I’ve critiqued Russell Moore in the past, but since his followers keep holding him up as a paragon of godliness and scholarship, it doesn’t hurt to remind them of how wrong they are. The most recent I’ve seen is at bWe, where the Moore article is linked in the comments by someone using the name… Continue reading»
At this link you will find what CBMW views as a summary of the complementarian/egalitarian debate. Here is my analysis. The summary of the egal. position seems fair enough, if over-simplified. But the summary of the comp. position seems to have been written as though they forgot what they just said about the egal position.… Continue reading»
A friend alerted me to the article Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ by John MacArthur, and I felt the need to comment. At this time I don’t see any date stamp on it so I don’t know when it was written [EDIT: apparently 1999; see near end of document]. But while I had hoped… Continue reading»
I just read The Role of Women in the Church, another typical male supremacy-endorsing document, and I'm really tired of such things. But because these familiar claims and arguments keep being promoted, there is a need to keep refuting them, beginning here with their Introduction. "Western culture has undergone a dramatic shift in its view… Continue reading»
Under “5. Final Comments”, Affirmative Again the assertion is repeated that since the Bible uses names for God like Father and Son, then it must indicate a hierarchal relationship. And again they insist that permanent subordination does not mean inferiority of being. And yet again, they insist that without hierarchy of roles there is no… Continue reading»
Under “3. Rebuttals”, Affirmative The affirmative asserts that although incarnational events don’t necessarily equate to eternal truths about Jesus’ divinity, they still insist that the relationships among the Persons are not presuppositions but have scriptural support. Then a personal attack is made, wherein the motivations of the Negative are called into question. Next an appeal… Continue reading»
Under “2. Opening Statements”, point I (neg.) Point I states that that the affirmative lacks scriptural support while the negative has such support. They clarify and focus the debate by stating that Biblical authority is not a part of the debate at all, and that neither view believes philosophy should trump scripture. Under “2. Opening… Continue reading»
Under “2. Opening Statements”, point II This point is very simple: an appeal to the so-called church fathers. But history is not scripture, and if they want to win a debate on the eternal relationships among the Persons of the Trinity, they need to stick with what God has actually said and not someone’s personal… Continue reading»
At Henry Center Media there is a transcript of a debate on the Trinity. The point under debate is whether or not the Persons of the Trinity have a hierarchal relationship; the formal question is “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” Please read over the transcript or… Continue reading»
For if evangelicals go off again in a fundamentalist separatism while clinging to an unorthodox doctrine of the Trinity, their separation from the rest of the Body of Christ could prove irreparable, like the invention of a new sect in the characteristically American mode of Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses (“The New Evangelical Subordinationism: Reading Inequality… Continue reading»