When I was earning my Masters of Divinity at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid ‘90s I had an ethics professor named Joe Trull. Dr. Trull was a strong proponent of women pastors. I actually, at the risk of my grades in his class, consistently challenged his arguments.
Let me note that I usually kept quiet in class, but this issue of women pastors had such far reaching theological problems I had to speak up. May I also make it clear that it never was nor is the position of NOBTS to support egalitarianism or women pastors to my knowledge.
Nevertheless, I had this professor in a couple classes. In fact, I was one of his students in the last class he taught at NOBTS. I have my suspicions that Dr. Kelly, the President of the Seminary, had helped Dr. Trull to an early retirement. Thank you Dr. Kelly.
At the end of a class one day, Dr. Trull asked me to drive him to New Orleans International Airport since I was going home that way. I was delighted to have the chance to have Dr. Trull captive in my pickup truck going 60 miles an hour. It would be about thirty minutes of his un-di-vid-ed attention, and I was ready to have this debate without the constraints of the classroom setting.
When he got in my truck, I tossed my Bible into his lap and said, “You read; I’ll drive.” The debate started and lasted all the way to “Departures.” I will never forget the last words he said to me, “Jason, you just take this Book too seriously.”
Now I know some of you may not believe that he said that, but I assure you he did. The reason he said that was because his entire hermeneutic was based upon the fact that the Bible must be interpreted within one’s culture and according to the evolution of society. So for me to believe that what the Bible meant 2000 years ago is what it means today is to “take the Bible too seriously.”
Yep, I must be guilty as charged.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Chris–
In reading all of your posts you seem to spend more time looking at the culture surrounding the text then the text itself. I realize that this does need to part of our interpretation but when the Bible directly says that pastors are to be the husband of one wife. why do not you take that as meaning the husband (male) of one wife (female).
I don’t deny that Paul’s teaching about the pastors being the husband of one wife means exactly that. However, I do not think that this text can be made categorically imperative for the discussion of who can and cannot be “pastors” (whatever that term actually means). For example, if all of the pastors in the churches of Paul’s day were men, it is natural that he would comment on the relationships between male pastors and their wives. However, the actual context of this passage is not about which sex can be pastors, but rather how many wives the males who are pastors can have: one.
Is God sovereign?
Sure.
If God is not the supreme creator of everything, sovereignty in control of His creation is He God?
I would suppose not. However, I hardly see how contingency within creation reduces God’s sovereignty. Only materialist conceptions of divine sovereignty (which are actually those which deny divine sovereignty) necessitate against contingency in creation.
I would say that if there is chance than God is not in control if God is not in control then He is not God If God is not God then He is not. If there is no God why read your Bible and believe in anything?
I have never said that there is no God, nor have I advocated that God is not sovereign. If you are attempting to correlate my non-materialist reading of God’s sovereignty with atheism, you are employing a very curious form of argumentation indeed.
Besides, I would simply ask you, what does “control” mean?
God is God, he is sovereign, and there is no such thing as chance.
I hardly see why the last statement is necessitated by the first. Only a materialist conception of God would require such a conclusion.
When interpreting scripture we have look at weather things go to culture or creation. Clearly, the creative order, male and female is from creation. The culture of creation is a culture of sin, which is the same culture that exists today.
This is another curious form of reasoning. According to your assertion, that which is influenced by culture must sinful, since the “culture of creation” is sinful. However, as it is impossible that Paul’s writings were not influenced by his cultural milieu (for humans are cultural creatures, after all), one would have to assume—per your reasoning—that Paul’s literary submissions are themselves, as products of culture, sinful also.
If God is God and He says in His word that the pastor of a church is to be the husband of one wife then the one He calls will be a man with one wife.
Except that Paul said it. Moreover, Paul’s words in this issue are about the rejection of polygamy for pastors, not the gender identification of those who are and are not permitted to be pastors.
To deny this is to say that God is not sovereign and if that is true then God con not be God
This is not a necessary conclusion at all.
gene–
If I had to guess I would say that ED attends a United Methodist Church.
Nope.
gene–
Let me ask you a direct question. Do you believe that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle for a born again Christian?
I hardly see what this has to do with the discussion on this topic. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt, like jason’s style of “discussion,” to associate me with a particular form of belief so that you can argue against a label. Poor rhetorical style, my friend. Therefore, I shall not dignify your question with an answer.
I hardly see what this has to do with the discussion on this topic. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt, like jason’s style of “discussion,” to associate me with a particular form of belief so that you can argue against a label. Poor rhetorical style, my friend. Therefore, I shall not dignify your question with an answer.
It doesn’t have anything DIRECTLY to do with the topic. I was just curiuos. So can you answer the question now?
{{{ AAAAaaaahhhhhh }}}}}
As a woman that posts frequently on the issue of egalitarianism vs. complimentarianism, I have heard it all. Or so I thought, until I popped over here.
1Tim. 2:9-10 – “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and discreetness, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness–with good behavior.”
“respectable apparel” is defined in this text in two ways: positively and negatively.
1) Positively = modesty, discreetness, good behavior
2) Negatively = gaudy, flaunting
Godly women should dress and behave in such way that that supports their claim of being Christian. Is there any culture where this would not apply to a Christian woman? No, of course not. Are Paul’s instructions in any way an attempt to harm women or put them in spiritual bondage? Absolutely not. Is there anything within the nature of a woman that desires to rebel against such instructions? Of course. But in the Spirit, does a Christian woman desire to be modest, humble, and righteous? You bet.
Then in verse 11 Paul continues, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.”
Christian women are welcomed into the learning environment of the church. This is so untrue of pagan religions. But women are reminded by Paul that their Christianity is not an abrogation of their created order. Remember, submissiveness is the crowning glory of Christ, he humbled himself to the will of the Father. 1Cor. 11:3 reminds us that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. If a woman’s role of submission should be looked at as a bad thing, then one would have to conclude that Christ’s submissiveness to the Father’s headship is a bad thing.
Then in verse 12 Paul clarifies a particular issue saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
Although women are empowered in Christ to their rightful equality as humans created in God’s image, Paul is clear that this does not mean that men and women are the same in roles and responsibilities according to God’s created order. Specifically, Paul is clear that women are not to be preachers in the church thus having spiritual authority over men. Paul then give several reasons why this is God’s will – none of which are cultural reasons!
First, in verse 13 Paul explains that a woman’s subordinate role did not result after the Fall but was part of God’s original design. Then in verse 14 Paul explains how the Fall resulted from an failure of both Adam and Eve to serve God according to their male and female roles. Eve usurped Adams authority and Adam failed to lead. Finally in verse 15, Paul teaches us that even though it was an un-submissive woman who initially led the human race into sin, women shall be saved from the stigma of damning the race because women are the children-bearers who actually have the authority and responsibility of rearing godly children.
Now E.D., notice that Paul’s arguments are not based whatsoever on culture or Ephesus’ pagan religions. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is giving Timothy and the whole of the Church till Christ returns instructions as to how we should organize church and behave within it. Again, not one cultural argument is given. Paul gave one cultural illustration about the clothing, but that was an illustration or application and not the basis of his argument. If Paul had just talked about personal stuff with Timothy then we could ignore the details and learn from the principles. But if Paul exegetes the third chapter of Genesis we should obey it as God’s instructions. And that is exactly what Paul did.
So I have given you a pithy exegesis of several relevant texts concerning this issue.
I have refrained from personal stories or anecdotes.
I have even refrained from personal opinions.
I have simply walked verse by verse through these texts to see if we could discover even one instance where Paul uses culture as an argument or where Paul gave his personal opinion. And all we have discovered is that Paul uses the theology of Genesis as a basis for teaching men and women their roles within the church.
gene–
It doesn’t have anything DIRECTLY to do with the topic. I was just curiuos. So can you answer the question now?
How are you defining “homosexuality?”
And gene, please define “is.”
“I don’t deny that Paul’s teaching about the pastors being the husband of one wife means exactly that. However, I do not think that this text can be made categorically imperative for the discussion of who can and cannot be “pastors” (whatever that term actually means). For example, if all of the pastors in the churches of Paul’s day were men, it is natural that he would comment on the relationships between male pastors and their wives. However, the actual context of this passage is not about which sex can be pastors, but rather how many wives the males who are pastors can have: one”.
Is God sovereign?
“Sure.”
You say that you do not deny that Paul said that being the husband of one wife is a qualification for a pastor, that can also be elder since you are confused about that, and then you say that the qualification is not that you have to be male. You have just contradicted yourself. Which is it? You have twisted this scripture to make it mean what you want it to. Please show me anywhere in scripture that it says that you can be a women and an elder?
With your argument, you do deny that God is sovereign. You are saying that God left the part about women pastor’s out of His word.
“I have never said that there is no God, nor have I advocated that God is not sovereign. If you are attempting to correlate my non-materialist reading of God’s sovereignty with atheism, you are employing a very curious form of argumentation indeed.”
All I am saying here is that at the end of your argument it does end at atheism. Like many people, you do not look at what is at the end of the road of their arguments. I‘m not calling you an atheist I’m saying that you need to think that through.
“Besides, I would simply ask you, what does “control” mean?”
God is an all-powerful being He knows past present and future. We can also see that he is directly involved with His creation. He can change anything that happens if He so chooses; therefore, we have to say that everything that happens not only does he know but also He decrees it.
I hope that is a complete enough answer for you. I answer your question instead of attacking the question.
God is God, he is sovereign, and there is no such thing as chance.
“I hardly see why the last statement is necessitated by the first. Only a materialist conception of God would require such a conclusion”.
So let me see if I have your position right. God makes us lets us go and hopes thing come out good. He is in heaven right now wringing out his hands looking down with a hope that someone will get it right. Is this your Idea of sovereignty? It puts man as the one who is sovereign not God! I know that some of us think that we have a better plan but that is just pride talking.
“This is another curious form of reasoning. According to your assertion, that which is influenced by culture must sinful, since the “culture of creation” is sinful. However, as it is impossible that Paul’s writings were not influenced by his cultural milieu (for humans are cultural creatures, after all), one would have to assume—per your reasoning—that Paul’s literary submissions are themselves, as products of culture, sinful also.”
Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit so if you are trying to correct Him once again you are denying the sovereignty of God.
“Except that Paul said it. Moreover, Paul’s words in this issue are about the rejection of polygamy for pastors, not the gender identification of those who are and are not permitted to be pastors”.
I think that we covered that one.
ED, I am using the term in the way that the bible uses the term. One man lying with another man.
jason–
“respectable apparel” is defined in this text in two ways: positively and negatively.
1) Positively = modesty, discreetness, good behavior
2) Negatively = gaudy, flaunting
Godly women should dress and behave in such way that that supports their claim of being Christian. Is there any culture where this would not apply to a Christian woman? No, of course not. Are Paul’s instructions in any way an attempt to harm women or put them in spiritual bondage? Absolutely not. Is there anything within the nature of a woman that desires to rebel against such instructions? Of course. But in the Spirit, does a Christian woman desire to be modest, humble, and righteous? You bet.
Is not modesty a value that varies from culture to culture? You bet.
Then in verse 11 Paul continues, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.”
Christian women are welcomed into the learning environment of the church. This is so untrue of pagan religions. But women are reminded by Paul that their Christianity is not an abrogation of their created order. Remember, submissiveness is the crowning glory of Christ, he humbled himself to the will of the Father. 1Cor. 11:3 reminds us that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. If a woman’s role of submission should be looked at as a bad thing, then one would have to conclude that Christ’s submissiveness to the Father’s headship is a bad thing.
But what does this submission entail? How do you define it? WHere is the dividing line? You wish to speak so definitively about these things, but from culture to culture, and from ethos to ethos you will not be able to provide a definitive rubric for describing “submission.” Unless, of course, you consider the proposition that “women cannot be pastors” (whatever that term means in a given context notwithstanding) to be the defining line. If so, your definition is worthless.
Then in verse 12 Paul clarifies a particular issue saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
For all you have said, you have yet to tell why Paul said this to these particular people. There had to be an impetus for Paul’s writing this advice–he is not simply theologizing off the top of his head. However, the only contribution you can make to the conversation is some absolutized and universalized dictum that means little or nothing in relation to the sitz em laben of the text.
Although women are empowered in Christ to their rightful equality as humans created in God’s image, Paul is clear that this does not mean that men and women are the same in roles and responsibilities according to God’s created order.
I do not deny that there is no meaningful difference in the roles and responsibilities of the sexes. However, considering that the determination of these differences will be invariably determined by the culture and society in which these gender roles are manifested, I do not understand how a particular manifestation of these can be absolutized and made culturally transcendent.
Specifically, Paul is clear that women are not to be preachers in the church thus having spiritual authority over men. Paul then give several reasons why this is God’s will – none of which are cultural reasons!
You assume that there are no cultural reasons. However, as Paul–like the rest of us–are inherently cultural beings, and because Paul is writing in the context of a very specific context to very specific people (which again brings up the issue of culture), it is hardly clear that this should be taken in a categorically imperative manner.
Now E.D., notice that Paul’s arguments are not based whatsoever on culture or Ephesus’ pagan religions.
There is no way to definitely prove that this statement is accurate. As human writing occurs in the context of culture, the natural assumpion is that some cultural understanding undergirds what is written. This supposition is supported strongly by the incidental nature that is inherent to the letter writing process.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is giving Timothy and the whole of the Church till Christ returns instructions as to how we should organize church and behave within it.
This is a gigantic assumption that simply cannot be supported textually. If you would have told Paul that his writing is what you characterize it to be, he probably would have laughed at you, or more carefully chosen his language.
Again, not one cultural argument is given.
Once again, as all language and literature is produced within the context of culture (and one need not use “cultural arguments” that are explicitly identifiable, for they are inherent to our language), your assertion is painfully ignorant of the function of human language.
So I have given you a pithy exegesis of several relevant texts concerning this issue.
I have refrained from personal stories or anecdotes.
Am I supposed to laud you for this?
I have even refrained from personal opinions.
Funny! Such is impossible, and claims to the contrary are either the product of severe self-delusion or naivety.
I have simply walked verse by verse through these texts to see if we could discover even one instance where Paul uses culture as an argument or where Paul gave his personal opinion. And all we have discovered is that Paul uses the theology of Genesis as a basis for teaching men and women their roles within the church.
Well, that is all your personal opinion discovered. As I have argued many times, the interpretation which you have provided is hardly objective, nor is it the only one that is reasonable within the parameters of the text.
chris–
You say that you do not deny that Paul said that being the husband of one wife is a qualification for a pastor, that can also be elder since you are confused about that, and then you say that the qualification is not that you have to be male. You have just contradicted yourself. Which is it? You have twisted this scripture to make it mean what you want it to. Please show me anywhere in scripture that it says that you can be a women and an elder?
I am not contradicting myself. What I said is that I have no doubt that Paul meant “male” when he said husband. I am not trying to change the meaning of the word “husband.” However, as the maleness of the pastor, elder–whatever–is assumed by Paul (and I’m not arguing that point), the purpose of Paul’s statement is in relation to the number of wives this husband has, not the sexual identity of the husband. Therefore, to make this text illustrative of the proper sex of a pastor/elder/etc. is improper as Paul is talking about the man’s relationship to his wife, not his sexual identity.
With your argument, you do deny that God is sovereign. You are saying that God left the part about women pastor’s out of His word.
“God” left a lot out of the bible that orthodox Christians affirm. I hardly see that your statement is a compelling argument.
All I am saying here is that at the end of your argument it does end at atheism. Like many people, you do not look at what is at the end of the road of their arguments. I‘m not calling you an atheist I’m saying that you need to think that through.
Why don’t you show me how the end of my argument is atheism?
God is an all-powerful being He knows past present and future. We can also see that he is directly involved with His creation. He can change anything that happens if He so chooses; therefore, we have to say that everything that happens not only does he know but also He decrees it.
This is nothing more than philosophical pantheism. If you cannot conceive of a relationship between GOd and creation that function beyond the level of phenomenological causality, it is you who are the athiest.
So let me see if I have your position right. God makes us lets us go and hopes thing come out good. He is in heaven right now wringing out his hands looking down with a hope that someone will get it right. Is this your Idea of sovereignty? It puts man as the one who is sovereign not God! I know that some of us think that we have a better plan but that is just pride talking.
This is not what I am talking about at all, and it should be obvious to all that you are mischaraterizing what I have said. I do not doubt that God is in “control,” nor that GOd’s will is accomplished in space/time. However, I choose to imagine that this occurs on a different level than phenomenologically-determined causality, as the pantheists of old believed.
Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit so if you are trying to correct Him once again you are denying the sovereignty of God.
I am not trying to correct Paul. He has every right to say what he believes within the context in which he lived. However, we cannot also assume that every word he said within this context is immediately and directly transferable to ours.
My seminary president in the mid 90′s said that God would never bless a church that had a woman pastor and I tend to agree.
My husband’s grandfather was a farmer that listened sometimes to sermons on the radio. He said that when a woman preacher came on, he had to turn the radio off because the cows would stop milking.
Women will still become preachers, and if they appear to have results it is because the power is in the Word of God, not because God has called them and blessed their ministries. God would not prepare someone to do “good” works that go against or compromise His Word of truth. Nor would God prepare or call a woman to be a preacher because it goes against His Word of Truth.
ryan–
My seminary president in the mid 90′s said that God would never bless a church that had a woman pastor and I tend to agree.
How nice that your seminary president presumed to have explicit access to the mind of God. Sounds like a fun seminary!
Now with all of this said, let me remind our readers of what I said on 7/20/2006 at 1:04 PM on this comment thread:
And now you guys know what it is like to debate someone before agreeing about some issues concerning Bibliology and hermeneutic.
Without wasting your time with line-by-line rebuttal of e.d.’s comments, I believe that it has been proven in this thread that the “women pastors” issue is not an issue of culture or ethics or even ecclesiology but an issue of Bibliology.
e.d. has given classic responses to the exegesis of the relevant texts concerning this issue. Consistently in his arguments (but without outright saying it) he has denied the Bible’s authority, inerrancy, inspiration, infallibility, and sufficiency.
Furthermore, He has consistently tried to assert that it is hermeneutically impossible to accurately interpret God’s Word. Such an assertion has led to gross heretical movements within Christianity from liberalism to Open Theism and even the Gender-neutral Bible movement.
We are keenly aware of our fallibility. We feel the forces of culture, tradition, and personal inclination, as well as the deceitful darts of the devil. We have our personal predispositions, and have no doubt been influenced by all the sins of our past and present. The history of exegesis does not encourage us that we will have the final word on this issue, and we hope we are not above correction. But we take heart that some measure of freedom from falsehood is possible, because the Bible encourages us not to be conformed to this age but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:1-2).
Therefore, our confidence in the convictions we hold is based on five facts:
1) We regularly search our motives and seek to empty ourselves of all that would tarnish true perception of reality.
2) We pray that God would give us humility, teachability, wisdom, insight, fairness, and honesty.
3) We make every effort to submit our minds to the unbending and unchanging grammatical and historical reality of the Biblical texts in Greek and Hebrew, using the best interpretive methods of study available to get as close as possible to the intentions of the Biblical writers.
4) We test our conclusions by the history of exegesis to reveal any chronological snobbery or cultural myopia.
5) We test our conclusions in the real world of contemporary ministry and look for resonance from mature and godly people. In humble confidence that we are handling the Scriptures with care, we lay our vision now before the public for all to see and debate in public forum.
jason–
e.d. has given classic responses to the exegesis of the relevant texts concerning this issue. Consistently in his arguments (but without outright saying it) he has denied the Bible’s authority, inerrancy, inspiration, infallibility, and sufficiency.
I have never, explicitly nor implicitly, denied the authority of the Scriptures, nor their “inspiration.” As far as “inerrancy” and “infallibility,” These are concepts which are never claimed by the Scriptures and are rather the misguided attempts of some to attempt to secure the texts against the critique of modern textual criticism. Little do these know, however, that by using the categories of modern textual criticism, they have actually capitulated the legitimacy of textual critism.
Furthermore, He has consistently tried to assert that it is hermeneutically impossible to accurately interpret God’s Word.
An “accurate interpretation” is somewhat of an oxymoron, is it not? Everyone’s “interpretation” is going to be accurate, being as one’s interpretation is driven by particular presuppositions, etc. However, “accuracy” of interpretation is not what is in question here.
Such an assertion has led to gross heretical movements within Christianity from liberalism to Open Theism and even the Gender-neutral Bible movement.
I knew the labeling and false associations couldn’t last past one post. Good form, professor.
Even the Pope gets it, he recently spoke about this.
Speaking to priests, Pope Benedict XVI praised the role of women in the church but reiterated that the Catholic priesthood is reserved for men only.
In a traditional Lenten celebration with parish priests Thursday, the pope fielded a young priest’s question on whether or not it was time for women to have greater institutional recognition in the church.
“It is right,” Benedict said, “to ask ourselves if in the ministry, women could have more space and positions of responsibility.”
The pope lauded women’s special gift of charisma, or grace, and mentioned St. Hildegard, who corresponded regularly with the popes of her day in the Middle Ages; St. Catherine of Siena, who was involved in Pope Gregory XI’s return to Rome from Avignon; and Mother Teresa, who started an international order of nuns in Calcutta, India, in 1950 and received the Nobel Prize in 1979 for humanitarian work.
“How could one imagine the government of the church without this contribution? It is a determining factor without which the church could not survive,” said Benedict.
But the priestly ministry is “reserved for men,” the pope said, explaining that priests manifest the teachings of Christ, who chose men as his disciples.
E.D. hermeneutical basis: Everyone’s interpretation is going to be accurate…
nuff said.
jason–
As typical, you refuse to engage with what I have actually said (which what you have above-quoted is taken out of context of my post) and instead persist in your childish attempts at personal attacks. Bravo, professor.
Context? You mean the context of you persistently trying to prove that one cannot trust what Paul says because he is a victim of his culture? You mean the fact that you ignore that Paul doesn’t use his culture as the basis of his arguments but he uses the Bible and theology, specifically Genesis in this situation? You mean the context of you trying to say that none of us can be accurate in our interpretations because we are all human and tainted products of our society? No, e.d. your erroneous Bibliology has been brought out into the light and proven. So you are now screaming, “Not fair!” Sorry, but it is fair. That is what theological debate is all about. Words matter. Interpretive processes matter. The Bible is a grammatical issue. It is a revealed “word.” If you don’t deal with the words, then you miss the truth.
Jason–
Context? You mean the context of you persistently trying to prove that one cannot trust what Paul says because he is a victim of his culture?
That each of us is influenced in myriad and sometimes imperceptible ways by the cultural contexts in which we live is hardly victimization–you can describe that which is natural in perjorative terms if you wish; however, your ranting comes off as quite disingenuous.
You mean the fact that you ignore that Paul doesn’t use his culture as the basis of his arguments but he uses the Bible and theology, specifically Genesis in this situation?
I am not saying that Paul is not appealing to a conception of “natural order” in his utilization of the Genesis text. What I am saying, however, is that the cosmology that determines his interpretation of this “created order” is entirely different than what it would be for you or me. Therefore, to take Paul’s cosmological conclusions without beginning with similar starting assumptions provides a falsified transference.
You mean the context of you trying to say that none of us can be accurate in our interpretations because we are all human and tainted products of our society?
You can eshew the effect which society and being human has on your interpretation all you want. However, no matter how hard you try, and no matter what hermeneutical devices you invent, it is impossible that either one of us can escape these influences. Does this mean that we must be enslaved by them? No. However, as long as we are humans within communities of belief, our interpretations of Scripture will be ever influenced by these contexts.
No, e.d. your erroneous Bibliology has been brought out into the light and proven. So you are now screaming, “Not fair!” Sorry, but it is fair.
No, I could care less if you rage against my interpretive methodology until your face is red and dripping with foam. The more you rage, the more clearly you reveal your ignorance about your own presuppositional and hermeneutical biases, and how you are blind to the influence with they exert over your interpretation of Scripture. Fully immersed in this blindness, you arrogantly proceed to exclaim that you–YOU–have epistemological access enough to “accurately” interpret Scriptures. One wonders why we would need the Holy Spirit or 2000 years of Christian thought.
That is what theological debate is all about.
Professor, it it is curious that you presume to lecture me about “theological debate” when you are the one on this blogsite that most consistently engages in petty personal attacks and sophmoric attempts at “guilt-by-association.” If you desire a theological debate, let’s do it. However, if your “debate” never goes beyond the normal form of “posting” in which you engage, I hardly see that anything will come of it that even closely resembles “debate.”
Words matter.
I agree. As words are linguistic symbols that are entrenched in cultural/societal contexts, it would seem pertinent that such be fully engaged when approaching a text. According to you, however, this is apparently not so. Go figure.
Interpretive processes matter.
Again, I agree. However, self-crituqe of interpretive processes is crucial as well.
The Bible is a grammatical issue.
And grammer is a cultural issue, something which are not apparently willing to engage in this issue.
It is a revealed “word.”
If by “revealed” you mean, “Paul wrote it,” I will agree. Beyond that, you would definitely have to define what you mean by “revealed.”
If you don’t deal with the words, then you miss the truth.
Yes, but if you don’t deal with the cultures and contexts from which words derive their meaning, you have missed the words as well.
A hollow response there, e.d. I remind you of comment “7/22/2006 9:34 AM” in this thread which shows my heart and convictions with honesty and forth-rightness, rather than your attempts to speak for me.
But I can see no need for this discussion to continue since the root of your problem has been clearly exposed. I may do a post on that particular issue when I get a chance. You theological flaws are really the core problem of most of the attacks that have been leveled against sound doctrine.
So I am glad that you have shared with us your viewpoints. They shall be for some a great reminder of our daunting task of training men who can teach others also the eternal truths of God’s word.
May God give us more men who have a high-view of Scripture!!