word is that you don’t see the smile or frown, the twinkle of the eyes or the tears…
Taken to the extreme… the Scriptures would contradict themselves about women not teaching men…for we would have to take out of the Bible every occurrence where a man could learn something from a woman within the Bible.
Wow! What a discussion. Craig and Joel, since you maintain that scripture is not inerrant, will you make your views more clear. Is your view that Scripture is infallible vs. inerrant?
Mike, Scripture is exactly what it exactly says it is, exactly. It is inspired by God and the such. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am just asking which classical definition do you hold to? Are you an infalliblist vs an inerritist? Are you after the line of Oregen? Would you say that biblical propositions true but the history is unreliable? What aspects of the bible would you say are reliable? What would you say that inspired means (θεόπνευστος)? What types of biblical messages are allegorical?
I realize you probably already know this, but for clarity to anyone reading in the discussion, infallibility is defined as holding that scripture is factually true and authoritative in all matters “crucially relevant to Christian faith and practice” but not in peripheral matters. [Norman Geisler - Inerrancy - pg22]
Um, so we now use other definitions? Not the Chicago statement?
Mike, first, I appreciate the fact that you think that the world is black and white, but in being truly biblical, I’m going to just rely upon the Text itself. I hold to the historical believe of inspiration, not the liberal eisegesis of inerrancy.
Origen was a good thinker, but he got carried away, don’t you think?
I am not making any statements at all; black, white or indifferent. I am endeavoring to understand your words. The view of inerrancy (an inerratist) as you described Lisa is held in the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy. It is making a claim about the what they mean by inerrancy of the scriptures and don’t know that you would hold to their conclusion from your statements. I think it is important to note, Norman Giesler was a signer to the statement.
I guess that is the point. The Chicago Statement does a great job defining exactly where those theologians stand on inerrancy of the bible. Since I am not sure what you are saying, I am looking for a source that I can understand. I thought that you were holding to infallibility without inerrancy, but I would have been wrong I think. So that is why I did not state what I thought you were saying. That is why I am asking for clarity.
“lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant” [Chicago Statement of Inerrancy http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
true is a new concept, or rather, the concept applied to ‘true’ is modern and post-enlightenment. Trustworthy and infallible in what it affirms is a different concept. Truth is not always historically accurate.
Lisa thank you for your congeniality. I hope that Craig and Joel will make their views clear so that you can gain understanding of their view of scripture rather than their disagreement with yours. I suspect I know what they believe, but there is no need for me to put views in their head. The goal of the Christian life is to honor God and win mankind to Christ so this discussion is only profitable if it expands understanding and glorifies Christ. I will back out now and hope to read their response.
Just men? We are to men just men?
Now, Mike, perhaps you could make your views clear.
My view, for clarity, is that I believe that Christians need to be united and loving. I believe that the harshness of words and attitudes reflects poorly on the clear statement of Christ that by our love for one another the world, the unsaved, will know that we are His disciples. The radical implication of that is that our love is proof that He lives. Recently I was touched by this article by another Methodist (http://www.spu.edu/info/SoapboxAug00.pdf).
My view is that theological disagreements can either build up the body or tear it down. I think that understanding each other in light of God’s word is good. I think that beating each other up with God’s word is bad. I an in this conversation so that you can make clear what your belief is and where you disagree with Lisa specifically for the building up of the body.
Mike, words well spoken.
My disagreement is, is that her position devalues the gifts and place of women in the body of Christ, is unscriptural, and defeats the New Creation.
Thank you for that. I believe that is one accepted view of scripture. I believe the difference between you and Lisa is that she would affirm the Chicago statement and you would not.
Now, as an implication of that, Paul makes his entire argument of a fallen nature based on the original sin of Adam as a historical person. Jesus referenced Noah and the flood event as a historical person and event. Would you say that their reference to them was confirmation of them as actually historical in nature.
This was in reference to your above statement “true is a new concept, or rather, the concept applied to ‘true’ is modern and post-enlightenment. Trustworthy and infallible in what it affirms is a different concept. Truth is not always historically accurate.”
I would say that you see them referencing as such without any factual evidence that they meant the people were historical, or to use a very bad term, literal, people. Further, as we have seen, it was not needed to use our understanding of history to determine factual statements. Thank of parables and imagery associated with Revelation. Further, given what Peter Enns and John Walton have done with bringing to light Genesis 1 and 2 from the ANE background, I would say that Jesus and Paul are using the images provided to them the way that I would understand them.
Based on that, how would you explain Paul’s view of original sin?
Who’s view of original sin? Your’s or Paul’s?
from above… “explain Paul’s view of original sin?”
Sin came through Covenant. Stop explaining Paul through Augustine and Calvin.
I do not want to beat this horse any further. I think that Lisa’s view is consistent with a valid view of scripture, inerrancy. And I do not believe that roles in any way devalue anyone. Jesus was never devalued even though His role on earth was in 100% obedience to the Father and He states that He never does His own will but that of the Father in heaven. Nor do I believe that children are devalued by the command of their obedience to their parents. Nor the Christians when commanded to obey authorities in Rom 13. I would say that God uses general revelation and order in society as He has designed it to help us more fully understand Him. The question would not be, “Why would God devalue women?” but rather, “How does the role of women and wives reflect the Godhead to a more full understanding.” Douglas Moo has a great article on this as well as Daniel Wallace (http://bible.org/question/light-1-tim-212-when-paul-states-women-should-not-teach-or-exercise-authority-over-men-do-y_ : http://bible.org/seriespage/what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15)
That being said, I do understand why you would get frustrated with that. I too have been. It is never a statement of ability. I have been taught by some amazing women teachers. It is a difficult issue and fraught with frustration. Thanks for spending time chatting with me about it.
When you do not live up to the kingdom, you are devaluing. Keeping Women subordinate is against Scripture and thus against God.
Further, as inerrancy is unbiblical…
I understand your assertions. What I would really like is for you to add your premises “subordinate is against Scripture” But you have been given scripture by Lisa. You were given a relevant way of seeing that scripture through scripture, but you have just restated your assertion.
In the words of the Monty Python players, this is not an argument, this is just a contradiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM (My favorite in the whole world.)
So on what basis would you argue that Paul’s scriptural mandate that women not be placed in scriptural authority over men for the purpose of scriptural or theological propositions is not scriptural. Realizing of course that the request is that you point out why what Paul said then is not applicable now and that Paul never meant it to be. I believe that since it is formed as a proposition, it would fall directly within the infallible range even without inerrancy, but please do not pick that up for now.
Lets just talk about setting aside Paul’s words in reason of why they are unscriptural.
I wouldn’t call them assertions, as they are fact.
No, Lisa gave verses, no Scripture. No exegesis. Just verses.
I would argue that you misunderstand the passage, and take it out of context. Further, you have a bad translation. Paul wasn’t saying that you were saying.
Joel, I really am trying to understand but you have not supported any claim you have made. All dissention is me with condescention and ridicule. I did not ask you to explain my view but yours. I asked you to help us understand you. you have postulated here that your word alone is inerrant since you will not support it with anything other than your own words. I do not believe we can have a reasoned discussion. I am sorry but I will not attack your assertions as that is not an argument.
You said I have a faulty translation, but I have quoted no scripture. Post a translation you trust and we will start there. You are using the term scripture in a different way than Lisa or I, please define your use for our benefit. You said sin came through covenant, which covenant? You are the first to reference Augustine or Calvin, and my Question is actually about the cohesiveness of scripture (for which we appear to be using different definition). My definition is assumed to be the contextual reference of Peter when he said that the believers should listen to Paul, as his writings were on par with all other scriptures. 2 pet 3:16. so I include old and new test.
Mike, you’ll have to forgive me if I believe that in posting two links, I still need to post continuous material to state my position. I’m not sure how that states that my word alone is inerrant, which is a baseless attack.
You cannot speak of original sin, Mike, without acknowledging your theological predecessors. I do not believe that Paul had the same concept of original sin as you do, through Augustine and Calvin. So, if you would like, define original sin. But, remain biblical.
I do not mean to level a baseless attack. Let me isolate what I am talking about.
In Women’s service in the Church, Bishop wright states, “Once again the matter is of course very vexed and much fought over, and I have not read more than a fraction of the enormous literature that has been produced on the passage. I simply give my opinion for what it is worth…”
You are stating this paper as fact. The only reference he gives for his interpretation of the that passage is his own knowledge plus unnamed scholarship.
He further adds… “I fully acknowledge that the very different reading I’m going to suggest may sound to begin with as though I’m simply trying to make things easier, to tailor this bit of Paul to fit our culture. But there is good, solid scholarship behind what I’m going to say, and I genuinely believe it may be the right interpretation.”
His interpretation of his work is far different then your’s. “It is a fact…” and “You are reading a bad translation…” is in no way justified by your links.
Wait, what?
So, presenting a paper which is meant to get the conversation better ground in exegesis and scholarship is not enough? Have you read the scholarship behind this speech?
Mike, this is what I expect from someone who reads in black and white. Tell me, are you such an individual?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVVXleoAdU
http://www.crivoice.org/WT-biblio.html
Joel, I’m not talking about women’s role in ministry. I have actually watched this video before and done some research in this using Bishop Wright. I would not say that you have an opinion that is baseless. I would not attack your position from that line. My very first post was an effort to get you to make your view clear because you had not.
What I am pointing out is that you are attacking any opposition here that you believe conflicts with yours. I have purposely not ever shared my personal view on this. I told you that your view of scripture, if it is as we described, is an accepted view.
My issue here as I said before is your attacks on other Christians. You are strident, rude and judgmental. You are attacking with ad hominem attacks whether abusive or circumstantial. You divert with red herrings. You call names to categorize people. You lump thinking adults into class groups then attack the class. “That’s what I would expect from…” i.e. people like you.
What I stated earlier is that you are communicating within the Christian community. This should be a loving and humble relationship with other believers. That is why I posted the link to the article I referenced.
My point was to get you to clearly express your views instead of just attacking Lisa. Your view does not have to be universally accepted to be valid, but neither did Lisa’s. You attacked her, ridiculed her and between the two of you, you made fun of her together. Her views, although you do not hold them, are not heretical or unorthodox and I showed you that. They are valid long held views of the Christian faith. And if you just want to pass that off as a bunch of theologians that were all “go along so we can get along” you have not taken an objective look at the history behind this and many other issues.
Also, my point on your categorizing of Bishop’s Wright’s comments (and I am familiar with that view, his view and his input to this discussion) is that he is respectful and humble when he presents his views. He carries a dialog of respect. He does not propound his views as fact, but you do. And yes, I think if you do hold a view as fact, you better have really, really good reasons for that including knowing the back ground to his theses.
I stated this when we started this discussion, I was not looking to, nor would I give you my view on it, but I pointed you to very logical, well thought out, and opposing views. Douglas Moo is one of the men on the TNIV translation committee that was so fought against because of the gender inclusive language. If you take exegetical greek in an America seminary, the chances that you will use Dr. Wallace’s advanced greek grammer are very, very high.
I am not attacking you. I would ask that you please treat other Christians with respect. On this forum, please explain you views, and look closely at others. Romans 13, 14 & 15, Paul basically says, there are things that matter, things that don’t and you be united. Please know that good pastors are struggling with these types of questions and are coming to their answers on both sides from good faith and honest evaluation.
Lastly, please define your terms. Saying that Beth Moore is unscriptural will not make any sense to anyone who has read or been through one of her studies. She uses contextual, historical and archaeological information in her hermeneutic. I am assuming by unscriptural, you are addressing an issue on which you have a disagreement with her and you find that issue to be unscriptural (if I am right) and that needs clarification.
Finally I would just ask you, as these discussions are viewed by those in the faith and out of the faith, to assume a non christian is watching your interactions remembering that Christ said that it would be our love that would prove that he lived to the unbeliever, not miracles, visions or signs.
I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the interaction. Take this for what it is worth, which is probably very little.
I tried to make it a point that when commentators did the ‘hear what I have to say, but this is the last time I’m responding’ that I would respond to them, because it was pointless to argue with someone who was such a person. I noticed the lies you have stated, and that’s fine. Shame that you set the rules and don’t live by them, but…
As to the other points, I believe that they show just how far from scriptural support you are…
Concerning Calvin and the like. I should restate the question for clarity: given (assumption from what I understand you to say) that you do not see Adam / Eve / Garden or historical narrative from the old testament as being necessary to have occurred, how would you explain this passage as saying, “Rom 5:12-14 NASB Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned– (13) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
I was only asking for clarity sake in your view of the impact on scripture from your stand point. It really has little relevance to what we are talking about and I can lay that aside if we should.
I believe that Genesis 2 is a covenantal beginning, as without Covenant, there is no sin. This is found in ANE literature, btw. Genesis 1, of course, is a wildly different concept.
But, God took Adam out from Humanity, and made a covenant with him. Thus, Sin. Thus Death. Death here is not the dying part, but death from the Relationship. Death was assigned the function of punishment so that life eternal is assigned the purpose of reward.
Well i have read the scriputures many times and only found that there was one who ever was perfect and that was Christ Himself…since we are talking about believing scripture i find that most people only believe the passages that they can use to condemn and judge other people and justify their own weakness. As for Joel what does scriputre say about slandering other believers? What if we create a site that disects everything that Joes does will we find him flauless? I don’t think so and if he does then he has just put himself on the level of Christ but then again thats a level he has already put himself on since he has placed himself as Beth Moore’s Judge and I am sure in his own blindness he will even have a justification for that.
Jennifer,
The Scriptures tell us to hold to what is true. Moore is not. Thus, it must be pointed out. Sorry you don’t like that.
I must have missed that verse that gave us the responsibility to slander and accuse our brethern …or how you like to put it point the finger at those who we interprete as not right. If your right and the scripture tells us to hold to what is true then is it not true we are to love our neighbor as ourself and we are to not offend others and not judge others or are the scriptures only true when they support what you want it to. If so then Mr joel that makes you a hypocrite just like the scribes and pharasises where in there day…your correct when you say i don’t like it. It is people such as your self who reprent Christ in a very shameful way…no wonder the world hates christians. Lets just say your correct about Mrs Moore just how much have you prayed for her vs slander her. Aren’t you glad the bible is already written and that our lives every detail even the hidden things are not written in black and white for the world to see. I don’t agree with you or how you use scripture to justify your own weakness.
Wait… who is slandering? I’m telling the truth. That’s not slander.
oh, and btw, since you don’t know the understanding of slander, try to read this post and then read your comments and see who comes closest to it.
Let me just borrow one of your comments . Joel scripture tells us to hold to what is true. Joel is not true. Thus it must be pointed out. Sorry you don’t like that. btw i am familuar with slander it means to defame to bring down someone’s worth or opinion of another in someone elses’s eyes. That Mr Joel is all you are accomplishing so you don’t like it when someone does the very same thing to you that you are doing to others. Hmm wonder why?
Okay, so show me where I am not speaking the truth, Jennifer.
And, people are free to say what they want…. even about me. No profanity of course, but anything else, so no worries, I forgive you for lying about me.
WOW….but really not suprised that you would find your self the victim here. How about taking some responsibility for how you defame a sister in Christ but you know one day you will be held responsible so no worries here… go on continue to accuse the brethern…which by the way is one of the characteristics of satan himself. I have spoken no lies about you just pointed out how you take your interpretation of scripture and use it to accuse and slander another believer in Christ. Funny the very same things i see you of accusing mrs moore of i see you do the same things. Very Interesting. Since you offer forgiveness are you saying i have offended you, wander if Mrs Moore feels the same way about how your words have affected her but clearly its not about the feelings of other it is about exalting joel .
um, who’s the victim here, Jennifer? Wow…. someone is high on themselves. Poor thing
obviously you have a poor understanding of the word victum or do you not have anything original to say and you have to keep refering to my comments. In all your replyies you dance around the issues but i guess you have to when you don’t know what your talking about.
Um, Jennifer, look at your comments. Now, look at mine. Now, look at yours. Now, look at mine… Who doesn’t know what they are talking about? That would be you.
The Bible is inerrant. It is the inerrant Word of God. And women should not preach or be ministers. The Methodist church has this terribly wrong. Read your Bibles.
The bible is not inerrant – Women were apostles. The Methodist church has it right. Read your bibles
Have no idea why I read through these comments. Okay, part entertainment, part train wreck. Joel, you are really something. I thought only Calvinists argued like this.
You mean, insisting on evidence? Plus, if you support Moore, you may not want to disparage Calvinists
A bit of self deprecation, that’s all. No, I don’t like Moore’s teaching nor do I consider her theology Calvinist.
Best to you, your writing and ministry.