Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Doctrines

  • Grudem and Church Leadership

    In part 9 of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem the subject turns to church leadership. While I disagree with much of what Dr. Grudem says about church leadership, I could wish he would show some similar sensitivity to different points of view on male-female authority issues that he does on church leadership. Certainly the Bible says at least as much about leadership among God’s peopple as it does about women in teaching or leadership positions.

    The problem comes down to the process of application. Those who claim a “clear teaching” on a particular topic in scripture, generally ignore the very serious process of determining just how one command becomes applicable and another does not. Because of this, while we can often agree on Biblical exegesis (in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 there is an instruction for women not to teach), we often tend not to be able to agree on whether and how such a command might apply in another time and place. Our explanations can be ad hoc, and are based on how we want to understand the passage rather than on how God would want it applied in our lives and churches. Dr. Grudem thinks this is true of egalitarians. I think it’s true of complementarians. Dr. Grudem thinks that slavery is a bad trajectory, and in fact is generally unhappy with looking at trajectories (see part 4), and yet we do, in fact, have to look at the direction in which scripture is going on a particular teaching, else we will apply scripture inappropriately.

    (more…)

  • Grudem Interview #8 – Arguing from Numbers

    I’ve had a day or so delay in responding to sections of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Wayne Grudem, so I’ll take on the last couple of sections and do my own reflections post today. This post takes a small sample from Part Eight – What Does the Future Hold for the Church? The main part of the post simply expresses Dr. Grudem’s hope and optimism that his side is going to win. He does kind of limit it a bit with the following:

    Yes, I have great confidence that this issue will eventually be resolved, and that the vast majority of God’s people who take the Bible as the Word of God will adopt and practice a complementarian position, and will put it in their statements of faith.

    That “God’s people who take the Bible as the Word of God” phrase is theological code for “those who agree with me.” I know this will be seen as disrespectful, but this is the kind of qualification one uses on a statement when speaking for publication with a political aim–in this case, to make it appear one’s position is strong. The easy response to opponents is then, as has been demonstrated in this interview, simply to claim that they aren’t really taking the Bible as God’s word. If you allow me to define the terms, then I take the Bible as God’s word, and Dr. Grudem might not. The point is that as qualified, the statement doesn’t convey factual knowledge, but rather simply tries to comfort a particular audience.

    (more…)

  • Inerrancy and Liberal-Conservative Dialogue

    In a comment at , Adrian Warnock says the following:

    Dr Grudem has expressed regret for the use of the word “blasphemy”, and as far as the quote from his systematic theology goes you have to understand that his aim is explicitly to build a theology based on the assumption that the bible is inerrant – I am not too sure how you think a liberal theology would help in that aim…

    (See also Dr. Grudem’s retraction of his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy.)

    (more…)

  • Agreeing with Wayne Grudem on Something

    Well, I wasn’t sure it would happen, but it has. I agree with a portion of Dr. Wayne Grudem’s comments in the seventh part of Adrian Warnock’s interview with him, Things We Can Agree to Disagree About?

    Of course, he reaffirms the key points on which I disagree profoundly, namely that making penal substitutionary atonement the key meaning of the atonement is the heart of the gospel or that male authority is somehow a substantial part of the gospel message. Nonetheless, I take it as a good thing that he sees the fairly clear (in my opinion) meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:10, which does not mean that miraculous gifts cease in the church at some artificial point prior to the realizaiton of the kingdom.

    (more…)

  • Pleading Guilty to Blasphemy

    . . . at least as defined by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a point he makes in the current (6th) installment of Adrian’s interview. Again, he’s not talking about me. I’m just going ahead and pleading guilty under an “if the shoe fits” standard.

    (more…)

  • 1 Timothy 2:12 – Assume Authority

    The following quote is taken from the fifth part of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem. I want to note some principles related to the translation and interpretation of this verse.

    In the following I identify sections by numbers in parentheses, as in (1), following an emphasized phrase. This is to prevent breaking the quote into tiny portions.

    To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation (1) that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation (2). It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women’s roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” (3) Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.” Then in the footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV also introduces so many alternative translations that the verse will just seem confusing and impossible to understand (4). So it is no surprise that egalitarian churches are eager to adopt the TNIV.

    Now to respond briefly.

    1. My electronic edition reads “have authority,” but the version on Bible Gateway has the reading as Dr. Grudem quotes it. I’m afraid I don’t see what is so highly suspect about this reading. There seems to be an agenda here to read more into the phrase “assume authority” than would normally be read into that phrase. That translation is provided also by BDAG. Based simply on the English I don’t see the huge difference between “assume authority” and “have authority,” nor how that could make a substantial difference in the interpretation of this verse in context. Having said all of that, I would personally probably translate “have authority” or “exercise authority.”
    2. Following on my first point, I fail to see how this particular translation excites the egalitarian side. Personally I’m comfortable with “exercise authority” but I’m not disturbed, nor am I overwhelmingly pleased by “assume authority.” Let’s look at the translation from two other translations Dr. Grudem cited as gender neutral:
      • I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. (NLT)
      • permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man;she is to keep silent. (NRSV)

      Wow! Us liberals sure aren’t very careful when we try to obscure the masculine truth of the Bible, are we? Since I use the NRSV in teaching, I guess I just miss this one!

    3. Please see point #1. There is a severe problem even with careful exegesis that does not fully take context into account, including scriptural trajectories
    4. My electronic edition has two alternate translations. The one on Bible Gateway has three, though only two of those refer to the Greek word translated “assume authority.” I don’t know what sort of congregations Dr. Grudem works with if having two alternative translations in the footnotes results in confusion.

    In all, this appears to me to be a rhetorically excessive complaint about the TNIV. This passage (not so much this specific verse) has plenty of interpretational issues in it, but the TNIV translation does not appear to add to them.

    [Update 12/12/06 14:53 CST] Peter Kirk has posted a number of deleted comments on his blog. Since those comments relate directly to the material in this post, and in some cases are clearer than what I’ve said, I want to call the attention of my readers to them.

  • I’m the Guy Wayne Grudem Warned You About

    Well, not really. He warned you about some other, much more important guy. But I agree with the guy Wayne Grudem warned you about! Hey! Come on down to the bottom of the slippery slope! The water’s fine!

    Adrian Warnock’s interview with Wayne Grudem continues with its fifth part, Must a Woman Always Remain Silent in Church?. It is at times like these that I begin to wonder why I’m involved. Of course, the answer to that is that I advocate continued communication, however distant, between liberals and evangelicals, and in my view even more importantly between liberals and charismatics. For that reason alone, I read Adrian’s blog, regularly consult conservative commentaries, and generally read more conservative literature than liberal. But when the title of a post asks whether women should always remain silent in church, I am reminded that there is a great gulf present in the way we think and approach subjects. One may hope that the great gulf is not fixed, but one fears otherwise.

    (more…)

  • Inclusivism and the Heathen

    I was getting geared up to write about salvation, because of various comments on my views that I’ve received here and in real life, but as I was doing so, John at Locusts and Honey weighed in on the issue, giving preliminary assent to exclusivism. He does outline the three major positions quite well, even though I disagree with the exclusivist conclusion and practically all of the logic that lies behind it.

    Though I’d already started my other post (<a href="it’s here) I thought I’d respond to his more specific case first, and then make some further comments on salvation generally. He says the following near the conclusion. (You can go to John’s blog to see the nifty picture he put with this!)

    Let us say that that the state catches two brutal serial killers who terrorized a community for years. Dozens of people have died slowly and savagely, and hundreds of people have seen their loved ones face their last moments in agony. Both murderers are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. They are brought to the gallows on the day of their scheduled execution. As the nooses are placed around their necks, suddenly and unexpectedly, a telegram arrives from the governor pardoning one of them. One walks free; the other is executed immediately.

    Is this outcome unjust?

    We have done absolutely nothing to merit God’s forgiveness, and absolutely everything to merit his wrath. Ignorant pagans are not damned because they have never heard the Gospel; they are damned because of their sins. Christians are not saved because of their goodness; they are saved only by the inexplicable pardon of God.

    (more…)

  • Deciding who is Saved

    A few short comments on salvation resulted in some comments that indicate to me that I haven’t been entirely clear on this issue. I have heard such comments in real life from readers of my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. In general people wonder whether I believe that people who reject Christ or who are too apathetic to listen to the gospel even though it is available to them.

    After starting this post, I responded to one on exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, and so I will assume some of the minimum arguments made there.

    Here is a summary of my view, without any of the scriptural backing:

    1. Faith and works are always combined. True faith produces fruit. True fruit indicates that there is some divine working going on.
    2. Salvation by correct theology, by which I mean the idea that salvation is predicated on believing a certain set of doctrines, is as much a form of works salvation and a denial of grace as is old fashioned salvation by works. In either case, we are accomplishing something, either attaining an intellectual understanding, or accomplishing a particular set of activities, for the purpose of earning God’s favor.
    3. While God is one, and Jesus is the bridge between God and man, God has multiple ways of working in and with people.
    4. God is much more likely to communicate with people who are listening that we give him credit for. After we’ve given him more credit, he’s still more likely . . . 🙂
    5. It is not essential for me to know who God is saving and who he is not, but I can gather from his actions in history that he is doing so to many.
    6. If you’re still looking, you’re not lost.

    Now that’s way more than I can cover in a single post. In fact, I expect it is likely that I will post occasionally on this over a period of months.

    So where is my problem with the standard doctrine? Most particularly I object to the claim that those Christians who allow for the salvation of people who are not Christians in one way or another are simply rejecting the Bible outright. It is not merely that I am uncomfortable with a God who makes salvation difficult (see below), though I admit I am uncomfortable with that. My problem is with the combination of scriptural claims, that God is merciful, compassionate, and just, and yet will fry a rather large assortment of people eternally.

    (more…)

  • Role of Women

    I thought I was just about done with this topic after commenting on <a href="textual issues, but there have been some additional comments that called attention to some additional information. Molly commented and through her comment I found her very thoughtful entry Jesus/Women: Equal Worth, Unequal Role (?), and her link to another thoughtful article, On being “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”. The second article looks particularly at doctrinal issues related to the trinity. There seems to be at lest some case that complementarians are abandoning an orthodox view of the trinity in order to support their theology on male and female roles. That’s way out of my stomping ground, so I just suggest you read the articles if you’re interested.

    What came to my mind as I looked at this was a practical question. We have numerous posts dealing with theological and doctrinal issues and many more discussing exegetical issues in numerous passages, but what about simply observing the church and women’s ministry today? By asking this I’m not suggesting that we abandon the scriptures and all doctrinal statements and just take a practical look. Rather, I accept the particular interpretation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that calls for examination of doctrine in the light of scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. (There are similar views in a number of traditions.) I do this under the conviction that there is certainly an opening for women in ministry in scripture, and that the tradition of the church has often placed women in positions of authority, though less often than men.

    Let me start from a very secular point. Placing people in roles for which they are not suited, or for which they are not gifted can produce dangerous results in any organization. Managers who are not capable of delegating, disorganized administrators, teachers who know their subject but cannot communicate, and so forth. Being put in a position which one cannot properly fill results in fear, feelings of incapacity, and in responses such as over-control, or complete lack of control. Basically putting people in roles for which they are not gifted produces bad results.

    (more…)