I saw a bumper sticker today. It looked something like this:
What God has joined together
I support gay marriage
Well…I couldn’t get the fonts and sizes to work the way I wanted them to, but you get the idea. I thought whoever created the sticker, as well as those who paste it to their bumpers, assume a lot considering they have no Biblical justification to believe that God would have anything to do with the joining of two people of the same sex. It assumes they know His mind in a way for which I am often chastised. Of course when I state something I believe God would do, think, say or whatever, I at least can back it up Scripturally. I guess it’s OK if someone wants to proclaim that they support what the Bible would indicate is totally out of the question. But to suggest that God would take part in such a thing is really assuming a bit much. In fact, it’s quite absurd based on all the Bible says about the subject of marriage and sexuality. But it’s the world in which we live and for those who are determined to do whatever they want, it is necessary to get as many people believing as they do as to whether or not a behavior is right or wrong. Even if it means rewriting the Bible.
Marshal Art's 
Well, that's typical for Feodor. He'll type some stuff that suggests he has some sort of background, but only for the purpose of posing as an intellectual. There's never any real attempt to explain his position on anything. Instead, there's only condescension and arrogance, with crap suggesting his opponents aren't capable of understanding so, you know, why bother trying? It's a great dodge if we were all the nincompoops he wishes we were. But as a coward, he'll not take a chance of showing his limitations by actually trying to seriously engage. He types plenty of words, but never really says anything. And that's so sad as I have such high hopes.
I'll think about entering an open dialogue about interpretation when you both make the following choice:Either…1. Proclaim that women should be silent in the church and that those who unfortunately find themselves in slavery should obey their masters… (i.e., Bible is in-errantly inspired and every verse is good for all time.)or…2. State clearly that Holy Scripture must be reasoned and prayed over and absorbed only through interpretation for one's time since it carries a lot of cultural and situational baggage. Passages must be adjudicated within the faith community and no one person gets it entirely right and no community gets it entirely right for all time. (i.e., Bible is at least partly socio/culturally contextualized and demands interpretive frameworks in order to best understand.)_________________________If you cannot choose, then we have no basis for dialogue on Romans 10 because you've refused all necessary grounds for starting, namely, declaring your philosophical prolegomena for interpreting a received text._________________________One helpful hint, though, given your reluctance to hear Romans 10, is to begin with how Paul does not locate the Word in text.You guys want to continue to live by the righteousness that is by the law. And so it is such a continuing scandal for you when "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me" keeps happening.
Feodor, about women speaking in church, there's a pretty good argument (halfway down the page) that, in I Cor 14:34-35, Paul is quoting mistaken opponents in order to rebuke their position.In their book When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe note that "whatever Paul may have meant by the 'women be silent' passages, he certainly did not mean that they should have no ministry in the church.""This is clear for several reasons. For one thing, in the same book (of 1 Corinthians), Paul instructed women on how they should pray and prophesy in the church, namely, in a decent and orderly way (cf. 11:5). Further, there were also times when all the men were to be 'silent' as well, namely, when someone else was giving an utterance from God (cf. 14:28). Finally, Paul did not hesitate to use women to assist him in the ministry, as is indicated by the crucial role he gave to Phoebe in delivering to its destination the great epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16:1)."Their conclusion differs significantly from Glenn Miller's above. They write that, "when understood in context, the 'silence' passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women."Though I tend to think Geisler's position is the more easily argued from the text, I'm remain open to correction.The point is, both approaches have the right idea in seeking to understand Paul's teaching by examining the context of the rest of Scripture.You're presenting false dilemmas. One can affirm the inerrant authority of Scripture without concluding that, for instance, Mark 6:8-9 requires evangelists to carry a staff and wear sandals: one can see Christ's command as a specific instantiation of the more universal principle of simple dependence on God's provision on-the-way.And one can conclude that some passages contain culturally specific details that entail universal principles without discarding the passage as "cultural baggage."
Feodor, you write:"If you cannot choose, then we have no basis for dialogue on Romans 10 because you've refused all necessary grounds for starting, namely, declaring your philosophical prolegomena for interpreting a received text."You're not exactly leading by example, at least not explicitly.(And, really, while I'm fine with simple typos, I'm not a fan of using two-dollar-words when they don't seem to mean precisely what is intended. One can be so busy trying to look smart that he forgets the need to communicate clearly.)You write about my supposed "reluctance to hear Romans 10," but on that I'm not reluctant at all.I'm reluctant to talk with you at length, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and everything to do with the fact that you're an asshole.The problem is you, not Romans.I'm not reluctant to hear about the passage, but you don't seem eager to say anything clear about it that would actually prove any of your bold claims.And, I think you completely misunderstand my position on the law. To the best of my ability, I do affirm the full implications of the law, but that does not imply that I believe we are justified by the law.The law in its full strength emphasizes the need for salvation by God's grace, in Christ's death, and through our faith, because we cannot possibly meet the law's full demands.
"I'll think about entering an open dialogue about interpretation when you both make the following choice"Don't think too long. First, because you'll hurt yourself, and secondly, because your presence here isn't the blessing for us you perceive it to be. Thirdly, when we enter into an agreement regarding the ownership and management of this blog, then you can make demands on me and my guests.
There's another problem with Feo's demands. He expects that we have an answer for absolutely every detail of the Bible, no matter how minor, no matter how obscure. That would be a legitimate demand if anyone other than himself suggested such all encompassing knowledge and understanding. But such is not necessary to be correct on a given subject. One need not know the color of Adam's eyes to understand that there is no precedent for believing God would change His mind on the subject of homo behavior. There is no parallel to such a concept except in Feo's fevered imaginings.
"'when understood in context, the 'silence' passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women.'"Bubba, I'm terribly afraid you do not understand the word, "equal." It was my contention that Paul could not see women as equally able to serve in ALL the role of ministry in the church, i.e. as "fully equal."You counter with arguments from other gentlemen that he surely "valued and honored" women. That he valued and honored them in first century context is not in dispute. That he transcended the social context of the first century is theological vision is not under dispute. That he failed to live up to his holiest vision of life is clear. I fear you do not understand the word, "equal."But then I suspect you do. Your silence on the issue of slaves suggest that you probably are aware… that or you need another book to tell you how to protect scripture from that question.________By the way, it's not hard being an asshole to a blowhard. In fact, it's pretty much required.________Marshall, no response on the gay bishops and priests documented from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century?I bet you also did not know that same-sex union liturgies have been found from Platonic Greece to Rome to the Christian Europe of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches before the Renaissance. And conditions before giving a free seminar to you bozos do not "demands" make. You must be feeling the pressure.
And what about Moses rewriting scripture and Jesus re-rewriting it?
Feodor, you should prove your claim that Moses and Jesus rewrote Scripture in order to have any real reason to expect that we would address the claim.That Paul expected slaves to submit to their masters is no evidence that he believed the institution to be moral.You might as well argue that, because Peter taught submission both to gentle masters and to cruel masters (I Pet 2:18), he condoned cruelty as moral — or, because Christ taught that one should not resist an evildoer who subjects him to violence and oppression (Mt 5), He condones such behavior.About the word "equal," I wonder if you deny the equality of the Father and the Son — or do you deny the Son's submission to the Father?They are equal in deity, in divine power and glory, and yet the Son completely and perfectly submitted to the Father.That Jews and Gentiles are equal in Christ, I affirm without reservation, and it appears that Paul does the same, but it does not follow that Jews and Gentiles have identical roles in history (see Rom 11).Likewise, men and women are equal in Christ, but it does not follow that they have identical roles within the family or the church.The young and the old are surely equal in Christ, but that doesn't obliterate the validity of the fifth commandment.About marriage, it is enough to know that Jesus Christ is perfectly clear about why God made us male and female: there in Matthew 19 (and everywhere else) He did not rewrite Scripture but instead affirmed its divine authorship and lasting authority.
This comment has been removed by the author.
They will "assume" anything to further their course … Good to see I'm still on the blogroll… Otto aka, American Interests
Otto! What a pleasant surprise! Feel free to join in at any time. And yes, I keep you on the blogroll for the very fact that as an Australian you were giving your views of American issues. I very much liked that idea, even though I came upon you so soon before you retired that blog. Though I never followed through, you had initially inspired me to seek out other blogs from other countries that focus on our country in order to get some insight on true "foreign" opinion about us. Hopefully I'll get around to doing that, but in the meantime, should an issue being discussed interest you, your slant would be most welcome. Consider also the team blog of which I am a part, "American Descent", which, while touching some of the same themes discussed here, is more about the United States since November of 2008.
Bubba,As for Moses rewriting scripture, you have Jesus own answer to questioners just in the above comments. If you not not read such simple and clear language here, there's really no hope for you.["It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning…}Again, I don't think you pay attention when Jesus and Paul use the Greek words for "but." You really should._______________"That Paul expected slaves to submit to their masters is no evidence that he believed the institution to be moral."I guess you can make this argument if you think Paul is either 1) ultimately unconcerned with the tepid immorality of slavery, or 2) thinks rising against inhuman, immoral slavery is a worse sin – in which case you stand against the history of the United States since the Emancipation Proclamation and stand against taking a stand against all present day forms of slavery.When Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, advocates praying for one's enemies, turning the other cheek, and offering one's jacket as well as one's coat, the argument clearly assumes that one has the freedom to choose turning the other cheek rather than retaliating and that one has a coat and a jacket. Slaves have no choice in behavior.So your comparison is empty of meaning and moral understanding.
________________Bubba, if you want to equate female representation with the second person of the Trinity, that's just fine with me.You may aware that the heart of Roman Catholic objection to female priesthood is precisely that the gender cannot represent Christ in the world. I'm happy that you are taking a more enlightened view. However, I note that it seems you arrive at a more godly view by the odd route not of raising women above the estimation of decayed old values but by lowering Christ.While temporarily creative, I don't think the grounds you provide for allowing women to represent the head of the Church – though not, in your view, God the Father – make theological sense in the long run to faith or reason.The telling barrier to your hierarchical structure of the godhead is that it is fundamentally blasphemous to any orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Since 325 at the council of Nicaea, the Christian church has claimed that the Trinity is three "persons" and one "nature" or "substance." As this indicates that all three persons of the Trinity are, by nature, one God, then they are clearly co-equal – if even that makes any sense – for they are in com-union one God. If by "the Son completely and perfectly submitted to the Father…" you have in mind Philippians 2 and the Son willingly "emptying himself", then you are way off base. The Father did not ask, the Son took it upon himself. It was the Son's to decide what to do, being God even as the Father and the Spirit are God. There is no hierarchy, here; there is just the glory of the Son choosing to "humble himself," by his own agency, his own nature as God. You act as if homoiousios is orthodoxy and not, as it has been since the issues was decided 1600 years ago, homoousios.Additionally, the passage in Philippians 4 is clearly and strongly addressed to all Christians, not just women, so, again, your take veers off base and toward heretical thinking. In the end, I could suggest to you nothing more profound than those very words from Phil. 4:Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Finally, your typological use of Romans 11 as applicable to gender is totally absent and unjustified by the text itself. Paul never made such an idiotic typology.If one were to ignore the bad logic, one still comes up against the fact that, to Paul, the historical role of Israel had delimited historical timeline: from its formation to the rejection of Christ. Just how would you surmise the role of women will pass away? And whatever will they do while they wait for Christ to come again: watch men take on the only role left, like Paul thinks Jews can only watch Christians do the Lord's work in the world?Too, too twisted, man, when one thinks your take through.
Feodor, nothing I've written justifies the bizarre conclusions that you're drawing: you get so fixated on making what you think to be clever replies, that you seem to miss when your comments have nothing to do with what was written.Rather than try to untangle your misunderstanding about my beliefs regarding the sexes, I will simply reiterate this:Men and women are equal in Christ, but it does not follow that they have identical roles within the family or the church.About the Trinity, I will also reiterate the Father and the Son **ARE** equal in deity, and in divine power and glory.Nevertheless, the Bible is clear — and Jesus Christ is clear in His own teachings — that the Son submitted to the Father."My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." – Mt 26:39"Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." – Jn 5:19"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me." – Jn 8:28"If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, 'He is our God,' though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word." – Jn 8:54-55"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father." – Jn 10:17-18, cf. Jn 15:10To summarize from above, the Son sets aside His will and submits to the will of the Father, does only what the Father does, and speaks only what the Father teaches Him to speak; He is glorified by the Father, He keeps the Father's word, and He receives commands from the Father.There are also the impenetrable mysteries of Christ's claim to be limited to knowledge and His claim that the Father is greater than He is (Mk 13:32, Jn 14:28).I don't believe you summarize the council accurately, but regardless the Council of Nicaea doesn't trump the clear teachings of Christ and the Bible, anymore than they are trumped by the Emancipation Proclamation.On that subject, slavery is an institution that limits freedom, but it doesn't ELIMINATE man's free will: a slave isn't an automaton. Hence Paul and Peter's instructions to slaves, as if they can choose to serve wholeheartedly or not.About Jesus and Moses and their supposed rewriting of Scripture, I understand that Jesus taught that Moses' instructions regarding divorce were a concession to human hard-heartedness, a concession that was not intended from the beginning.But that doesn't mean that Moses or Christ rewrote Scripture: at least, I don't see how it does, you haven't explained how it does, and pointing out the word "but" is no substitute for a good explanation how it does.Finally, it seems to me that Paul doesn't believe that Israel's role in history ended with their rejection of Christ, since he writes that the natural branches will be grafted back in "so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:23-32).