Why Romans 9 doesn't quite prove Calvinism

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Ian]

I`m not your best bet for an in-depth discussion on this but have you seen this?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmIf4WIWs0

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

Nice series!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

That Woodland Hills series on twisted scriptures has, indeed, been very good (in my opinion, too).

I especially liked his thoughts on the book of Job

[darinhouston]

Not sure I buy his position on 1 Timothy though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

I'm an egalitarian. I think there were 2 big issues going on in that church.

1. The women were pretty ignorant, but their excitement over the Gospel was emboldening them to speak up during the assembly. Paul is saying that they needed to focus on learning instead of teaching. The Genesis reference, to me, fits with this pretty well. Adam heard the command directly from God. Eve's information was second hand (and her quote not quite accurate). Eve fell because she hadn't learned well (whether that was her fault or Adam's). The women Paul is addressing were at risk of not only falling for the same reasons, but leading others astray as well.

2. The culture considered it shameful for wives to speak to other men in a public gathering. Paul knew this sort of cultural taboo was unnecessary, but he also knew it was unnecessary and potentially harmful to cause division in family systems needlessly. He was against Christian women getting a bad reputation in the community. As with slavery, he was smart enough to know that social transformation takes time.

In my opinion, we should not mistake the patriarchal nature of the culture at the time in which the Scriptures were written with an endorsement of that particular feature of the culture. I think the New Testament sets a trajectory towards egalitarianism just as it sets one towards freedom for slaves.

I also think the text can arguably be interpreted in the traditional way. I do not consider this an issue any where close to being worth dividing over.

[darinhouston]

Equality in other areas for sure. But not for roles. Do you contextualize 3:2 also?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

Equality in other areas for sure. But not for roles. Do you contextualize 3:2 also?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everything must be contextualized... that's a given. There are just different opinions of what the context was.

I think the list of overseer qualifications gives us principles that we should look for in the language of that culture.

I no more think it necessitates being a man that it necessitates being married.

There would be some advantages to having a married overseer (they've proved the ability to oversee a family) and some disadvantage (they have obligations that may keep them from more fully serving the church body). And there are some advantages and disadvantages to being a single overseer (the reverse).