Thoughts from the Reformed Perspective

2009-02-14T23:10:00.000-08:00

Moving...

I just wanted to let everyone know that I am now blogging at a different website:

http://otrmin.wordpress.com/

I will still check up on this blog every now and then, but otrmin will be my new blog home.

2008-12-12T07:45:00.000-08:00

Unbelievable

I think I can just let this story speak for itself. I mean, how can you have a "girlfriend," who not even human? [If he wanted to argue that it was human, that would be a major redefinition of the term.] How can you have a girlfriend who is not even, in fact, a girl? All of this is utter nonsense. It is amazing to me to think that we may not only have gay rights, but we may have to be dealing with a man claiming rights to marry his machine.

All the more reason why God gets to set the standards for relationships and marriage. They are only to be between one man and one woman.

2008-12-06T07:28:00.000-08:00

So Much for Tolerance

I have got used to nastiness and insults from people. If you dare oppose Debbie Maken, you will get all kinds of nasty comments from her and her followers. Hence, I am not that easily offended. However, if you are easily offended, do not click this link. to the O'Reilly factor. What he shows on this segement just may end up really offending you. Yes, we have an entire musical mocking Christianity, and its opposition to homosexuality. Also, we found that Hollywood script writers do not know how to do exegesis, as the well known distinction between the usage of hb'[eAT in Leviticus [relevant to chapter 18] where it refers specifically to moral abomination, and in Deuteronomy [relevant to chapter 14] which speaks specifically of dietary laws, using terms that are code words for ritual uncleanliness. There have been entire dissertations written on the differences of hb'[eAT in these two books. Of course, this is hollywood, and we will ignore any kind of rationality when it comes to the promotion of gay marriage.

More than that, it shows you that the mask of tolerance is off for these folks. Their hatred for God and for his law is coming out clearer and clearer.

2008-12-02T09:29:00.000-08:00

Marketing and Politics in the Promotion of the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Anakin broke some interesting news this morning. Everyone in the Christian community has been raving about the movie Fireproof. My fiance even told me she heard it was excellent. I have yet to see this movie, but would like to as it seems any movie that is an encouragement to struggling married couples, and helps them to avoid divorce is incredibly helpful in the cultural struggle for marriage. Now, I know Focus on the Family probably has a whole lot to do with this, but, apparently, the makers of Fireproof are promoting Debbie Maken's book. At first, I thought "shame on them," but you have to remember the situation in which they are. They are trying to promote a defense of marriage, and Maken makes her book appear to be pro-marriage [even though, as I have argued elsewhere, it is actually anti-marriage, because of the unbiblical misrepresentation of marriage found in the book], and thus, it is easy to see why they would go for it. Also, remember that these people are film makers, not scholars. Hence, it is more than possible that they do not know any better.

However, the marketing and political backing that this movement is getting is just amazing. You have the Albert Mohler program, you have Focus on the Family, you have Mark Driscoll, you have both Moody Publishing, and Crossway Books; you have so many popular names and organizations promoting this, that one wonders how much money is really going behind it. It must be at least a small fortune.

What is annoying about all of this is, with the exception of Ted Slater, the editor of Boundless, these folks are more than willing to say this stuff in public, and yet not interact in cross-examiniation with their critics. In what little interaction time we have had, the results have simply been amazing. Every time Debbie Maken dialogued with me, she had to result to avoiding my direct questions, and engaging in name calling. Albert Mohler, when challenged on his views of marriage relating to sexual purity, ran fast out of the text of Genesis 2-3, and went to a completely different text in 1 Corinthians 7, with a completely different context. Candice Watters will not even interact with me, and the reality is that these folks just seem to not like exegetical criticism of their position. Yet, what is amazing is the marketing power these folks have to keep putting these views out there. They know that Anakin, myself, Andreas Kostenberger, and others have criticized them, and yet, no effort is made to respond to us. It is just more promotion, and more spotlight, and more airtime for them to engage in a monologue.

What is amazing is the marketing job that has gotten Debbie Maken's book associated with Fireproof. Keep in mind, this is the same book that I have compared with Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions. Maken's book is, by far, the worst book I have ever read in English. No one managed to get as many errors onto one page as Maken did, and no one managed to engage in as much ad hominem on one page as Maken did. This is the same woman who attributed an idea to the reformers, when they very source she cited said it was the radical reformers who believed this, and this same source then went on to say that the reformers did not believe this position! This is the same woman who conviniently ignored quotations from Luther, in the very same sermon from which she was quoting, and completely misused the works of John Calvin as well, even paraphrasing a quotation she got second hand, from a quotation that I to this day have not been able to find. This is the same woman who said that, because Malachi 2:15 has the phrase "wife of your youth" that therefore you are to marry in your youth. Keep in mind, this is the kind of material that is being marketed, and held up as honoring to marriage. I have always wondered how honoring you are being to something when you have to engage in dishonesty in order to talk about it.

Not only that, but as I pointed out last summer, Candice Watters does not know how to do exegesis. Her main area of study is public policy, and thus, she makes several simple errors with regards to the exegesis of the text. Now, do you want to see the marketing power of this movement? Even though these errors were readily available to anyone, Candice is coming out with a new book, coauthored with her husband Steve, called Start your Family: Inspiration for Having Babies. I hope that I am wrong, but my best guess is that we will see another eisegetical misuse of Genesis 1:28 and Jeremiah 29:6. We will hear about how children are a blessing, and are therefore required. We will likewise hear the fatalistic notion that we need to just simply trust in God, and thus, not use the resources God has given us. We will also no doubt not hear of the influence of gnosticism on this view of marriage and children. Again, I hope I am wrong, and I hope that Candice does take into account some of the things her strongest critics are telling her, but, again, I am not optimistic. This is what happens when marketing takes the place of seeking truth. When you put someone up to writing about what the Bible says, when they are not trained to be in that position of leadership, disaster is bound to follow.

Be that as it may, I still would like to see a round-table discussion with Anakin, Andreas Kostenburger, and myself engaging in an extended interaction with Debbie Maken, Candice Watters, and Albert Mohler. We could market it, and really get critical thinking going from an exegetical perspective on this issue. Until then, we will just have to keep responding to these folks, and let all of the marketing and political fluff speak for itself.

Finally, I would like to let everyone know that Kuya Kevin, a regular commenter on my blog, has started a new blog for discussing singles issues. He has some good stuff over there, and I will look forward to seeing what he will write.

2008-11-18T08:12:00.001-08:00

Gay Rights Gone Wild!

If you want to see what happens when you don't have an answer to arguments against your position, and you desperately need to justify your sinful behavior, then listen to this segment of the O'Reilly factor. Yes, the opening images are disturbing, but at least try to stomach it, because what happens next at the church is even worse.

I almost wonder if we may have to get police officers at the door of church buildings in order to have services in the near future! However, this is not the only incedent. Here is another incedent made known to me by Dr. James White's blog:

There you go. Just take a cross, and throw it to the ground, and step on it like a bunch of animals. Then, these people have the audacity to yell "shame on you!" When I heard that, I couldn't help think of the very same passage Dr. White wrote at the end of his blog:

Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, those who replace darkness for light, and light for darkness, those who set up bitterness for sweetness, and sweetness for bitterness! 22. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, who discern in their own sight!

I think it is so providential that this verse is here because of the inability for secularism to account for morality. I mean, if this stuff is right, you might as well throw the Bible into the trash can. Yet, if it is not right, then you do you account for universal, absolute standards? How is it you can make sense out of universals in a universe that is inherently secular and imperical in character? Such is what happens when you are "wise in your own eyes." They know this, and they know that they only way they will get anywhere is by being bullies, and shouting anyone down who disagrees with them. Well, I could get four hundred body builders to shout them down too. Does that somehow prove something? Of course, it proves nothing at all. However, that is what you have to do when you are face to face with your creator day after day doing all kinds of abominations, knowing he exists the whole time, and knowing his wrath is against you for your sin. You have to suppress that knowledge, and that means that anyone who reminds you of that truth will just have to be shut up.

There is a simple solution for this, and that is the homosexuals repent and believe the gospel. However, as is the case with so much of society today, people love their sin more than they love God, and therefore, they will not repent. That is why we need to trust in an all powerful God who takes away the power of sin, frees people from bondage to their sin, and raises them to new life in Christ. Without the power of God to change peoples hearts and minds, we would be lost in this battle against this evil of homosexuality.

2008-11-14T18:13:00.000-08:00

Short Radio Encounter with Albert Mohler

I had heard earlier in the week that Albert Mohler was going to be discussing is view that delay of marriage is a sin on his program today, so figured I would try to get a call in on the program. I couldn't get through the first time, but I did the second time.

Here is the link to the program. My call comes at about 17:45. I have to say, I am impressed with the way I was treated. I was treated very fairly. I had originally figured that calling in would give people a chance to hear the other side, but time was so limited, that it seemed like all we could do is make assertions. I figured on using the same argument I used against Candice Watters here, with regards to Genesis 2-3. The call screener told me to be quick, so I had to get a lot of information out in a very short period of time. Hence the misunderstanding at the beginning. However, I think that when I answered Dr. Mohler's question about why I believed marriage was a bad thing if I wanted to get married, he got my argument. All he could say about my interpretation is that it was "warped." I just wanted to say, "Prove it!" He threw out 1 Corinthians 7, and the reason why I found out that this is not the best arena for dialoguing about these things is because I had no time to respond to his presentation on that passage.

Now, some of the things Dr. Mohler said were really interesting. For instance, he tried to say he wasn't connecting marriage and salvation from sexual sin. Yet, as I have documented time and time again, Dr. Mohler has connected marriage and sanctification. One has to wonder if Dr. Mohler believes that sanctification is part of salvation. The only logical conclusion I can come to from hearing him speak is that salvation and sanctification are able to be separated, which has outragious implications for understanding the importance of sanctification within salvation itself.

Also, he said that I was going of topic by bringing up Genesis 2-3, because the topic was delay of marriage. Of course, what I found odd is, at the New Attitude Conference, where his sermon first popularized this idea that delay of marriage is a sin, he spent nearly the whole first half of the sermon on the topic! The reason why I chose this is obvious. If it can be shown that marriage and singleness are parallel in the text of Genesis 2-3, and, because of sin, it is not good for the man to be married just as it is not good for the man to be alone, then there is no reason to say that delay of marriage is bad because there is nothing inherently necessary about getting married. I really have no idea if Dr. Mohler really got that. Again, if I had more time, I could have pressed this.

Finally, this pushing of the idea that manhood=marriage was also bothersome. I figured that one was easy to challange, even though I felt I had very little time. However, I don't know how well it was heard. We were coming up on a station break, and the music was playing in the background. Dr. Mohler said that the Bible said that manhood=marriage, and I just said loudly and firmly, "where?". If it was heard, he never bothered to answer that question.

Also, he was very broad in his statements. He said things like "All of scripture teaches x." If there would have been more time I would have told him that, if all scripture teaches it, then it should not be hard to find a particular text that teaches it! These broad strokes were just all over Dr. Mohler's statements. The only specific he gave was 1 Corinthians 7, which I have dealt with before. The problem is it would have taken me more time to develop these things than the few brief minutes we talked.

Also, one of the things I have been increasingly very concerned about is the attempt to paint anyone who holds this position as a liberal. As I went through and listened to the first half of the program before my call, that came out very clearly. The interesting thing is that, before 1995, if you had stated this position to someone, they would have thought you were strange. Also with me is that I just let my track record speak for itself. I have defended inerrancy, argued against feminism, atheism, and written against abortion and homosexuality. I have the track record of being a committed, conservative, evangelical Christian. We need to keep doing this, and it will prove them wrong by our very actions.

I figured that this was the only way to get through to him to at least talk with him on this topic, and let his listeners know that there are other positions that conservative, evangelical Christians can hold besides his. That is why I made it clear at the beginning that I do agree with him on 95% of everything he says. I do respect the man. However, I pray that God would change his heart so that he repents of these ideas, and does not bind to the contience of God's people things that are not found in God's word. I would also be open to dialoguing with him more on this topic. However, his interest in dialoguing with a master's student in Hebrew and Semitic Studies is not probably going to be that high.

Addendum:

I have written the following suggestion to the editors of Boundless:

Hey Ted and Co!

I have a suggestion. Since you guys have the Boundless show webcast, why don't you invite some of the teachers you guys promote who believe that delay of marriage is a sin, and have Anakin Niceguy, myself, Andreas Kostenberger, or others who disagree with them on the Boundless Show to discuss our disagreements with them? Shows like this usually do really well in terms of downloads. It is a hot button issue anyway, and putting both sides next to each other will allow people understand the issues much more clearly. The only other times I see this issue discussed is in a thread like on the Line or on a call in talk program, and you either have a mammoth amount of material through which to sort [on the thread], or an extremely short time, at most minute and a half, to make your point [on a call in talk program]. A program with even a section like this would allow both sides to lay out their position, and discuss areas of disagreement, and thus, I think would be more edifying in terms of helping people understand the issues involved.

God Bless,
Adam
[http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com]

I figure that this would be a much better idea for allowing both sides to lay out the issues. We will see what they say!

2008-11-01T18:19:00.000-07:00

The Gay Rights Crowd Starting them Young

One wonders what good it is having a kindergartner sign a pledge card saying they will stop "discrimination" against gays and lesbians. However, the gay rights crowd seem so intent on indoctrination of our youth, that apparently one did just that, even though, as the article says, most kindergartners do not even know what "gay" means. Here is a picture of one of the cards signed from the Fox News website:

Thankfully, the school had enough sense to say that action should be taken against this teacher, however, only because the material was not "age appropriate." In other words, it was morally acceptable to do this with our youth, but only when they reach the age where they can understand.

This is the reason why we need to be very careful about our children's education, expecially in public schools. Private schools and homeschooling are the best. Also, we also need to encourage those who live in California to get out and vote for proposition 8. Unfortunately, we still have a long battle on our hands, and it appears that those who hate God's law seem content to teach others to likewise hate God's law, even if they are only a kindergartner.

2008-10-30T18:59:00.000-07:00

Text From the Davidic Kingdom Found?

(And another silly ABC claim that conservative Christianity is as dangerious as radical Islam)

Ok, this could be really neat, if Yossi Garfinkel is right. Who is he you may ask? He is an Israeli archaeologist who has just unearthed what may prove to be the earliest extrabiblical Hebrew text known to man. The Ostracon has been dated to between 1ooo BC and 975 BC, the time of the Davidic kingdom. In fact, it was discovered at a place overlooking Elah Valley, which is the place where David defeated Goliath.

I will have to be honest and say that the best picture I could find is on the FoxNews link I gave above. The only thing I can make out is the Aleph [the letter to which the man is pointing], and the tet [the circle with the x through it]. They seem to not be willing to release high quality photographs to the public so that students and professors can work on the ostracon independently. I don't know what to make of that.

Also, while I was on the ABC website looking to see if I could find more information about the ostrocon, I found a video on interpretation of scripture. I wondered why it is that ABC would be concerned with something like this, and, about halfway through, I realized where this was going. I would invite people to take a listen to this video, and try to avoid rolling your eyes when you hear Dianne Bergant speak:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5862066

The arguments Dianne Bergant makes are really, really bad. She tries to argue that the wars in the OT were mandated, and therefore, conservative Christianity is just as dangerious as conservative Islam because they both interpret their holy books "literally," and thus have the possibility of engaging in the same kinds of radical military behavior as radical Islam on the basis of the texts about the mandatory wars in the OT.

First of all, there is some truth in what she says, and that is, namely, that there are some commands in scripture that are meant to not be followed all the way through. Obviously, if we found the grave of king David, we are not to go and anoint him king over Israel [1 Samuel 16:12]. However, the assumption that God cannot speak in language that is binding for all time assumes that there is no sovereign God who knows the future, and can reveal himself in language that is binding for all time.

Not only that, but this hermeneutic breaks down when you ask how it is that you know that you have properly brought the text into our time. You see, this kind of hermeneutic results in no interpretation of a text being wrong. There is no check, and you can use the methodology to come up with all kinds of different interpretations. If you do not take the "literal" approach, it seems to me that we are left with pure subjectivism, as no interpretation can be wrong.

Not only that, but remember that the Israeli wars were a punisment for the radical wickedness of the Caananites. Just read Leviticus 18, and you will see the utter perversity of these people, even burning their own children alive. God said he was going to use Israel to drive these people out in punishment for what they did [Leviticus 18:24-28]. Obviously, God chose many methods to punish ungodly people thoughout the scriptures, so, to suggest that we are to do these things today is to simply rip it out of its context.

However, even worse than that, I have been doing work in canon criticism, that is, understanding the Bible in terms of the whole of scripture using Wittgenstein's concept of a language game. There is absolutely no way you can get the idea that we are to conquer the world by killing people, given what Paul says here:

Ephesians 6:10-12 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Now, let me ask, how is it that a Christian could ever go around killing others to convert them to Christianity when Paul here says that our struggle is not against flesh and blood? Not only that, but Jesus tells us how we are to conquer the world:

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

It seems that Jesus says here that we are to conquer the world, not by the sword, or by bombs, or by nuclear weapons, but by the proclaimation of the gospel. Even if you misinterpreted those texts about the utter destruction of Canan, how could you get around these texts?

It is simply unbelievable, and another example of ABC's bias against Christianity.

2008-10-17T06:17:00.000-07:00

Just a Thought

Candice Watters recently wrote a post on the Boundless Blog and used an argument that has become fairly common:

Still, it's common to hear from readers who say we should be moving away from marriage since that's the way we'll be in heaven anyway -- single. But will we? I wrote:

In Matthew 22:30, Jesus says, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Does this suggest God is shifting gears from His original plan for marriage toward singleness? Why won't human marriage exist in heaven?

We will all be "single" in heaven so that we can become the bride of Christ, so that we can experience the perfect marriage. Marriage is the norm, both now and in the age to come. It's only the nature of the bridegroom that will change. In heaven, we'll turn our attention to Christ, the Bridegroom all human husbands foretell. Every marriage since Adam and Eve's has pointed to the ultimate wedding between Christ and His church (that's why it matters how we go about being husbands and wives.) Heaven won't mark the end of marriage, but its culmination.

Sadly, we live in a post-marriage culture where critics of marriage -- both secular and spiritual -- abound. Marriage as God made it is under fire from all sides. That's why we spend so much time defending it.

Now, I want people to notice the rhetoric. If you attack a position that says that unless you have a removal of sexual desire you must get married, delay of marriage is a sin, and you must go into gospel service if you have a removal of sexual desire, then you are somehow "criticizing marriage." In other words, if you criticize Candice Watters' views on marriage, you are criticizing marriage. That simply does not follow. It is simply a rhetorical device to try to equate her position with something that must be defended because it has been defined by God. Should I say that Candice is criticizing marriage because she has written a book that is critical of my position? Such seems to be the logic, but it doesn't go both ways.

Not only that, but, again, the effects of sin on marriage have not been taken into account. It is not "criticizing marriage" in any way to point out that human sin has corrupted the institution. Now, just as it is "not good for the man to be alone," [Genesis 2:18] it is not good for the man to be married [Genesis 3:16]. Sin has had an effect such that only the seed of the woman who bruises the head of the serpent can save mankind [Genesis 3:15]. Hence, the passages that talk about Christ and his bride are simply a restatement of this theme. Marriage has been corrupted, and, as long as people are married in this life, they will experience the same sinful problems that came as a result of the fall. The only marriage that will be the norm in the sense that Candice is talking about [i.e., something that is required], is in the eternal state. This is because this will be the only holy marriage that has not been corrupted by our own human sin. I believe that is the whole point of Genesis 3:15-17. Hence, in this life the choice will be between the not good being alone, and the not good being married because of sin.

This is why, while I know the terminology is a bit awkward since it normally refers to anthropology, I have suggested that we start talking about Albert Mohler, Candice Watters, and Debbie Maken as having a "pelagian" view of marriage. That is, all of the afore mentioned people seem to have a view of marriage as "norminative" that does not take into account the effects of the fall upon marriage.

2008-10-03T18:51:00.000-07:00

Dr. Robert Morey on the Gullability of the Modern Church

While I don't agree with everything Dr. Robert Morey posted in this post, I loved the lecture he posted in it! Just click on the link, scroll down, and click on the play button just to the left of the bold words "Length of audio: 43:10." As it says, it is just over 43 minutes long, so, make sure you have enough time to listen to it!

Anyway, I wanted to post the link to this lecture because it so applies to a lot of new fads on relationships that have come out today. Dr. Morey's discussion of gullability is exactly what comes to mind when I think of how the mandatory marriage movement has gotten to the position that it has simply because a few respected people like Albert Mohler started supporting it. This is a message a whole lot of Christian singles need to hear who just gulp down every new relationships fad that comes along.

It is also entertaining, as Dr. Morey is a very funny speaker. He speaks in such a way that it hits the nail on the head about churches today who say that we shouldn't think, we shouldn't engage in Biblical Exegesis, and we shouldn't study systematic theology; we should just simply "live." Dr. Morey's message is so needed in the church today, and is also important as we are dealing with these issues.

2008-09-27T17:56:00.000-07:00

See, I am Fallible!!!!!!

(and a discussion of the Radical Marriage Mandators too!!!!!!!!)

I was just reading up on Jim West's, and Lawrence Mykytiuk's comments on the Seal of Gedaliah, which I wrote about a while back. I have to admit, I think Jim brings up a good point that there is nothing on the seal to identify this with the Biblical Gedaliah. I had originally went down this road, but I thought that Finkelstein would have said something if this were possible. I must, therefore, agree with Jim West that, given that we don't know the frequency of these names in Jerusalem, we cannot identify it with the Biblical Gedaliah.

However, I must disagree with his comments that we cannot allow the Bible to interpret our Archaeology. He says, "Or, it’s equally possible, isn’t it, that the biblical account is based on historical factlets without itself being ‘historical’." For the Christian, the answer is simply "No, it is not possible." We are called to "Take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Hence, we view history as being under the sovereign direction of God. Hence, if this does refer to the man spoken of by the Book of Jeremiah, we must understand him in the light of what the scripture says. Then, I would go on to argue that any philosophy of history other than the Christian philosophy of history makes nonsense out of the study of history.

The mistake that myself and Mazor made is that there is nothing in the Bible that says that this is, indeed, the seal of the Gedaliah that tried Jeremiah. I am willing to grant, therefore, that it is indeed possible that there was another Gedaliah that lived at this time, and that he is the owner of that seal, since the scriptures do not rule out that possibility.

However, I will not allow the liberal media off that easy. To this I simply would like to comment on Lawrence Mykytiuk's comments. He noted many of the same things I did, namely, that the script is consistent with this time period, and it was found on a controlled archaeological dig by a respected archaeologist. Hence, this makes it, at very least, difficult to question whether or not it is genuine. He also says that it is, at least, a reasonable hypothesis that this is the seal of the Gedaliah son of Pishhur mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. Therefore, you need to understand that the discovery of this seal does tell us that the book of Jeremiah, at least in this respect, is consistent with the time period in which the book of Jeremiah claims to have been written. Hence, if authentic [and I have little reason to doubt that it is authentic], it would at least confirm the historical accuracy of Jeremiah, namely, that it would further show that Jeremiah's writing shows a knowledge of the time period in which the events spoken of in the book took place.

Let me ask a simple question to drive this home. Why is it that a seal bearing a Biblical name in the script from that time period, recovered by a respected archaeologist, and having a reasonable hypothesis that this is the seal of the Biblical character gets absolutely no media attention, and the Talpiot Tomb theory, which was mocked and laughed at by secular and Jewish archaeologists alike, gets an entire program on the Discovery channel? I cannot figure it out, other than to point out that Christians are not the only ones who are ideologically driven. Hence, while I must agree with Jim West about this seal, it still shows the incredible bias of the leftest media.

As a Van Tillian, am not going to rest my faith on this discovery, but I think it is telling that this seal has gotten no media attention.

Now, from the academic, to people who are simply out of control. I happened to go over to the Boundless Blog today, and, much to my shagrin, found the following comments:

A few of us because concerned about the roots of this problem coming from the proliferation of the "gift of singleness" teachings of the past few decades. This phrase was actually an embellishment of the Living Bible of the 70's (now the NLT), that caught on among singleness writers, becoming somewhat of a rogue doctrine. A few of us became fed up the fact that not only was in not in the original Greek text, but with how it caused so many people to doubt whether or not God was on their side about the goodness of pursuing marriage. So we got together and successfully campaigned to the NLT to have it removed! HALLELUJIAH, IT'S GONE!!

Now, I am assuming that this is the same Jennifer that posts under the screenname Gortexgrrl. Of course, what is maddening about this is that I already addressed this issue a long time ago. As I mentioned in that post, I know one of the translators for the NLT, and if you go to that post, you will see that everything Jennifer is saying here is wrong. She says that she "successfully campaigned to the NLT to have it removed." Of course, the NLT translators told me that they did nothing because they agreed with these women. They did, indeed, decide to reconsider their translation of the passage, but the change was made because they didn't feel translating the passage in this way, and bringing out the fact that Paul was calling singleness a gift here would show the connection between this passage and the following discussion about spiritual gifts. The only thing on which the NLT translators were willing to agree with these women was that this text should not be used to forbid those who would like to marry from marrying or pursuing marriage, which no one was teaching in the first place! In fact, even worse for these girls, is that the NLT translators say that they still believe this passage teaches that singleness is a gift! Now, how did Gortexgrrl respond to this? Did she take back what she said? Did she, at very least, nuance what she said? No, she just said:

Whatever, Adam.

We're just glad the GoS is G.O.N.E.

Notice, no nuancing of what she said. No admittance that the NLT translators do not agree with her, and no acknowledgement that they did not remove this phrase because of their campaigning. Just a response of "whatever." Keep in mind, she knew all of these things before she repeated the same thing in this post on the Boundless Blog!

Not only that, but, [and I have said this before], but I have pointed out that this girl does not know Greek. I pointed out that in her article on 1 Corinthians 7, she simply put the dictionary form down for every word, and acted as if that was the Greek of the text. Here is what she said was the Greek of 1 Corinthians 7:6-9:

De lego touto kata suggnome ou kata epitage 7) Gar thelo pas anthropos einai kai hos emautou alla hekastos echo IDIOS CHARISMA ek theos HOS MEN HOUTO DE HOS HOUTO. 8) Lego de agamos kai chera esti KALOS autos ean meno kago hos kago 9) De ei egkrateuomai ou egkrateuomai GAMEO gar esti kreitton gameo e puroo."

Those of you who know Greek know what I mean. This is incapable of translation. Again, these are all things I have pointed out before this. Now, what is interesting is that, even after pointing this stuff out, what do we have on her post on the Boundless Blog? Well, she says the following with regards to Jesus' words in Matthew 19:12:

Christ then concludes this verse by stating A SECOND TIME the conditions he set in verse 11, reiterating clearly that it is for those capable of receiving it (rather than obeying under compulsion or command from God): Dunamai choreo choreo (He that is able to receive (it), let him receive (it).

Now, is that really the Greek of Matthew 19:12? Well, you guessed it. She did the exact same thing that she did in her article on 1 Corinthians 7, that is, she posted all of the dictionary forms of the words, somehow assuming that this was the way the Greek text read! However, what is even worse this time, is that she left out the article! The Greek text actually reads "ho dunamenos chorein choreito."

Now, I am not saying this because I think that it will somehow change Jennifer's mind. She believes she is right, and, even on something as easily demonstratable as these things, she still is going ahead. However, I was concerned because of the following comment that was left in response to her:

I am glad you brought your study of the original language into your post, God's word has final authority.

The ability to "receive" a teaching may well be what Jesus was referring to in that instance, but does that negate a view of giftedness including all you have been given? What have you NOT been given, in truth?

The label "gift" applies to far more than temporary pleasure, and all things work together for ultimate good (Romans 8). It does not seem a stretch to put all our circumstances and limitations and, dare I say, even sins into His hands & trust Him to use all for His glory & our good since that is His promise.

However, changing the label of "gift" doesn't change our responsibility. I've heard various teaching on "gifts" and have come to the conclusion that it's an area that causes sidetracking because the edges are fuzzy. I should've thought of that before I used the term!

Now, I have to say I am encouraged because it is obvious that this woman is using discernment. The problem is that she has no idea about the fact that Jennifer didn't even post the Greek text, but just simply went through and posted the dictionary form of each word! She also has no idea that the NLT did not remove anything because of these girl's campaigning. You see, this is what I am afraid of with this kind of thing. Many girls who have not heard of Debbie Maken, Captain Sensible, Gortexgrrl, etc. will be sucked into this simply out of ignorance. She has no way to check on these things. For all she knows, Jennifer has studied many years of Greek, and campaigned at the Society for Biblical Literature to have these things removed.

Hence, so that this rumor does not go any further, I am inviting everyone who is interested in this topic to post my response to this stuff found here on their blog, so we can get it out to as many people as possible. I figure that, if we can get this article out, it will at least make it harder for Gortexgrrl and Captain Sensible to go around saying these things all because of the ignorance of the people to whom they are talking. I also have written a response to this stuff at the Boundless Blog, but it would be a total waste of time to go around looking for everytime this issue has come up on the internet, expecially since I am preoccupied with my classes here at Trinity. Hence, anyone who is interested in posting the relevant section of that article on their blog, you have my permission.

2008-09-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to Albert Mohler

Dear Dr. Mohler,

I know that you probably do not know who I am, but my name is Adam, and I am a M.A. Candidate in Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I want to first of all say that I do really respect the work that you do. It is refreshing to hear a carefully reasoned voice on the radio with so much bad material in the media today.

However, I must say that I have been very distressed by the bad argumentation that you put forward in both your article, and in the beginning of your program on Friday. You said that "every single response, thus far, is from a woman." May I be the first [or one of the first] to break that string. I have been dealing with this issue for a long time. In fact, I have had a conversation [or tried to] with Debbie Maken, and have even reviewed Candice Watters' book [I know you have endorsed both of these]. Hence, I am well familiar with this topic.

Dr. Mohler, first of all, we are both protestants. As protestants, we both believe in Sola Scriptura, namely, that the Bible is sufficient to function as the regula fide, that is, the rule of faith for the church. We also recognize that, whatever is not found in scripture, is not binding upon the christian. Yet, I heard you say a whole lot of things that I believe are simply exegetically indefensible.

For instance, you said that, "You have this delayed adulthood among young men," and "This extended adolesence which is beginning to characterize so much of the young male experience."

So, we equate marriage with adulthood. Can you prove that from scripture Dr. Mohler? Even Dr. Grant Osborne, my Hermeneutics professor, said that this was totally wrong. The reality is I have never heard an exegetical argument for this position. The best argument I have heard goes back to Genesis 2:24. However, that text is not defining manhood, it is telling us why it is that you have men today who leave there father and mother, etc. It is because of what God instituted back in the garden of Eden.

Not only that, you have said that, "When you start looking at the fact that we have just actualized and made norminative the expectation in the secular culture that premarital sex is going to be the norm, and in the secular culture it certainly is, then young men are no longer modivated to take on the responsibilities of marriage. If you offer young men the opportunity to have sex without responsibility, here's a news flash, they will take it, and that's what's happening in this culture."

I am really amazed by this statement, Dr. Mohler. Are you denying the grace of God can instruct us to deny ungodly desires [Titus 2:11-12]? Are you likewise denying what the book of Proverbs says when it tells young men that wisdom will keep us from the adulteress [Proverbs 2:16]? So, if a man has the grace of God, and is growing in wisdom, how can you say that "they will take it." It seems to me that the grace of God, and the wisdom and instruction found in the book of Proverbs is foundational to fighting against these things! Yes, Dr. Mohler, men who do not have the grace of God or wisdom will "take it." However, that is a reflection upon the church merely teaching what is right and wrong, and not teaching discernment and wisdom as is found in the book of Proverbs.

Yes, I know, you will bring up 1 Corinthians 7:9. However, Dr. Mohler, did you ever notice that "burning with passion" there is not having sexual desire? The whole phrase runs "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." If you say that "burning with passion" is having sexual desire, then the text has nothing to do with the previous clause which is about having self control! I think it is more likely to equate "burning with passion" with "not having self control" given that Paul uses this chiastic structure in this very context [v.2-4].

Not only that, but many competent commentators such as Dr. Gordon Fee, Dr. Craig Blomberg, Dr. Richard Hays, and others have pointed out that this text probably is not referring to singles in general at all, but a specific group of singles, namely, widows and widowers! Hence, the text is totally irrelevant to the discussion of single people in general.

Also you say, "And what happens when you begin to take marriage, and you say, 'It's now an option. It's no longer norminative. It's now an option...'

Again, Dr. Mohler, where do you find these things in scripture? There is no command for every individual to marry anywhere in God's word. I believe that marriage should be norminative, but not in the sense that you are talking about. I believe that it is norminative because God has naturally put it into the hearts and desires of most people to get married, and not because of some command that I am going to add to scripture as if scripture is not sufficient.

Yes, I have dialogued with Debbie Maken, and I have read all of the arguments of the so called "Mandatory Marriage Movement," and I find them to be, not only unconvincing, but extremely weak. When you have to take Genesis 1:28b out of the context of 1:27c [which gives you the subject of "Be Fruitful and Multiply], and the phrase "fill the earth" so that you are left with the absurd idea that every single couple must not only marry, but that an individual couple must have seven billion children so that they "fill the earth," then you have missed something exegetically.

If you try to run off to Jeremiah 29, and use the phrase "Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters," then you will, not only be caught trying to explain how it is that we likewise are all obligated to plant gardens and build houses [v.5], but you will likewise be taking this text out of the context of the false prophets who were trying to encourage the people to revolt rather than live their life as usual [vs.8-10].

Again, your statement that marriage is norminative, in the sense that it is not an option is simply indefensible exegetically. For instance, even Andreas Kostenburger, who has conversed with Debbie Maken, has said the same thing I have. Not only that, but do you not have elders in your church? Are you saying that you command all people in your church to be elders, or else there will be no elders in your church? That is terrible logic.

Next you say, "There is no recovery if you are going to accept the premise that we are autonomious individuals, and each one of us has a right to do whatever is right in our own sight. We can define life as we want it. We can define relationships simply as whatever we want them to be. for however long we want them to last."

I reply. Dr. Mohler, why do you assume that it is either add to God's word, or be autonomious individuals? Might I point out that we are neither if we follow the principle of Sola Scriptura. What if scripture were our ultimate authority, and it defined for us what is sin and what is not sin. What if it defined for us what proper behavior was in our relationships, and decided to bind us to certain things, and not to other things?

What if it bound us to the idea that we had to dress modestly, but that we could wear either a yellow shirt or a green shirt? What if it told me that I had to only have sexual relations within marriage, but that I could remain unmarried? How in the world would this be talking about wanting our own autonomy? Shall I become the governor of Kentucky, and force the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to change its name to the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and teach Presbyterian doctrine? Would you not be crying out about your freedom to worship God in the way you think is right? What if I then accused you simply holding to your own autonomy? Again, God has bound our contience on some things, and not on others.

Next you say, "We can divide the goods of marriage. We can say we want reproduction without responsibility, or we want the marriage without the children. That's what happens when everything begins to unravel."

Again, how in the world is anyone going to be able to defend the idea that you cannot be married and not have children exegetically? Where is that in the Bible? And, yes, I have read all of the major books you might recommend, and the exegesis is very, very bad. For example, if you decide to go off to Genesis 1:28, see above.

If you try to argue that children are a blessing, and therefore required, then the logical conclusion of that position is that all blessings are required. A swimming pool on a hot day is a blessing. Now, if someone would prefer to put the money in the bank rather than by a swimming pool you could simply say, "See, you really don't believe a swimming pool is a blessing, you just view it as an inconvinience to your own personal autonomy." Or, if the person says that they can't afford it, one could likewise say, "See, you just view a swimming pool on a hot day as a financial inconvienience, not a blessing." In fact, given that logic, you should overdraw your checking account into the millions of dollars to have every blessing known to man, and if you don't, you simply do not believe they are blessings, and just believe that they are inconvienences to your own personal autonomy, and as well as financial inconveniences.

How did we get in this logical mess? We got in it by trying to force upon the text of scripture an idea that does not come from the Bible, but rather from "the way things always were." This is a theme in your writings when you talk about marriage and children, Dr. Mohler. I see a distinct difference in the quality of your exegesis from when you talk about things like Homosexuality, the Diety of Christ, and other issues, to this issue. Many others have said the same thing. Dr. Averbeck, my professor of Pentatuch, thought your view that delay of marriage as a sin was a "classic overreaction," yet he seemed suprised to hear that you were one of the people promoting it. Why is it that consistently, when I talk to people whose main area is exegesis, they consistently reject the arguments you put foward from the scriptures, as well as the arguments of these books you have endorsed? Shouldn't that tell you something about the quality of your exegesis on these issues?

Finally, Dr. Mohler, you kept on harping on the fact that these women have natural desires given to them by their creator. I agree, these are natural desires given to them by their creator. It is not wrong to want to be married and have children. In fact, it is a good and Godly desire. However, what you completely missed is that God can intentionally put desires in people that he will never fulfill. For instance, there are a whole lot of people around the world who have a God given desire for food. Does that mean God is obligated to give them food? No, of course not. However, what is amazing is to go to these countries and to see the faith of these people who, although they don't even know if they will get their next meal tonight, are still trusting in God whether he gives them food or not. These people have faith I can only hope to ever have.

And yet, look at the selfishness of these women. They have a desire for something, and if God doesn't give them what they want, they run off and sin. While I agree that the desire is good, and that simply having the desire is not selfish, to say that God must give them that desire right now is to make yourself God, and to engage in the most terrible form of idolatry. God can keep a husband from them for the rest of his life if he wants to do so. In fact, I might even say that God will willing keep a husband from these women to teach them to trust in him alone, rather then trusting in their own desires. It is amazing that these people in other nations who do not have something as essential to life as food do not rebel against God, but have very strong faith, and the women here in America and England who have a desire for something that, although good and Godly, is not essential to life, disobey God if he does not give them what they want. Why did you not address this, Dr. Mohler?

You see, the fact that people are under no obligation to marry means that we cannot trust in marriage, we must ultimately trust in God! We must ultimately trust that he is the God who will give us what we need. If someone, instead, runs off, and does what is right in their own eyes because their faith is in marriage and not in God, then the result will be this wickedness of fertilization to a man to whom they are not even married.

Finally, you speak about shifts in culture quite a lot in your program. Yes, many times culture shifts are for the worst. Many times they bring in ideas that are foreign and hostile to Christianity. However, we also have traditions that are not Biblical, and culture shifts force us to go back to the Bible and test our traditions against the unchanging norm of scripture. I believe that, if we cannot find these ideas in scripture, we need to reject them wholesale. The reason is that, if we are going to be protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura, we are going to have to be people who constantly go back to God's word to find out what God has bound to our contience. His revelation needs to be the foundation of even our morals and our ethics. If we cannot find the idea that not having any children in marriage is a sin, the idea that virtually everyone is commanded to marry, or the idea that marriage and manhood are synonomious in scripture, then we need to reject them as unbiblical traditions.

Again, I don't want this to sound like I don't respect you. I do, and that is the whole reason why I am writing to you. I know many people who have held strongly to these positions who have ended up leaving protestantism altogether because they could not defend these things from scripture. I think that the dialogue needs to focus on what the Bible says, and not upon rhetoric that simply doesn't get us anywhere. I hope you will give what I have said careful consideration.

In Christ,
Adam

2008-09-05T15:59:00.001-07:00

Jack Van Impe on Canada and the End Times

I can honestly say that, when it comes to the area of eschatology, I am somewhat strange. I not only enjoy talking about eschatology, but I also believe that the area of eschatology is important to Christianity, and I am concerned about certain views of eschatology that are popular today. I mean, if I am going to be challanging relationship authors to be consistent in their exegesis of the text of scripture, then I believe we need to point out when people misuse the text of scripture to try to support certain views of eschatology.

Jack Van Impe is a very popular author on the subject of eschatology. I remember that, when I first started studying the subject of eschatology, Jack Van Impe was someone who was recommended to me. Now, let me tell you, Jack Van Impe seems to never run out of breath. He went through Bible verses so fast the first time I heard him that I had to tape the program, and then stop and start it so that I could write down what he was saying. When I started researching what he was saying, I was shocked. I still remember his misuse of Revelation 4:1 when he said that this referred to the rapture, when the language is very clearly addressed to John! He tried to get around that by saying that these people were crowned, and you cannot be crowned until the resurrection of the just. However, the text he cited actually said that you cannot be *rewarded* until the resurrection of the just. What if this was the "crown of life?" I could not believe how bad this stuff was.

I have been following Gary DeMar's study of Ezekiel 38 and 39 on his radio program and blog. DeMar is currently working on a book I am anxiously awaiting on Ezekiel 38 and 39 called Why the End of the World is Not in Your Future.

For some reason, the other day, I was looking at Jack Van Impe's website, and I found the following comments:

In the war with Russia in Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39 Ezekiel 38:13 mentions Tarshish and all of the young lions. The symbol of America is the Bald Eagle and the symbol of England is the Lion, so Tarshish and all her young lions, all the English speaking nations of the world including Canada come against Russia.

So, now, not only do we have Russia and Moscow in Ezekiel 38 and 39 because of the similar sounds between Russia and the Hebrew term varo, and between Moscow and the Hebrew term %v,m, [Which we now know to have been in Anatolia], but we also have Canada thrown in there for good measure because of this argument from young lions. This interpretation is full of problems. First of all, the Hebrew term rypiK. is often times used in the prophetic works as a metaphor for an army. For instance, the book of Jeremiah, in prophesying what is obviously the destruction of Judah, says the following:

Jeremiah 2:14-15 Is Israel a servant, or is he a houseborn servant? Why is he made for spoil? Young lions [rypiK.] are roaring over him. They lift up their voice. They have desolated his land; his cities are burned without an inhabitant [Translation mine].

Other examples of this usage is Isaiah 5:25-29, Isaiah 31:4, Jeremiah 25:36-38, 51:36-39, Ezekiel 19:1-7, Hosea 5:9-15, Amos 3:2-11, Micah 5:8-9, Zechariah 11:1-3. In fact, in all but three passages in which this term is used in the prophets it is a metaphor for a military army. There are a few usages found in Ezekiel 32:2 and Ezekiel 19 which appear to be referring to the leader of an army rather than the army itself. BDB lists Nahum 2:12 there, but it is also possible that it is referring to the "Nineveh" of verse 9. There is another usage refers to a Cherub in Ezekiel's vision of the temple in Ezekiel 41:19. However, none of these usages are very helpful to Jack Van Impe's interpretation. Also, it is interesting that, in all of those instances, it is context which rules rules out the understanding of rypiK. as a metaphor for an army.

This is what is so devistating for Jack Van Impe's interpretation of this passage. Not only does the context of Ezekiel 38 not rule out taking rypiK. as a metaphor for an army, it actually confirms it! The whole text of Ezekiel 38-39 is talking about a battle between nations. This is exactly the context in which we find the other usages of this term when the term is used as a metaphor for an army! Again, I have to ask, why is it that Jack Van Impe is willing to depart from the norminative usage of rypiK. in this context, and take rypiK. to be referring to the symbols of nations so as to insert some notion that English speaking nations are going to come against Russia [an idea which would have been totally foreign to the people of Ezekiel's day]?

Also interesting is the fact that there is a textual varient here. The Septuagint and Theodotion's Greek edition have kai. pa/sai ai` kw/mai auvtw/n which would suggest that the Hebrew rpiK. should be repointed as rp'K'! This would mean that the text would be translated, "Sheba, Dedan, all the merchants of Tarshish, and all her villages will say to you..." That totally changes everything. Now Jack Van Impe's argument is totally gone. In fact, this is the way the NIV and the NASB translate this passage.

However, making it worse or Jack Van Impe, is the fact that there have been two proposed readings that are likewise possible. The most likely of the two is a reading proposed by Leslie Allen in her commentary on this passage. She suggests that the text should read hyrk meaning "merchants." This fits well with the parallelism to yrex]so, and she suggests that it was changed because of the uniqueness of this word within the corpus of Ezekiel's prophecies.

Koehler-Baumgartner and the BHS suggest the reading h'yl,k.ro. This is a little more difficult as it would have to be a wholesale change from the original reading. While there are many commentators who prefer this reading, it seems odd that the text would stray that much from the original, unless it were an intentional change. Allen suggests that it could be possible if the change came from hyrK.

Certainly this text-critical issue is far from settled. However, any one of these readings would make Van Impe's interpretation impossible.

So, in essence, we have Jack Van Impe giving us an interpretation of a text that is utterly out of the norm of the usage of rypiK., and, an interpretation that depends upon rypiK. being the correct reading of the text when there are several different possibilities for the original of this text.

I think, ultimately, the main problem here is Van Impe's interpretational methodology. You see, this form of dispensationalism has a bad habit of allowing current events to determine the meaning of the text rather than allowing the Bible itself to unlock the symbolism it uses. Van Impe is absolutely positive that these texts in Ezekiel 38 and 39 are referring to events that are going to happen in our lifetime, and that things that are going on right now in the world have a direct relationship to what is written here. When you take that perspective, you end up using the headlines to interpret the text of scripture, rather than using scripture to interpret itself. Now, I obviously have not settled the issue of the overall interpretation of Ezekiel 38 and 39. That is something that would require another article. However, I hopefully can contribute to stopping this interpretation from getting to popular, before it becomes as bad as the argument that this text is talking about Russia!

Also, I thought it was rather funny to read his comments on Postmillenialism [my view of eschatology]. You see, Postmillenialism is really booming in Africa. We have churches there that believe that the whole continent, yea, the whole world can be one for Christ. It is in light of this that we read the following question and answer:

It thrills my heart to listen to your weekly program and hear the most important event to take place - the second coming of Jesus - being portrayed so beautifully and forthrightly. I had virtually given up on the church in South Africa, which seems to follow all the false prophets and teachers who want to Christianize the world for Jesus and then invite Him back when the whole world is converted. I guess they just don't read the Bible or believe in the literal translation of it. May the lord continue to richly bless you and your ministry! Maranatha - even so come quickly, Lord Jesus

Sid Fenwick
South Africa

I know what the denomination is in South Africa, and it's one that comes out of Holland, and most of them an amillennialists, they don't believe there's going to be a thousand-year reign of Christ, and then there are the post-millennialists, and that thing died years ago. How ridiculous that we're going to make the world perfect and then invite Christ to come back. Jesus said iniquity is going to abound until He returns, Matthew 24:12 and Second Timothy 3:13 tells us that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived. It’s going to get so bad in Revelation 9:20 they're worshiping demons. Try to make it perfect before Jesus comes, you can't do it. Believe the Bible - Christ is coming to set up his kingdom.

Of course, none of the issues associated with these passages are even addressed. For instance, Matthew 24:34 is not addressed, and how the contrast between verses 13 and 14 which proves that he was talking to Timothy and his time are not even addressed. Also, Revelation 1:1, 3 was not addressed which shows that this is not talking about some future event. Not only that, but notice the ignorance of Van Impe. He seems to think that postmillenialism is dead. Has he not heard of the Christian Reconstructionist movement? Has he not heard of Keith Mathison and R.C. Sproul? Also, it is amazing that the questioner talks about interpreting the Bible literally. Go read any dispensationalist interpretation of Ezekiel 38 and 39. They try to turn all of the weapons into missles, and try to turn horses into horsepower. The reality is that they are more than willing to depart from their literal hermeneutic.

Again, the issue here is much deeper than just a simple misinterpretation of a text. It is entire hermeneutical issue. Van Impe is reading the text through the lens of the headlines rather than through the lens of scripture. As a result, he is poisoning Christians against one another. If they don't happen to buy into his dispensational premillenial scheme, then they just don't believe the Bible. No, actually, we just do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible. I only hope that Jack Van Impe will have the courage of his convictions to stop doing this to the body of Christ. I wish both sides could dialogue on this issue. However, given the responses on his Q and A webpage, it is not likely to happen any time soon.

2008-08-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

Genesis 1:28 Freed from Tradition

I recently saw a post on the Boundlessline Blog discussing the number of children that we are having in today's society. I decided I would lurk around for a while.

Now, I am the first one to believe that marriage and children are important to a society. In fact, I believe that every church community has the duty to have people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children. I believe that every church must have people as part of this ministry.

However, it appears some have gone a step further, and declared that it is a sin to be able to have children, and yet not have children. In fact, it appears that these people would like to say that you are not holding to a Christian worldview if you disagree with them. I have even heard words like "liberal" being thrown around. I find this humerious since I have written against abortion and homosexuality, defended inerrancy numerious times, defended the Christian faith against the attacks of atheism and feminism, believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentatuch, the Davidic authorship of most of the Psalms, a literal seven day creation, and am a member of a denomination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that was formed as a reaction against liberalism. Yet, according to these people, because I disagree with them on this issue I am a liberal. It was sad to see, but mostly all I saw from the people promoting this position was rhetoric.

For instance, on argument that was continually brought up is that children are a blessing therefore you should have them if you can. However, using this logic, you must acquire everything that is a blessing if you can. In other words, no person can ever reject having anything that is a blessing. Such means that, if you can afford a swimming pool on a hot day, because it is a blessing, you must buy a swimming pool on a hot day. If you decide to put the money in a savings account instead, you must be engaging in sin, because you don't really believe that having a swimming pool on a hot day is a blessing.

In fact, I have heard Albert Mohler go far to say that, if you don't have children because of money, then you don't view children as a blessing, you view them as a financial inconvenience. Again, would Dr. Mohler be willing to say that every person must have every blessing, and money is no option? In other words, you must overdraw your checking account into the millions of dollars so that you can have a mansion, a swimming pool on a hot day, servants to do everything for you, and money is no option. If you don't do that, then you don't view a mansion, a swimming pool on a hot day, or servants as a blessing, but only as a monitary inconvenience.

The easiest way to refute these arguments is to follow the same principle. Force the person making these arguments to be consistent, and apply their standard across the board.

A girl by the name of Laura posted an argument that was a little bit better. However, even her argument was circular. Here is her argument as she posted it:

1. What does God say in his word about children?
2. Is God ultimately in control of our fertility?
3. If God calls children a blessing to be welcomed, and if he is in control of our fertility, do we have the right (as people whose lives are to be conformed to God's desires and values) to say, "I don't want kids" or "I want to put off having kids until ____"? Why or why not?

The crucial premise is #3. The statement "God calls children a blessing to be welcomed" can be interpreted in one of two ways. The key is how you take the term "children" here. The first possibility is that you take the term "children" to be referring to the actual child. The second possibility is that you take the term "children" here with an implied "having" [i.e., God calls having children a blessing to be welcomed]. We often times use nouns in this fashion. For instance, take the phrase "Fruit is good for you." We do not mean by that statement that the mere existance of fruit is good for you. It does you no good unless you eat it, or use it in some way, and that is what we mean by the statement "Fruit is good for you." Hence, #3 can be interpreted in one of two ways:

3' The actual child is a blessing to be welcomed.

3'' Having children is a blessing to be welcomed.

If Laura is taking the statement "God calls children a blessing to be welcomed" to mean 3'', then it is true that bearing children is a blessing, but the phrase "to be welcomed" begs the whole question. Is it true that, in every instance, we must welcome the bearing of children if we are able to bear children? Well, that is the whole question being asked, and thus, if 3'' is what she means by "God calls children a blessing to be welcomed," then she is simply engaging in a circular argument.

If Laura is taking the statement "God calls children a blessing to be welcomed" to mean 3', then she has stated something that is irrelevant because, while the actual child is indeed a blessing, the second half makes no sense because, before conception, the child simply doesn't exist [unless you are a Mormon, and believe in preexistence]. How can you welcome something that doesn't exist?

Rhetoric aside, though, Genesis 1:28 was brought up again. Honestly, I get so tired of hearing this verse quoted in this discussion, because no one wants to do any exegesis of this passage. The whole verse is generally not even cited. Generally only "Be fruitful and multiply" is cited!!!!!! It just seems like the folks on this forum think that, if you cite this text in this context ad nauseum, people will start to believe that it is talking to them as an individual couple. Never mind all the exegetical arguments to the contrary, and never mind that you cannot read that text in a consistent fashion like that.

As I have said before, if you take this interpretation, then how does one explain the next phrase, "Fill the earth?" If you say, on the basis of this text that, because I am able to have children, I must have children, then you are caught believing that I also must have seven billion children so that I "fill the earth." No one can read this text consistently in that fashion. You have to end up inserting an arbitrary break in the text, making the subject of "be fruitful and multiply" different from the subject of "fill the earth." In short, if "Be Fruitful and multiply" is a command directed at every individual couple, then so is the command "fill the earth."

Not only that, the subject is not even that hard to find. For instance, note Genesis 1:27:

A. And God created man in his own image.
B. In the image of God he greated him.
C. Male and Female he created them.

Notice how both the singular pronominal suffix "him," and the plural pronominal suffix "them" are used to refer to the singular "man." Generally when this happens, the term translated man, ~d'a', should be translated as the more general "mankind."

Now, let us take a look at the parallelism between verse 27c and 28a:

27c. Male and Female he created them.
28a. God blessed them and said to them,

Notice how the term "them" now matches up to 27c, which, as we have just stated refers to mankind. In fact, it is exactly the same form in Hebrew, ~t'ao [Direct object marker with 3mp suffix]!!!!!! Also, it is only two words later in the Hebrew text!!!!! Now, what warrant do we have for going from mankind in 27c, to individual couples only two words later, and then back to mankind again for "fill the earth?" How is that not arbitrary? Is it not more natural to see 27c-28 as referring to mankind as a whole the whole way through the verse?

In fact, adding more credence to our exegesis is the fact that, in verse 22, the same command is given to the birds, the fish, and "creeping animals," and they are spoken of in verse 21 as being created "according to their kind" [Whneymil.]. Because of this, it is rather hard to imagine God as commanding individual couples of birds to have children, and more than likely refers to each species of birds, fish, and creeping animals filling the sky, waters, and earth.

While I hate to use the term "species" of man [since it implies that we are equal with the animals], I think it might be appropriate here. It is the "species of mankind" that is commanded to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth in Genesis 1:28, not individual couples.

If you read the text "Be fruitful and multiply" as commanding individual couples, then you are caught not being able to explain the next phrase "fill the earth," without being arbitrary. Not only that, but you have to ignore the fact that verse 28 is a continuation of verse 27, and refuse to follow the suffixes from 27c-28a. Yet people still blindly quote the text in a discussion about whether or not individual couples must have children if they can. I believe this is done because of tradition. Tradition is a powerful thing. We believe something just because it is what we have always been told, or because one of our favorite teachers tells us it must be the case, and we refuse to actually examine what we believe carefully. That is why we should never just throw a text out blindly like this without first considering if we are using it properly. If we do not, the result is going to be that we end up putting the commands that come from our own traditions into the mouth of God.

2008-08-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

The Hypocracy of the Leftest Media with Regards to Archaeology

I hate to be the one to tell you this. I am not an archaeologist. My major area of study is Hebrew Bible [of which Archaeology is a related area]. I enjoy reading books on linguistics, logic, Hebrew grammar, and Hermeneutics. However, in studying Hebrew grammar, I have studied several inscriptions to understand the history of the Hebrew language. In fact, I got to take a class last semester from Dr. Lawson Younger called West Semitic Inscriptions, where we learned how to read the paleo-Hebrew script, and read the works of some of the greatest scholars in the area of the study of some major West Semitic Inscriptions.

Anyway, I went to my fiance's church last sunday, and one of the members of her congregation asked me if I had heard that Jeremiah's seal had been found. Now, you have to be skeptical about these things. There are so many sensationalists out there with no credibility whatsoever that you need to know where the story is coming from. However, I recognized the word "seal," as we had studied seals in West Semitic Inscriptions class. Hence, since it fit the time of Jeremiah, I thought I should at least do a Google search on it.

What I found was, not that archaeologists have found Jeremiah's seal, but the seal of one of Jeremiah's accusers from Jeremiah 38. And, the lady who found it, is Eliat Mazar, one of Israel's top archaeologists, to whom my professor, Dr. James Hoffmeier, even said was reliable. The letters are exactly the same as those found in the Hebrew Bible. Here is a photo of the seal. For those who cannot read the paleo-Hebrew script, I will write it in square letters beneath, and then, just to give you an idea, of how perfectly they match the Hebrew Bible, I will post the text of Jeremiah 38:1 so you can see exactly how they match up:

Seal in Square Characters: rwxXp !b whyldgl

Jeremiah 38:1: ‘lk;Wyw> rWxêv.P;-!B, ‘Why"’l.d:g>W !T'ªm;-!b, hy"åj.p;v. [m;úv.YIw:
Why"±m.r>yI rv

As you can see, the Hebrew characters used in the seal are identical with the Hebrew characters in Jeremiah 38. The seal just simply reads, "[Belonging] to Gedaliah Son of Pashhur." These seals were used to seal envolopes, and to mark ownership certain pottery. What I found interesting about this seal is not only that it bears a name straight out of the Hebrew Bible, but also that it bears a name which is Egyptian in origin, namely, the name Pashhur. It is Egyptian for, , "The son of Horus."

This is an interesting find on so many levels. Yet, it is gotten nothing as far as media attention. Go look on CNN.com or msnbc.com. However, the whole "Jesus tomb" nonsense a few years ago was repeated ad infinitum ad nauseum. Yet was a horrendus example of scholarship as even unbelieving archaeologists are willing to admit. Also, remember the "Gabrael's Revelation" tablet that got a whole lot of media attention a few months ago. It seems like if it can be interpreted in any way to be against the Christian faith, the liberal media will make mention of it. However, when it comes to finds like this one that can only be interpreted as consistent with the Christian faith, the liberal media completely ignores it. The hypocracy is too unbelievable for words.

I have a feeling that, if we complained, we would probably get a response similar to that of Israel Finkelstein. I found an interesting quotation from him on Wikipedia the other day. He was going after Mazar's methodology, and he said, "The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology." In other words, by it's very nature, archaeology cannot be Biblical!!!!!! He starts with the premise that archaeology can have nothing to do with the Biblical text, and low and behold, when we go out and do the research, the archaeological find has nothing to do with the Biblical text. Note that this is a presupposition that Finkelstein brings to the discussion a priori. According to him, the Bible has nothing of historical, archaeological value to say, period. That is a presupposition that needs to be challanged right of the bat. Being a Van Tillian, I would argue that, because Finkelstein rejects the Bible as inerrant revelation from God, he cannot make sense out of the very archaeology he is doing. He assumes that he can do archaeology autonomiously from God, and yet, I would argue that he has to rely upon the truth of the scriptures to even do his archaeology.

Interestingly enough, my professor, Dr. James Hoffmeier has caught Finkelstein doing just that. In his book Israel in Egypt, the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition [Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 1996. see pages 31-32], Dr. Hoffmeier discusses Finkelstein's attempted reconstruction of the origins of Israel in a monograph he wrote in 1988 called The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Hoffmeier first summarizes Finkelstein's argument. He says that Finkelstein tries to argue that the Cannanite culture declined in the sixteenth century B.C., and a significant part of the population became nomadic. Then there was a resettlement in the Late Bronze Age, and this resettlement became known as "Israel." The way he tries to argue for this is to show that there were shrines at Shiloh dating from this period that are very large relative to their population, and thus, the people must have been nomadic. However, what Hoffmeier points out about Finkelstein's methodology in arguing for the idea that these are Israelite is instructive. Hoffmeier points out that he offers no extrabiblical evidence from this, but argues from the importance of Shiloh in Joshua. Even when he tries to link these cites to ancient Israel from various aspects, Hoffmeier shows that he is, even at this point, relying upon what the book of Joshua says about them. Such is amazing hypocracy from a man who does not believe that archaeology should have anything to do with the Biblical text! The reason for this is that even Finkelstein is created in the image of God, and he knows deep down in his heart, that he cannot even do his archaeology without revelation from God.

You will find this same problem in The New York Times as well when they talked about Mazar after she found what she believed to be the palace of David. Consider this quotation from this very article:

Hani Nur el-Din, a Palestinian professor of archaeology at Al Quds University, said he and his colleagues considered biblical archaeology an effort by Israelis "to fit historical evidence into a biblical context." He added: "The link between the historical evidence and the biblical narration, written much later, is largely missing. There's a kind of fiction about the 10th century. They try to link whatever they find to the biblical narration. They have a button, and they want to make a suit out of it."

Even Israeli archaeologists are not so sure that Ms. Mazar has found the palace - the house that Hiram, king of Tyre, built for the victorious king, at least as Samuel 2:5 describes it. It may also be the Fortress of Zion that David conquered from the Jebusites, who ruled Jerusalem before him, or some other structure about which the Bible is silent.

I think we could rewrite that whole first paragraph to display the bias of "historical minimalists," as Dr. Hoffmeier calls them:

Historical minimalism is an effort to fit historical information into an exclusively extrabiblical context. The link between historical evidence and Biblical narration, [written very close to the events] is very strong. The Bible provides us the history of the tenth century. The historical minimalists will do anything they can to avoid any connection between the Biblical text and archaeology.

Notice how the shoe is on the other foot now. You see, the historical minimalists have their presuppositions as well.

Mr El-Din likewise has his presuppositions. In fact, [and the New York Times completely ignores this], Al Quds University is an Arab university! You don't think that this Arab professor has his biases? Again, totally left out, and totally ignored.

Of course, I am not accusing them for this. We all have our presuppositions. However, what I *do* criticise them for is not recognizing their presuppositions as well as holding to presuppositions that cannot provide the preconditions for the intellegability of reality. This is where I believe the discussion needs to go.

For instance, as a case in point, after dismissing the Bible as historically accurate, this article then relies upon the Bible by giving the Fortress of Zion as a possible palace for David. How can that be a possible palace of David if the Bible is unreliable to tell us that such a place existed in the first place! If archaeology cannot be formed by the Biblical text, as these people say, why is it that they rely upon the Bible so much when they get in trouble?

These prejudices keep coming up in this article. Note for instance:

Archaeologists debate "to what extent Jerusalem was an important city or even a city in the time of David and Samuel," he said. "Some believe it was tiny and the kingdom unimportant." The site of ancient Jerusalem, stuck between two valleys on a ridge south of the Temple Mount, is very small, less than 10 acres.

Israel Finkelstein, another renowned archaeologist, has suggested that without significant evidence, Jerusalem in this period was "perhaps not more than a typical hill-country village."

Notice how Finkelstein automatically assumes that, because of silence, it is "perhaps not more than a typical hill-country village." This is simply a logical fallacy. Simply because someone doesn't have evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For instance, up until the nineteenth century, no one could find any evidence that the Hittites existed. Now, we have not only discovered Hittite archaeological sites, but we have also discovered their language and their literature, and, in the process, discovered the earliest Indo-European language known to man.

You see, Finkelstein's argument must assume that we have adequate knowledge of the archaeology of Jerusalem. The problem is that there is so much more work yet to be done, and, in point of fact, the political instability of the area has contributed to the inability to do archaeology. Hence, Finkelstein's argument not only is an argument from silence [which is always a logical fallacy], but, in order for one to even have an inductive argument [i.e: it is not likely that any evidence will turn up], one must rely upon an adequate knowledge of the Archaeology of Jerusalem, which is something we simply do not have.

Finally, and I think most devistatingly showing Finkelstein's bias, what does the statement "without significant evidence, Jerusalem in this period was 'perhaps not more than a typical hill-country village.'" assume? That the Bible is not "significant evidence." Pure and simple. Again, Finklestein's atheistic view of archaeology is shining through plain as day. Yet, it is quoted at the end of this article, as if it were somehow significant, that one of the reasons why the dig was undertaken was to prove the accuracy of the Biblical account. So what. Everyone has their presuppositions. Reasoning is impossible without them. As we have seen, these people quoted in this article are just as biased as the people who were doing the dig, and it is sad to see this completely slip under the radar.

However, I have to say one more thing in relation to the seal I discussed at the beginning. Finklestein has, indeed, commented on it, and his comments are very telling:

Dozens of bullas from the period already have been found, some of which turned out to be fakes," he said

In other words, rather than be driven to counter-example of his view that archaeology cannot be Biblical, he is willing to make the outragious statement that this might have been a forgery. As Dr. Hoffmeier told us in class, forgeries are simply not found on controlled digs like this. It is amazing to see a brilliant man like Finklestein say some of these things all because he refuses to recognize the presuppositions he brings to the table.

I suspect this is why the liberal media has not made too much of this story. The only way that this story can be interpreted is as consistent with the Bible. Now, I am obviously not resting my Christian faith on this discovery. I am a Christian because of the fact that only Christianity can provide any way to know anything. However, I think it is amazing when this seal is not even mentioned by CNN.com, msnbc.com, and abcnews.com, and yet, they promote the whole "Lost Tomb of Jesus" nonsense. It is an abosolutely unbelievable demonstration of bias from people who are "just publishing the facts."

2008-07-25T13:28:00.000-07:00

Simply Unbelievable!!!!!!!!

It is so painfully obvious that Candice Watters has no interest in interacting with the Biblical arguments against her position. In a recent post on Boundlessline, she says that another reason to not delay marriage is so you do not have to give your bridesmaids cosmetic gifts so they won't ruin your photo shoot. I guy named Craig M was taking her to task, and her response is telling:

Um, so far most everyone is missing the humor in this article, and by extension, my point. But Craig M. takes the cake. Sorry Craig, no such passes for older men to delay marriage only to turn around and pick a bride from the under 30, or better yet, 25, set. And then say that's the way God meant it. Nice try.

Did that just come out of the mouth of the founder of Boundless????? Also, notice how Candice is making the positive assertion that this is wrong. Where is the proof? This is the kind of comment I would expect from Captain Sensible or Debbie Maken!

However, again, I have to keep using this parody until she is willing to deal with the arguments against her position:

But Candice Watters takes the cake. Sorry Candice, no such passes for someone who enjoys a hot fudge sundae when they get home from work, only to turn around and enjoy a steak dinner, or better yet, a dinner at a fine dining restaurant later. And then say that's the way God meant it. Nice try.

Again, I have fully responded to all of her arguments, as many others. Before Candice can talk about "passes for older men to delay marriage," she must show that delay of marriage is a sin. I know she has tried, but there have been more than a number of people who have fully dealt with all of the argumentation she has brought up. Candice seems intent on this kind of indoctrination, rather than actually dealing with the substance of the arguments against her. The kind of sarcasm she writes at the end is simply unacceptable for a professional. What do you say when someone refuses to interact with argumentation from the opposition, and, instead, engages in this kind of behavior?

Now, don't misunderstand me. Boundless has been, by far, the most professional of anyone with whom I have dialogued. I hope this is just a blip on the radar screen from Candice, and not something that will become a habit!

Also, I think it is interesting that she quotes a passage of scripture that, in essence, refutes exactly what she is saying:

Solomon knew what he was talking about after all. "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised" (Proverbs 31:30).

Well, first of all, it wasn't Solomon who wrote that. It was king Lemuel. Second, the whole point of the passage is precisely that it does not matter what age you are or how you look. A woman who fears the Lord exists at any age! Thus, the most important thing for a woman is not that she is physically beautiful, and certainly not whether or not she gets married. It is whether or not she fears the Lord. That, when all is said and done, is what is most important. While physical beauty is a wonderful gift of God, and anyone who reads the Song of Songs can see that, it is not the most important thing in life.

I would also like to add to this whole discussion about physical beauty. Physical beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. There are some men who just like particular physical appearances in women. Hence, the fear of the Lord is, indeed, the most important thing for both man and woman, as they can trust that God will bring them someone who is attracted to them.

There is an added advantage to the fear of the Lord. I am doing a study in the book of Proverbs right now, and the advice of the father to the son is telling. He says that one of the reasons for him taking in his wisdom is:

Proverbs 2:16 To deliver you from the strange woman, from the foreign woman who is smooth in her words.

Now, let me ask why it is that we are so intent upon trying to show that marriage is a cure for sexual immorality when this text very clearly tells us what the cure for sexual immorality is! It is the wisdom of the Lord! Simply taking 1 Corinthians 7:2 out of context and giving people a sexual outlet is not going to cure the folly that gets them to give in to those ungodly desires in the first place! That is why, I have said many times, if you tell people to marry as cure for their sexual sin, they will just take that sexual sin right into marrage, and you will end up with internet pornography or adultery, both of which are deadly to a marriage. The answer to all of this is to gain wisdom, to learn to be wise, and discerning.

I remember Dr. VanGemeren telling us last semester that one of the problems with today's church is that we teach children what is right and wrong, but we never give them the wisdom to go along with it! Wisdom and discernment are key elements in raising children up to be good Christian children. Yet, we don't seem to teach it in our churches today. You see, there are two ladies portrayed in the book of Proverbs. The first is lady wisdom, and the second is the foreign woman. The scriptures very clearly teach us that they way in which we keep our way straight in this arena is by loving lady wisdom so much that we cannot ever think of running off to the strange woman. In fact, Dr. VanGemeren tells us that is exactly what he told a young man he was councilling.

Hence, the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of knowledge guides us into knowing wisdom. We are to take up the teaching as found here in the book of Proverbs, and learn the ways of Lady wisdom. I have found that I have been at my strongest spiritually this semester when I have most understood my studies in this remarkable book. Granted, it fits in with other parts of the Bible nicely, and we should study them as well. However, for a young man who wants to learn discernment, and how to resist temptation sexual or otherwise, this is a wonderful place to start.

2008-06-19T11:45:00.000-07:00

A Few Odds and Ends

I just wanted to take a post to write a few odds and ends. As I have been looking for some new things in Candice's book, I actually have found something that is not new. When I wrote my paper Real Authors Write Responsibly in response to Ted Slater citing an article by Candice Watters called Ruth Revisited when someone brought up the fact that Boaz did not inititate his relationship with Ruth, I got a strong response from the folks who disagree with me, and expecially those who were supporters of Candice Watters. I could not figure out why. However, the reason why there was such a response is because, though the book had not come out yet, unknown to me or anyone else, the entire set of three articles on the book of Ruth were republished word for word in the book. Hence, my article dealing with Candice's arguments on the book of Ruth will have to be included as part of the response.

Now, apparently there have been some developments in Old Testament scholarship since Edward Campbell's Commentary on Ruth in the Anchor Bible Commentary Series was published. Usually Anchor Bible commentaries are pretty up to date, but my Northwest Semitic Inscriptions professor, Dr. Lawson Younger, told me that we now know exactly how big a ephah is, and it is exegetically significant. I will have to get back to the reader of the blog on that topic, but everything else is up to date.

Also, I keep on receiving these comments from people who, apparently, just sign up to take shots at me. For instance, a poster by with the simple screenname of "kt" posted this in the comments section of my second response to Candice Watters:

Alrighty then -- God decreed that all these believing women would be left single so that the conditions in our churches that enable men to be passive, ignorant, absent and disobedient may be revealed!

Better add "sparing us from our own stupidity" to the pile of things that, as you say, "God is under no obligation whatsoever to give us"

PS... Adam, what is YOUR idol? Fruitless debate, perhaps?

Ah yes, those loving radical marriage mandators. However, the other interesting thing that I have found is that, if you click on his screenname to see his profile, he has been a member since June 2008!!!!!!! Yes, apparently, one of the reasons this user even signed up to post on blogger is so that he could write this nasty stuff to me.

Again, when it comes to the radical version of this movement, I have seen some language that I have not seen from King James Onlyism. That is how radical this stuff is. I just have to keep pointing that out along the way.

2008-06-16T13:55:00.000-07:00

Responses to Candice Watters Part III

In this section, I would like to address Candice’s view of prayer. She has an entire chapter of this in her book [Chapter 9], and I do believe it would be profitable to take a look at it, because I have some real concerns about some of the things that are said. She first of all starts out by stating how she used to pray:

When I was single, I used to pray for a husband like this,

Oh, God, please don’t make me single my whole life. I really want to be married. Oh, I hope it’s not Your will for me to be single. I don’t think I could do it! Please bring someone into my life soon, very soon. But help me to be patient in the meantime. And God, if You do want me to be single-but I hope you don’t-please give me the grace for it, because I really don’t feel it. Did I mention how much I hope that’s not your will for me [pgs. 145-146]?

I want us to notice two things about this prayer that Candice gives us. First of all, the thing that immediately jumped out at me about this prayer is the way in which she keeps bringing up her desire. Yes, the desire itself is fine, but notice how much her desire is brought up in this prayer. It is really hard to know how a person could truly want God’s will above all things, and keep bringing up their desire for marriage this much in six sentences! Why is that the focus of this prayer? Shouldn’t we be praying according to God’s will, bringing our petitions to him while we humbly trust that he will do the right thing with those petitions? Yet, the entirety of this prayer is focused upon what Candice wants, and it appears that God’s will is only going to be consented to in a begrudging fashion. This is not what it means to pray according to God’s will!

Notice, too, she said that, if it was God’s will for her to be single, she doesn’t think she could do it. Does not the apostle Paul say that, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” [Philippians 4:13]? And this is in the context of affliction! Paul recognizes that, even when affliction comes about, he can endure it because it is Christ who has given us strength!

Notice too, that she says she needs the grace to go through her singleness because she does not “feel it.” Well, since when did God ever do anything on the basis of our feelings? It is amazing how this little prayer shows us that Candice really hasn’t changed since the time she prayed this prayer. These are the same ideas that are found in the very position she is presenting to us in this book! It is just that she found a way to rationalize these ideas.

That becomes important. While these things are rather subtle in this prayer, they are much more pronounced in what she says next, and in the prayer she later gives at the end of this section. What is her reasoning for becoming more emboldened in these ideas? Well, she explains:

I wish I had read about Bartimaeus back then. It wasn’t until after I was married that his story, recorded in Mark 10:46-52, leapt off the page.

When Bartimaeus, the blind baggar, heard that Jesus was approaching, he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” The exclamation point emphasizes his volume. In a book known for economy of words and punctuation, it’s clear this was no tepid request. Even as the crowd rebuked him, telling him to be quiet, the Bible says, “He shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’”

His clamor was rewarded. When Jesus asked Bartimaeus, “What do you want me to do for you?” he replied, “Rabbi, I want to see.” He was frank about what he wanted and fully expected healing, for he knew Jesus had the authority to do it. By acknowledging him as, “Jesus, son of David,” Bartimaeus was in essence saying he believe Jesus was Messiah and King.
Jesus didn’t disappoint. “Immediately he received his sight,” the Bible reports. But it wasn’t Bartimaeus’s flattery, neediness, or even his volume that made the difference. As Jesus said, “Your faith has healed you.”

Learning to Really Pray
Unlike Bartimaeus, I asked, but doubted. It’s not that I disbelieved God could bring me a mate-I just didn’t think He would. Still, my heart longed to be married. And on it went. Till Mary Morken helped me see my prayers for what they were: faithless requests for something I wasn’t even sure was OK to want.

Now, I have dealt with that last statement in my last section of responses. I want to focus upon what made Candice come to that conclusion, namely, the misinterpretation of this section about Bartimaeus. Candice mentions, but doesn’t pursue the fact that Bartimaeus, “By acknowledging him as, “Jesus, son of David,” Bartimaeus was in essence saying he believe Jesus was Messiah and King.” She does not realize this, but this is the refutation of her position on this passage. You see, Jesus uses Isaiah 35:5 and 61:1-2 to validate his claim to be the messiah. For instance, in Matthew 11:2, John sends his disciples from prison to ask Jesus if he is the one they should expect, or if they should expect someone else. Jesus simply responds with:

Matthew 11:4-5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

These are a series of quotations from Isaiah 35:5 and 61:1-2. Jesus does not give John any further answer. The reason is because he expected him to believe that he was the messiah simply on the basis of the fact that he is fulfilling what scripture already says! What is interesting is that there is a parallel account of the passage Candice cites in Matthew 20:29-34. That is significant because the Gospel of Matthew is specifically directed toward the Jewish people in presenting him as the messiah. Hence, what is being said here is not that he “prayed boldly” for what he wanted, and therefore got it, but that he trusted God to do what he said he would do in his word! You see, because of the fact that the Jews believed that the messiah would do all of these wonders, Bartimaeus was simply expressing faith in the fact that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he would do what he already said he would do in his word. It was this faith that healed him, not faith that God would give him what he wanted! It was precisely because he sought God’s will more than any desire he had that he was healed.

Matthew Henry noticed this:

II. He cried out to the Lord Jesus for mercy; Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David. Misery is the object of mercy, his own miserable case he recommends to the compassion of the Son of David, of whom it was foretold, that, when he should come to save us, the eyes of the blind should be opened, Isa. xxxv. 5. In coming to Christ for help and healing, we should have an eye to him as the promised Messiah, the Trustee of mercy and grace [Commentary on Mark].

However, rather than recognizing this, Candice builds upon her misinterpretation of this passage:

Suddenly I felt free to really pray. My petitions changed. No longer weighed down by doubts that what I wanted was good, I asked with confidence:

Lord, You created me. And I believe You created marriage for my good and Your glory. I don’t know Your timeline, but I’m asking You to fulfill my desire to be married.

I then thanked Him for what I believed He would do:

Thank You, Lord, for this strong desire You’ve placed in my heart. Thank You that You’ve already been where I’m headed and that You know what my future holds. Thank You for marriage and for my future mate. Please be with him and prepare his heart to do Your will.

Once I started praying this way, things started happening.

I think that, one of the reasons why I addressed this topic after discussing the sovereignty of God and marriage is because of the fact that this is flowing right from Candice’s Arminianism. In other words, it is the way in which you pray which causes things to happen. Again, notice, Candice says that thinking in the way I am is doubting “what is good,” again with no justification.

However, what’s worse is the presumption in Candice’s prayer. She believes God would do it, and she assumes that she has a future mate. The funny thing is that I have heard of other women who have prayed this way and, to this day, have not obtained a spouse. There are some women who have gone to their grave praying this way, not obtaining a spouse. What if these prayer were assuming something that is untrue, namely, that God would do this, and that she had a future mate? What if God replied by saying, “I am not going to give you a spouse, and there is no future mate for you.” Apparently, she believed that God could not reply this way to her prayer.

However, while this sounds like the health and wealth gospel, we need to be careful not to lump Candice in this group. Her position is far more sophisticated than this. You see, because of her view of Genesis 2, Candice believes that marriage is something to which almost everyone is called. Thus, she believes she is praying in accordance with God’s will. She writes:

Does this mean it’s ok to pray for a million dollars and expect to receive it? Hardly. Jesus’ exhortation in Matthew 21 came just after He cleared the temple of all the money changers and merchants. Jesus’ wasn’t showing us the secret to unleashing material wealth-pray for a Mini Cooper and you’ll get one-He instructed us about what to pray for in other places in Scripture. I believe His statement had everything to do with how we pray. It’s about our posture. It’s about our faith and believeing that if we’re following the guidelines He gave us for what, we can ask boldly, believing our prayers will be answered [p.148].

This is why I already provided and exegesis of Genesis 2 in the very first section of my response to show that this is not what that passage is teaching. There is nowhere, anywhere in scripture where God says that it is his will that most people marry. Thus, Candice is merely presuming that this is God’s will, and thus, is totally inconsistent with what the Bible has to say. In other words, she is assuming that God wants most people married, and thus, we can pray for it, when the Bible nowhere says this.

However, what I find interesting about this section is two things. Number one, because of her Arminianism she believes that getting God’s will is dependent upon how you pray, and that the only thing that has changed is her belief that it was God’s will for her to marry in her premarital state. However, isn’t it interesting that, at the beginning we had a prayer that was very strongly centered upon her desire for marriage almost viewing God’s will as an inconvenience, and it now results in an interpretation of scripture that now states that it is God’s will for her life. Obviously, she does not want to deny the sovereignty of God in a traditional Arminian sense, so she now has to redefine the will of God, and reinterpret it in the context of her own desires. This is something I am finding more and more from women who are involved in this teaching. The desire was there first, and then the scriptures were interpreted through the lens of these desires.

Also, in this passage, Jesus was not talking about how you pray, but urging us to pray, because God uses the prayers of his people. Prayer should not be viewed as Candice views it as she views the efficacy of our prayers in terms of how we pray. Prayer should cause us to, instead of trusting in ourselves, to trust in God wholeheartedly. That does not mean that you cannot pray for things when you do not know if it is God’s will, such as praying for a spouse. It just means that you have to trust that God knows best, and that he has the ability to say “no” to your request. It is also recognizing that, if he says no, he has a better plan for your life, one that, your own finite desires cannot even imagine.

The desire for marriage is good, and I wholeheartedly believe it. That being said, we need to use God’s word to interpret these desires. When we do, we find out that they are good, but not ultimate. God and his will are ultimate, and he says that he does whatever he pleases. When we trust him that he is as he says he is, that he is in control of our lives, and that his will is ultimate, then have the comfort of trusting and praising him for exactly what Paul says:

Ephesians 3:20-21 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

Indeed, God is able to do abundantly more than give us a spouse. Indeed, he can do more than he we could ever ask or think! I pray that we would remember this whenever we consider the possibility that God would say “no” to our desire for a spouse.

This concludes part III of my responses to Candice Watters.

2008-06-16T13:45:00.000-07:00

Responses to Candice Watters Part II

In this section of my responses to Candice Watters I will be addressing the issue of marriage as an idol, and the issue of marriage and the sovereignty of God.

Marriage, an Idol???? YES!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the major things that I have brought up is that, while it is fine, and, indeed, good and right to want marriage, we must be careful of making marriage an idol. I remember bringing this up when, in my first dialogue with Debbie Maken, she said that there were many women who were “rightly loathing singleness.” I replied that we should not be loathing anything as the scriptures tell us not to worry about our life, even when it comes to essential things such as food and clothing [Matthew 6:25-34]! This is a powerful argument, because we can challenge these folks to consider the fact that God’s truth is more important than marriage. We can challenge them to read the text of the scriptures, and to think about marriage in a Biblical way, rather than a way that is based solely upon their emotions and desires. Hence, the Bible then can control and regulate these desires so that they remain desires that are honoring and glorifying to God. Of course, this is why, a priori, we must deal with the scriptures that have to do with marriage with consistent Biblical exegesis. That is why I have dealt with the exegesis of the Biblical text before I have addressed this issue.

Here is the heart of Candice’s argument against this line of argumentation:

Can the desire for marriage really become an idol? It’s technically possible. But that notion has been blown out of proportion. And repeatedly suggesting the possibility of idolatry has done more harm than good. It’s caused a lot of women to tepid in their approach to marriage and made them afraid that any amount of thinking or acting on their desire might be a sin. Both have the unfortunate consequence of making marriage even less likely to happen [p.47].

Candice’s argument is that there have been bad results of presenting this argument, and therefore, it should not be presented. However, this is simply bad logic. Simply because there are bad consequences to making a true argument that does not mean that the argument should not be made. Martin Luther, for example, had his writings misused to try to institute a violent revolution. I am speaking of the pheasant revolt. Luther’s argumentation was misused, but does that mean that Luther should not have revolted against the Roman Catholic Church? Of course not. People can misuse and misunderstand another person’s argumentation, and simply because people misuse an argument does not mean that the argumentation is not valid, and should not be used.

Candice explains more about her line of thinking:

Such caution is rarely urged with other desires. No one would discourage a woman from praying fervently, even daily, for an unsaved family member. And we’d applaud intense and passionate faith for the healing of a friend who was dying of cancer. Even desires that more easily border on idolatry-education, career pursuits, and hobbies-get a near-universal pass. But giving a fraction of such attention to the desire for marriage solicits dire warnings of overdoing it. Fervency when petitioning God for a mate comes under singular scrutiny [p.47].

Of course, this is all a logical fallacy. Just because there is erroneous thinking in the other side’s application of their argumentation against you does not mean that your argumentation is valid. Hence, we have two fallacies, assuming that simply because good argumentation leads to misunderstanding, and because other people have a fallacy in the application of their argument, that therefore means that what I believe is consistent with the scriptures.

However, I think Candice’s point is a good observation about our culture…not in our view of marriage, but in our view of idolatry. Idolatry, yes even of prayer, can, indeed, be a problem. If you trust in your praying to save an unsaved family member, or in your praying to heal an unsaved family member rather than the God to whom you are praying to save an unsaved family member, then you are engaging in idolatry. If you do not believe that God has the right to punish an unsaved family member in hell for their sins, or to take the life of your friend with cancer, just simply because you prayed, then you are, indeed, engaging in idolatry. It is the same thing with carrier pursuits and hobbies. When, in the pursuit of your carrier, or in pursuit of a particular hobby, you neglect the things of God, you are, indeed, making these things an idol. While this caution is something that is not urged in these areas, it is something that must be urged in these areas, and the fact that is not shows that our culture really does not care about idolatry today.

We live in a day in age where the breaking of the first four commandments occurs on a regular basis. Just walk around a typical shopping mall this Sunday, and you will see what I mean. Is the commandment about the Sabbath the only thing that is being broken? Look at all of the people who complain because they have to have what they want right now. Look at how many people get nasty when things don’t go their way, and use the name of God and Jesus in vain. Look at how many people openly walk around with symbols of paganism around their neck, and pierced into their body. Go into the bookstore, and look at the books on Hinduism and Buddhism that talk about the use of statues. The first four commandments are things which are broken all around us. Are we really meaning to suggest that this has had no effect on the church? The purity of worship is a grave concern of mine. Worship is so man-centered today rather than God-centered in most churches, that you wonder if it is man or God that is being worshipped!!!!!! The fact that churches have become more of a self-help program than true Biblical teaching should be evidence of the fact that these ideas have, indeed, infiltrated our church. How many people switch churches like most of us change dirty socks? No, we are living in a culture of idolatry, and we must caution people to be careful in all these areas, just as they are careful in their pursuit of marriage.

Furthermore, I think that, in many instances, we can say that it is not true that we do not give attention to these things as idols. For instance, consider carriers. I have seen a good many movies about a father who is never home because he is the owner of a major business. His children basically grow up without a father, and the whole movie is about the damage that this does to his children, and the father coming to regret the fact that he didn’t spend more time with his children. How is this not making your carrier pursuit an idol? Of course, most of these movies were on family stations that were, in fact, run by Christians. Not only that, but why is it that we so oppose the word-faith movement? We so oppose it because it makes an idol out of faith. I heard one critic of word-faith movement say that it is faith in faith, rather than faith in God. The more Christian the society the more likely it is going to be to take precautions against making these things an idol.

So, in all of this, Candice has not escaped the fact that many women today do make marriage an idol. I can’t tell you how many letters I have gotten from women who, upon reading Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken, and Candice Watters have tried to convince their churches, and when they cannot do it, they end up leaving that church for the Roman Catholic Church. How is this not making marriage an idol? Is this text not saying that my marital state is more important than the gospel of Jesus Christ? What you are in essence saying is that it is more important to me to be married than to be obedient in marrying a man who believes in the true gospel of Jesus Christ rather than a man who believes in a false gospel. Also, it is saying that the truth of the gospel doesn’t really matter. It is not, really, a dividing line between one who is truly a believer, and one who is not truly a believer. It is just fine to join a church who tries to add your merit, the merit of Mary and the saints, and the suffering of purification in purgatory to the sufficient, once for all sacrifice of Christ for salvation, even though the scriptures say that the only way in which a man is justified is through the merit of Jesus Christ alone, and say that anyone who denies that is eternally condemned [Galatians 1:6-9]? Let us also not forget about the idolatrous adoration of the host in the mass, the veneration of saints, angels, and images, and the denial of sola scriptura that we can throw in there. You might say that the Roman church actually honors marriage. Consider the perpetual virginity of Mary, the celibate sacramental priesthood, and the pornocracy and see if the Roman Catholic Church really does honor marriage. The only way to honor marriage is to teach what the Bible says about it. These things are grossly unbiblical.

I remember reading a review of Debbie Maken’s book on Amazon.com of a woman who, upon not being able to convince her church of these ideas, ended up leaving that church for a liberal, mainstream protestant church. Apparently, since liberals can be intimidated easily, as they often are with Islam, she was able to convince these people. However, today she does not believe in inerrancy, and neither does her husband. Now, all of the sudden, marriage is even more important than the truth of the scriptures. It is just fine to believe that the scriptures contain falsehoods, so long as I get my spouse.

What about even Debbie Maken herself, whose book is filled with some of the most sexist comments towards single men I have ever seen. In other words, it is simply fine to use that kind of language, so that women can get their spouse, even though the Bible is completely against it [2 Timothy 2:24-26]. Yet, I have run into women who use even more nasty language than what I have encountered from the King James Only folks in order to try to shame men into marrying them. This type of behavior is so contrary to the Bible, and yet, women are willing to do it in service to marriage.

Not only that, but the same blog that tried to argue that “the gift of singleness is dead” has also been urging Christian women to go outside the church to find “Christian men outside of the church,” which, of course, is an oxymoron. God tells us in his word that we are not to forsake the assembly of ourselves together [Hebrews 10:24-25]. A person who willfully rebels against that commandment of God on a consistent basis is not a Christian. The scripture also says that we are to obey our elders and submit to them [1 Peter 5:5]. How can a person do that if they are not a part of a local church? Hence, what we have here is encouragement to marry unbelievers, since there are no believers outside of the Christian church. Hence, we have encouragement to disobey God, again, all in service to getting married.

Again, I have to ask. How are these things not “making marriage an idol?” The commandments of God against believing false gospels, the sufficiency of the scriptures, commandments against physical idolatry [in Roman Catholicism], the truth of the scriptures [denied by liberalism], wholesome talk, and obedience to the commandment of God about the church, and not marrying unbelievers are all lowered in importance far below marriage. Marriage is so important that you can disobey God in any of these areas so long as you get your spouse. These things go far beyond simple loathing the fact that you do not have a spouse. Even that would be idolatry, as I mentioned above. However, these things are much more blatant and gross examples of idolatry than simply loathing a spouse.

If Candice does not believe this stuff is going on, she is just simply sticking her head in the sand. These people need to be rebuked for these horrid examples of idolatry, and called back to pursue marriage in a way that is God honoring, and God glorifying. The fact that Candice Watters quotes Debbie Maken in her book, and even recommends her book in the “recommended reading” section is not helping the afore mentioned attitudes. Yes, I believe what I said earlier that this idolatry is simply reflecting the idolatry of our culture. We need to be wary of this sin in all areas, including this area.

Candice writes:

But can we really make marriage an idol in our postmarriage culture? Not in the way that’s often implied. Where we most often sin in our desire for marriage is not worshiping marriage itself, but in doubting God’s ability to bring it about [p.48].

Candice further explains what she means later on in her book:

It’s not that I disbelieved God could bring me a mate-I just didn’t think He would. Still my heart longed to be married. And on it went. Till Mary Morken helped me to see my prayers for what they were: faithless requests for something I wasn’t even sure it was OK to want [pgs. 146-147].

The reason why I have addressed the topics of marriage as an idol and God’s sovereignty together is because they go together. As a Calvinist, I don’t doubt God’s ability to bring marriage about. I doubt his willingness to do so just because we desire it. God is under no obligation whatsoever to give us a spouse just because we desire to have one. He is the king of our lives, and he can say no to our request for a spouse anytime he wants to do so. I have always asked the question, “Can God say no to your request for a spouse such that you are single for the rest of your life?” The most often answer I get is “no.” That is where I believe the problem lies. If God wants you to be single for the rest of your life, you will be single for the rest of your life no matter how much you “Get Serious about Getting Married” or “Help it Happen.” Not only that, but, if he does decide to give you a spouse, God will cause it to happen exactly when he wants it to happen. You might say that, earlier in your life you didn’t do things that are conducive to marriage. I would say that God ordained that as well. As the Westminster Confession says, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. I will get into this more in the section on God’s sovereignty, but for right now, we need to understand that God decrees whether or not we will search for a spouse, and whether or not that search will be successful.

For some reason, Candice seems to think that if you say that God is free to give a spouse to whomever he wants, you are simply making “faithless requests for something you aren’t even sure is OK to want.” However, unfortunately, she never describes the logic that Mary Morken used to convince her of this. How is it somehow self-contradictory to say that a desire for something is good, but we need to trust that God knows what his best for our lives, and he will cause our search to be successful if he so desires? It sounds to me that this is much more true faith in God, because we can trust him that, if he says “no” to our request for a spouse, he has done so for a good reason. However, I can’t avoid the conclusion that Candice’s position must ultimately end in saying that God could never have a good reason for saying “no” to a person’s request for a spouse so long as they do the things suggested by herself, Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler and others. As long as we believe that marriage is necessary us as individuals, one wonders if we have faith in marriage, or faith in God.

Candice continues:

That some would make women doubt the rightness of desiring marriage shouldn’t surprise us. Paul told us it would happen. He wrote:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

(1 Timothy 4:1-5 NASB)

Again, this is a canard. No one has said that desiring marriage is not right. What we have said is that the desire for marriage is not more important than the commandments of God, and, if it becomes so important to you that you neglect other aspects of the Christian life, disobey God’s commandments, and engage in worry [all things forbidden by the scriptures] you are engaging in idolatry. I think anyone can see that. I hope that no one would ever say that when you do those things in an effort to find a spouse, it is just fine.

Candice then goes on to say that “the ‘marriage as idol’ warning prevents many young women from gratefully sharing in what God has created as good” [p.49]. How does it do that? How does wanting your pursuit of something good to be pure necessarily stop a person from actually pursuing it? Again, there is no logical connection whatsoever here.

Now, the reason why I have addressed Candice’s usage of scripture before this is because it is so important to show that this position has no scriptural foundation. We have just seen Candice engage in two logical fallacies, make a statement that is a total canard, and the give us a non sequitor. All in all, Candice has not addressed the argument at all. I almost wonder if she knows that, because tries to go back to scripture to give her some foundation. She writes:

Paul said, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Not only is it unlikely that a godly woman’s desire for a biblical marriage would become an idol, biblical marriage is the antidote to much of the idolatry-“sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed”-that plagues our culture. And it is a plague, and epidemic [p.50].

This is why it is so important to understand what is happening in Genesis 3:15-17, and also why it is important to understand why it is highly unlikely that this is what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:2. Marriage cannot be the antidote to much idolatry, because it was corrupted by our idolatry in the fall. Where do you think that the competition between the man and the woman where a woman will deny her husband sexual relations, and run off and commit adultery and divorce him comes from? It comes from the very heart of the fall itself in Genesis 3:16, and the sin with which mankind has tainted the marriage relationship. How can such a situation be an “antidote to much of the idolatry…that plagues our culture?” In fact, if the sin problem is not dealt with by the blood of Christ, the woman or the man will take those same sins right into marriage. Now, I am not saying that the problem must be totally dealt with before marriage, but there must always be that battle to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ. It is this that is the only antidote to the idolatries that Candice mentioned. The only antidote to the idolatries of sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed that plagues our culture is the shed blood of Jesus Christ which is the only thing upon which my sanctification is based. It is the only reason why any believer struggles day in and day out to deny himself.

However, someone might say, “Yes, but doesn’t God also use means to sanctify us?” Yes, he does. However, if you think about it, the Bible never anywhere says that God works through marriage to sanctify us. The only marriage which sanctifies us is our union with Christ. The idea that marriage is a means of grace is something that is held by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches alone, and if people who believe this must become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox in order to believe it, then so be it.

You might say, “But I have grown so much going through the things I have gone through in marriage!” I reply. Yes, and others have gone through those same struggles and have left the faith altogether. The key is that the person must be regenerated, and thus be willing to apply the word of God to those situations. Then, they will be sanctified. Thus, it is not marriage that is sanctifying, but it is the word of God which is sanctifying them! Our marriages here on earth have absolutely positively nothing whatsoever to do with our sanctification or our salvation. The only thing upon which my sanctification is founded is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is only because Christ shed his blood for me two thousand years ago on the cross of Calvary that I will be with him for all eternity. I bring nothing in my hands for my own salvation, including my future marriage.

Marriage and the Sovereignty of God

I really wonder why it is that Tim Challies has been giving Albert Mohler, Candice Watters, and Debbie Maken his support in his reviews of their books and writings on this topic. Tim is reformed, as far as I know, and thus, he, like me, is a monergist. He likewise believes that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. It is difficult then, in light of chapter 4 of Candice’s book which explains the whole anatomy of how one gets to marriage, to understand why he would put his endorsement upon this book. This chapter is synergistic throughout. It very clearly makes what happens in this world partially dependent on man, and partially dependent on God.

Such is simply not hard to prove. It starts from the very beginning of the chapter. She tells a story about a friend of hers named Amy. Here is what it says:

Amy was still recovering, but she was making progress. Only recently unattached against, she was at our house with some of her single friends talking about how she viewed her failed romance; the one she had thought would end, not with a breakup, but a proposal. “It was a roller-coaster ride,” she said. “But now I can look back and see God’s hand in each twist and turn. I believe He wanted me to go through all that to learn some things.” Amy is a devout believer. But here she was, rationalizing a relationship that left her feeling jerked around and hurth, with no marriage to show for it. It’s like she was casting God in her efforts to get married as some kind of cosmic puzzle maker-constructing a picture too mysterious and grand for her to really understand. Because she couldn’t see the lid to the box with the picture of the completed puzzle, the best she could do was guess, after the fact, what He was to. I believe God plays a much more benevolent role in our journey toward marriage [p. 67]

Now, to any Calvinist, that last statement is a complete denial of the providence of God. According to us, the role that Amy described is a benevolent role, because God is changing us, in his perfect time, into the people he wants us to be. That is the most benevolent thing that God can do for us!!!!! Whether we get married or not, our ultimate goal is to become “holy and blameless” in his sight, and that is the very thing God has predestined us to be [Ephesians 1:4]! Hence, God gives us marriage when he wants to give us marriage.

Candice uses language that sounds like it is compatible with Calvinism, but then she goes on to explain exactly what she means. Take this passage for instance:

God is sovereign. He is all-powerful. He delights in giving good gifts to His children. All that and more is true. But none of it lets me off the hook for the things God has placed under my authority. I’m responsible for a big part of the getting married equation, much more than I realized. This was one of the most important things Mary Morken helped me to see [p.70].

Now, a Calvinist could say “amen” to all of that. However, he believes that God has ordained whether or not you will pursue marriage, as well as whether or not that pursuit will be successful. Hence, even if I have to deal with the fact that I want marriage, but my life has not been consistent with that desire, God has ordained both that my life was inconsistent, and that I would not find a spouse, and he has done so in order to teach me a lesson about the fact that the Bible does, indeed, teach that God uses means. God ordains everything for his good and sovereign purposes.

However, that is not how Candice understands what she has said. Here is how she interprets her own words:

I had a role to play. God was working on my behalf; but for marriage to happen, I needed to cooperate with what He was doing. I had to take responsibility for the things that were under my control by God’s design [p.70].

Now, that statement is a complete denial of everything that a Calvinist believes about the sovereignty of God. Once you start talking about a cooperative effort between man and God that brings about things that happen in this world, you have just flat out denied what reformed theology teaches. This is why it is hard to understand why folks like Tim Challies and Albert Mohler support these ideas. It is absolutely amazing to think that Albert Mohler wrote the forward to a book that denies the very reformed doctrine of God’s providence.

I must keep hammering this home. Candice writes the following:

We have the ability to undermine the good things God is trying to do on our behalf [p.71].

Again, how is this statement true in a reformed belief system? Calvinists believe that what ever God wants to do, he does [Daniel 4:35]. Psalm 135:6 repeats this. Psalm 115:3 says that the Lord does as he pleases. In Job 42:2, Job says that no purpose of the Lord can be thwarted. Now, let me ask all of the Calvinists out there, in the light of all of these passages, is it true that we have the ability to undermine the good things God is trying to do on our behalf? It sounds to me like these passages teach us that if God is trying to do it, he will do it because he does whatever he pleases, and no purpose of his can be thwarted!!!!!

Women who are appropriately waiting for guys to initiate still have plenty of things to do-as well as things to stop doing-to help marriage happen; all the while trusting God to play His part [pgs. 71-72].

Again, we have the synergistic cooperation between man and God to bring things about in this world.

Women must do all they can to prepare. Then we can trust God for the rest, knowing we’ve been faithful to do our part [p.77].

Again, I can’t figure out how it is that one Calvinist can write the forward to this book, and another can endorse it when you have a flat out denial of the very reformed belief in divine providence in describing the very anatomy of how one gets married!!!!!!!

Yes, I know Candice uses reformed language such as “means,” but, apparently, according to these texts, she suggests God is obligated to use those means. He just simply is not. Many times God will ordain that a woman will desire a spouse, and they say “no” to their prayers and pursuit of a spouse is so he can teach them to stop trusting in marriage and start trusting only in him. Not only that, but saying that God works through means is not the same thing as saying that God has also ordained those means. The Westminster Confession of Faith states both. As I said, we must remember that Albert Mohler wrote the forward to this book, and Tim Challies has endorsed it. Again, this is simply unbelievable.

Candice keeps on hammering home the point that there are consequences to our actions. To that I agree. However, let me ask a simple question. Are those consequences to those actions meaningless? Are you willing to tell a girl who has an STD or a crisis pregnancy that all of those things are totally pointless? Indeed, it may have been those things which brought the girl back to repentance in the first place! Yes, even the consequences of our sin work together for good. Paul says that “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” Does God only cause our righteous actions to work together for our good, or does he not also ordain our sin for our own good? We must think about this. We do have consequences which we must certainly face for the things that we do. No question about it. However, it is often times these very consequences that bring us back to living a life that is honoring and pleasing to God. We can very often be used of God, as many women have in these situations, to warn other men and women about the dangers of premarital sexual relations. Yet, are not these ends good? Indeed they are.

Candice also talks about how, in trusting God, we are to be active. She really tries to hammer home the fact that God’s sovereignty does not negate our responsibility. True enough. However, that does not mean that, because we have responsibility, that it is therefore a cooperative effort, and that we can undermine the good things God is trying to do on our behalf. Such is totally irrational. God ordains both whether or not we will “play our part,” and, if we “play our part” whether or not it will be successful. He is ultimately in control.

This concludes part II of my responses to Candice Watters.

2008-06-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

Responses to Candice Watters’ Book Part I

Now that I have gotten out of school for the summer, I have had more time to look at Candice Watters’ book Get Married, What Women Can Do to Help It Happen [Moody Publishers. Chicago, Illinois. 2008]. In this series, I will be responding to some of the arguments she puts forth in her book.

Now, you might be saying, “But you have already dealt with this issue at length on your blog.” Yes, I know. There are two reasons why I am doing this. First of all, Boundless has been, by far, the ones with whom I have had the most fruitful dialogue. They are not like Debbie Maken and the other cultic radicals who run around accusing the other side of lying, and getting into all kinds of personal attacks without any justification. Hence, I believe the most fruitful discussion can be found in dealing with people who are actually concerned for truth, and especially dealing with what one of their authors, especially in her published works, has to say. Also, Candice Watters has attempted to respond to some of the things I have said on my blog in this book. Although I am not mentioned by name, some things I have said, like wanting women to be careful of making marriage an idol, are addressed in the book. I will get to that as time allows.

Also, my views have changed. I have not had a whole lot of time to post about it because I have been so busy during the school year. I have had the great privilege of studying under several fabulous professors here at Trinity, and, in fact, even got a chance to take a class on interpreting the book of Genesis with Dr. Richard Averbeck. The more information that I got from studying, the more I realized that some of my views were not as accurate as they could be. Hence, while I still reject what Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken, and Candice Watters are saying, the arguments I would use against their position have changed. Thus, I hope to use this review as a means to present my new position on several of these topics.

I think that, also, Candice's book does not read as someone who is anti-male and thinks ill of anyone who would disagree with her. There is much redeeming value to this book. There are many things women can do as a means to marriage, and Candice lays some of these things out very well. While many of the ideas of Debbie Maken's book are still there, all of the anti-male vitriol is gone. She is clearly writing honestly, and thus, I believe she deserves an honest answer. With this, I begin my review of her book.

There are four texts upon which Candice seems to focus her scriptural presentation. They are Genesis 2:18, Genesis 1:28, Proverbs 18:22, and 1 Corinthians 7:2. I will address her interpretation of these passages in this part of my review.

Genesis 2:18

First of all, Candice, like Albert Mohler and Debbie Maken before her, uses Genesis 2:18 to support her position. The text reads:

Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

On pages 21-22 of her book, Candice says:

Still, God looked down on Adam and said something out of synch with everything else He had said about His creation. At the end of each day of creation, “God saw that it was good.” But about Adam, God said, “It is not good.” What wasn’t good? Genesis 2:18a tells us, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’”

What did God meant [sic] by “not good”? Del Tackett, president of the Focus on the Family Institute, explains it wasn’t a qualitative statement-as if God created a three-legged dog and said, “This is not good.” He says it was an ethical statement of badness, as in “man should not be alone.” Why was it not good for man to be alone? Because Adam was created in God’s image. He was made to reflect God in every aspect of his existence. From all eternity God was in perfect relationship within the Trinity as Father Son, and Holy Spirit. For Adam to accurately reflect being made in the image of God, he could not remain alone; he had to be in relationship. Adam alone contradicted God’s nature.

I have provided an extended quotation here to make certain that I am not misrepresented Candice. Notice, Candice says that the phrase “not good” is describing Adam, and goes on to equate Adam’s aloneness as applying to his very nature as created in the image of God. Debbie Maken and others do this as well. The idea is that there is something wrong with a man who is alone such that it leads to pornography addictions, irresponsibility, and just plain immature behavior. For women, it is said that it can often lead to depression. I don’t know if Candice would want to go that far, but the point here is that Candice seems to be saying that there is something inherently wrong with the man himself because he was alone. This is the first problem I see with her interpretation.

In actuality, the Hebrew text is clearly constructed in such a way so as to avoid this conclusion. This is something Dr. Averbeck pointed out to me. He asked me to take a careful look at the text, and wow, what a careful second look at a text will do!!!!!!!! First of all, in order to understand what is going on in this text, I will have to explain what a “gerund” is. A gerund is the usage of a verb as a noun. Gerunds can be recognized in that they will usually have an –ing ending. Here is an example: “Running is good for your health.” Let us ask ourselves. What is the subject of that sentence? It is most clearly “running.” However, “running” is a verb! This is an example of a gerund since it is clear that a verb is used as a noun. There is a form, in Hebrew, called the “infinitive construct” that can function in this fashion, usually as the subject of a sentence [Waltke-O’Connor p. 601; Jouon-Muraoka §124b, GKC §114a]. This is what is found in Genesis 2:18. Here is the text, in Hebrew, with and English translation following it to show you exactly how the text is constructed:

[alone] AD+b;l. [the man] ~d"Þa'h'( [the being of] tAyðh/ [(is) not good] bAj±-al{

For those who do not know Hebrew, remember that Hebrew is read from right to left. Also, this construction is kind of awkward in that the predicate is placed first [(is) not good]. This kind of a construction is usually used for emphasis. What is being emphasized is what is transferred out front, namely, the [(is) not good]

The Hebrew term tAyh/ is an infinitive construct of the Hebrew verb hy"h' which means “to be.” All of the Hebrew grammars I cited before [which, incidentally, are the most popular Hebrew grammars in print], Waltke-O’Connor, Jouon-Muraoka, and GKC, mention this passage as a clear example of this gerundive usage of the infinitive construct as the subject of the sentence. Thus, when we add an –ing to “be” we get “being.” Now, this “gerund” is in construct with the noun following it ~d"a'h' [the man] and is thus, literally, “the being of the man.” Now, I will not get into all of the parts of ADb;l as it is not relevant to the meaning of the text. Suffice it to say that the term means “alone.” Hence, when we put our translation together, we have “the being of the man alone is not good.” Indeed, this is how Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor translate the passage in their grammar [p.601]. Also, GKC has a similar translation, “not good is the being of man in his separation” [GKC §114a (a)].

Thus, what is not good is not the man when he is alone. The easiest way to say that in Hebrew is to leave out the tAyh/. Thus, the text would read, “The alone man is not good.” However, the tAyh/ is clearly there in the text, and thus, the text is not saying that an unmarried man is not good. What is not good is his situation of being alone. That is extremely important to recognize. That totally refutes any notion of marriage as a “need” for an individual person. Such is simply not in the text, and, by the clear usage of tAyh/, is being avoided by Moses.

The reason why this mistake is often made in relationship books is because of the fact that the English phrase “the being of the man alone is not good” is awkward English [hence, translations are not going to translate it that way], and the phrase “It is not good for the man to be alone,” while much better English, is much more ambiguous [hence, most translations will translate it this way, but it can lead to some confusion]. The phrase “It is not good for the man to be alone” can mean both “the being of the man alone is not good,” and “the man alone is not good.”

However, you might be saying, “However, doesn’t that leave you with saying that singleness is “not good?” This is something Candice, though following her old line of thinking, takes advantage of, in responding to the common interpretation of this phrase that the word “alone” here simply refers to “community:”

And so God said, “I will make a helper suitable for him.” The story continues. “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a singles group, and he brought it to the man to alleviate his lonliness.”

Of course, that’s not what the text says. Why is it then that I so often hear this Scripture used to explain our need for just about every kind of relational structure except marriage? While it’s true that God goes on to create other social structures to meet certain human needs (such as civil government and the church), He started with marriage. His specific and immediate solution for Adam’s problem was a wife [p.22].

Candice’s logic is very clear. She might say to us:

Adam’s situation of singleness is not good.
God solved the situation by bringing him a spouse.
Therefore, we should go out and find a spouse, and it will solve our situational problem of singleness.

This is one of the texts on which I have changed my views. I used to hold the view that Candice attacks here, namely, that this was talking about our need for community. In fact, this was the view that was even expressed in the textbook for our class! However, Dr. Averbeck actually won me over to his position at the end of last semester.

One of the interesting things that I have found in studying at an Evangelical institution such as Trinity is that the more conservative scholars have taken the academic methodology of a man by the name of Robert Alter. Now, I need to make it clear; Robert Alter is an unbeliever. He views narratives such as Genesis as literary fiction. Thus, he is not a Christian. Because of this, I have some real concerns about Evangelical scholarship using him to try to attack Welhausen. However, one of the things that is really interesting about Alter is that he is not only a professor of Biblical Hebrew, but also a professor of literature. Thus, his work was to see if he could find any literary structures in Biblical narratives and Biblical poetry. He believes he has been successful, and his work has started an entire movement within Old Testament scholarship. The Welhausians have been fighting his movement on this ever since. I think that both Evangelicals and Welhausians have had a gross overreaction to Alter, but that is the topic for another blog post. Suffice it here to say that I believe that Alter’s major contribution to Old Testament studies is exegetical, not polemical. Since we as Christians, like Robert Alter, do view the Old Testament narratives as literary wholes, we can use what Alter has said.

Viewing the text as a literary whole is very difficult. It means you must always be reading ahead, and keeping in mind what has come before. This is why Dr. Averbeck, in our exegesis class, made the exegetical work for the text we were going to discuss in class due as well as the exegetical work for the text we were going to discuss the next class session due at the same time. While that was hard, you can see value to it in dealing with this issue. In the next chapter, Adam and Eve sin, and you, of course, have the promise of deliverance in the seed of the woman. However, there is quite the significance to the punishment of woman. Consider the following:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

What is interesting about this text is the allusions back to the earlier chapters in Genesis. The text starts out with “I will surely multiply.” Here, you have a regular 1cs hiphil imperfect of hb'r' which simply means “I will multiply.” However, before it, you have what is called an “infinitive absolute” [also in the hiphil stem]. This is the most common usage of the infinitive absolute, namely, using the infinitive absolute of the same verb as the main verb to emphasize the main verb [Waltke-O’Connor pgs.584-588]. Hence, most translations read, “I will surely multiply,” or, “greatly will I multiply.” This is significant because the only other places where this verb hb'r' has been used before this is in Genesis 1:22 and 1:28, where we find the commands “Be fruitful and multiply.” Both of these contexts are talking about child bearing, and both use the same verb, and hence, most scholars will accept that this is a parallel. It is interesting that, unlike Genesis 1:22 and 28, what is multiplied is not children, but the pain in having children! Hence, what this text is telling us is that because of the fall, now, one of the original blessings of creation, namely, the birthing of children has been corrupted by sin. Now, we need to make a distinction. I am not saying that having children is something that is corrupt. Having children is, indeed, something that is good. However, the giving birth to children has been corrupted by our sin. Thus, having children, though good in and of itself, has been corrupted by our sin.

That is why the next phrase is so important. “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Most people have noticed a parallel to God’s warning to Cain in the next chapter in Genesis 4:7, “It’s [sin’s] desire is for you, but you must rule over it” [translation mine]. Some have tried to make a parallel to Songs of Songs 7:11 [Eng. 7:10], but the results have been less than convincing. Obviously, given this parallel to Genesis 4:7, we can see that the desire here is not something good. Apparently, what this text is saying is that the desire will be to conquer her husband. However, he will go on being the head of her just as creation intended. Some have suggested that the Hebrew term lv;m' indicates some kind of tyrannical rule. However, that is not likely. The term does not, in and of itself, have that connotation. For instance, it is the same term used in Genesis 1:16 where it says that God created the sun “to rule over the day.” Suffice it to say that, if this is, indeed, a tyrannical rule, one must argue for this contextually, and not lexically as the term has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

However we take the term lv;m' here, it is very clear that this text is telling us that, as punishment for sin, marriage will now have the problem of the woman’s desire to dominate the man, and there will be strife. However, what is interesting to note is that this also points us back to Genesis 2:18! The woman was created to be a “helper” for man. However, now, as a result of the fall, her desire is to usurp her husband’s authority, which is the exact opposite of being a “helper.” Hence, because of the corruption of sin, woman does not function as a helper, and thus, does not function as the solution to Adam’s situation that she once was. Hence, we can say that, not only was child bearing corrupted by sin, but also the marriage relationship itself was corrupted by sin. Now, again, we need to clarify. I am not saying that there is anything inherently corrupt with a marriage relationship, or about wives in and of themselves. Both of them, as God created them, are good. However, this text forces us to the harsh reality that the good marriage relationship has been corrupted by our sin.

The implications of this are extremely significant. I don’t know of anyone who would disagree with me that the things spoken of in this text are “not good.” Therefore, what this means is that just as it is “not good for the man to be alone,” it is also “not good for the man to marry.” In other words, part of the punishment for man is to put him in a catch-22. If he is single, his situation will be “not good.” If he is married, his situation will be “not good.”

Yes, I am well aware of the fact that we are to honor marriage, and that a wife is something that is good. There is no question about it. However, when we speak of these things, we are speaking of the inherent nature of marriage itself, not a marriage relationship that has been corrupted by sin. For instance, I like to eat sandwiches. I could easily say that sandwiches are good. However, does that mean that, if I refuse to eat a sandwich that has been dropped in a mud puddle, that, therefore, I am saying that sandwiches are not good? No, of course not. In the same way, marriage is good in and of itself, but the situation of marriage+sin is not good. What has made being married not good is something that has been added from the outside, and not something that is inherent in the institution of marriage itself.

My conclusions are not something new. In fact, here is a scholar who is willing to say that marriage and children are life’s greatest blessing. Yet, he says that, “In those moments of life’s greatest blessing-marriage and children-the woman would serve most clearly the painful consequences of her rebellion from God" [Sailhamer, J. p.56]

Likewise, C. John Collins states that, “Whereas procreation had previously been the sphere of blessing, now it is an area of pain and danger” [Collins, p.169].

About the only response I can think of to this is to say that a woman does not have to usurp her husband’s authority. She can, at times, be willing to submit to her husband either because of God’s common grace, or because she is a Christian. However, the problem with this argument is that, even though she may, at times, be willing to submit to her husband, she cannot do it all of time, and, even if she has done it once [something I would say is impossible], she has created a situation that is, “not good.” Not only that, but if a woman just simply desires to usurp the authority of her husband, but does not do so, how is that not sin? Because of this, even if she does not do it all of the time, this text describes the struggle of the believing woman, and the strife that is caused to deny her old nature that she will have throughout her life. It is this strife, coupled with the strife she will have with her husband when she actually does do it that will make being married “not good.”

Not only that, but it could be said that any sin against your husband is usurping his authority. When you do what is evil to your husband, you are showing that you do not have respect for the authority structure that God has set up above you. Because of that, you are, not only usurping God’s authority, but your husband’s authority as well. Thus, a person using this argument would have to argue that they will never sin against their husband.

I think we can see the pelagian character of this argument. If anyone is going to get out of this argument, then they are going to have to deny that the fall of Adam and Eve has any impact on their life, and on their relationship to their spouse. Thus, because of sin, I would say that it can be said from Genesis 3:16 that “It is not good for the man to marry.”

Now, here are a few other observations about this text. First of all, this text is most definitely militating against the idea that marriage is the solution to sin. Marriage has been corrupted by sin, and thus, marriage cannot save anyone from their sin. I believe that this was intentionally done to prevent Adam and Eve from looking to their relationship with each other as the salvation from their sins, and to only look to the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent.

I suppose one could grant what I am saying and say, “Yes, it is true that it is not good for the man to marry, but, that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t marry. I mean, human life itself is likewise tainted by sin. However, does that mean that we should not live the life because it will be tainted by sin?” Of course, to that I agree. However, now this argument can be turned back on its proponent. We can now say that, just because it is not good for the man to be alone, does not mean that he shouldn’t be alone. The man may decide that he prefers the struggles of singleness to the struggles of marriage.

Genesis 1:28 and the Creation Mandate

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Candice Watters writes the following on pages 23-24 of her book:

Only after God created male and female does Genesis say, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” And to Adam and Eve jointly, God gives the marching orders for mankind: “God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living things that moves on the earth’” (v.28 NASB). It wasn’t just for companionship that Adam needed Eve. God had work for them to do. And for this work, Adam needed a helpmate. In a marriage that made them “one flesh,” Eve complemented Adam’s abilities and made it possible for the two of them to be fruitful, to subdue the earth, and to take dominion. Theologians call this the “creation mandate.” Dr. Morken explained that within the command for fruitfulness and dominion is the framework for everything we are called to do in our work and families. When challenged that this was only God’s way of “jump starting” the world, Dr. Morken answered boldly, “The creation mandate has never been rescinded. Never in Scripture did God say, ‘OK, I have enough people now. You can stop getting married and having babies.’”

God continues to call His people to this work in order to accomplish His purposes. In Isaiah 45, The prophet reinforces the creation mandate, writing,

Woe to him who says to his father, “What have you begotten?” or to his mother, “What have you brought to birth?” This is what the Lord says-the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heaves; I marshaled their starry hosts. For this is what the Lord says-He who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other” Isaiah 45:10-12, 18.

Now Candice raises several issues with regards to Genesis 1:28. We should first of all deal with her interpretation of Isaiah 45 to see if it has any relevance to the “creation mandate.” It is difficult to say what Candice thinks is relevant in Isaiah 45:10-12, 18. I can only come up with two possibilities. That it is the saying to one’s father, “What have you begotten,” etc. or the statement “he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” She could be trying to take either possibility or both possibilities. Hence, I will have to deal with both of these as possible parallels to Genesis 1:28.

Candice’s best case for a parallel is the first one. However, even then, it is difficult contextually. Consider, first of all, the context provided by verses 5-8:

Isaiah 45:5-8 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; ⁶ That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, ⁷ The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. ⁸ "Drip down, O heavens, from above, And let the clouds pour down righteousness; Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit, And righteousness spring up with it. I, the LORD, have created it.

Notice that the context is not about any kind of Creation mandate for man. Quite the contrary. The text is talking about God’s dominion, not our dominion. The text is focusing upon the sovereignty of almighty God. He is so far above us in power and authority, that he even causes well-being as well as calamity! This is the first problem with a parallel to Genesis 1:28.

Secondly, there seems to be a twofold woe in the text of which verse 10 is the second part. Here are verses 9-10, and you will see what I mean:

Isaiah 45:9-10

"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '?

¹⁰ "Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to a woman, 'To what are you giving birth?'"

Notice how, after asserting the sovereignty of God above man, now we have a two part woe upon the person who would quarrel with his maker, of which verse 10 is the second part. Hence, it appears that, saying to the potter “what are you doing?” or something you are making saying “he has no hands” is parallel to a infant saying to his father while he is being born “what are you begetting,” or to his mother “what are you giving birth.” Hence, no one can complain about their mother and father giving birth to them, in the same way that no one would dare complain to their creator about the way they are being formed. Hence, the text has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of mandate to “Be fruitful and multiply,” but rather, it is pointing out the silliness of an infant being born who would complain to their parents about their being born.

Now, the final attempt that could be made is to refer to verse 18, and say that the phrase “he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited” means that God created the world to be inhabited, and, therefore, we are still under obligation to inhabit it. I will point out later that, if this is understood in a covenantal fashion, I can agree with this. However, this would not be a good text to use to prove that. One might also try to use this text to say that God created every square inch of this earth to be inhabited, and thus, we need to have children until we fill every square inch. That is a gross misunderstanding of, not only this text, but also Genesis 1:28.

This text does, indeed, reference creation, but it references creation long before Adam and Eve ever came onto the scene. The Hebrew term for “empty” is Whto the same word found in the famous word pair of Genesis 1:2: Whbow" Whto “formless and void.” This will become important later on.

This is a beautiful text in that we reflect upon various aspects of the nature of God and his creation:

18. For

a. thus saith the Lord.

b. The one who created the heavens

c. He is God

d. The one who formed the earth, and made it.

e. He established it.

f. He did not create it formless.

g. He formed it to be inhabited.

h. “I am the Lord, and there is no other. [translation mine]

The beauty of this text is in the fact that this is practically all an introduction to the speech of the Lord in 18h, and yet, it is so very rich in meaning. The first section is what is called a quatrain, that is, a unit of four colons or lines of poetry. It is in the form of ABAB. Notice:

A- thus saith the Lord.

B- The one who created the heavens

A- He is God

B- The one who formed the earth, and made it.

This text is set apart by the use of substantive participles to describe the Lord. Obviously, in this text, the two A’s go together, and the two B’s go together. Thus, this text is emphasizing the fact that the God who is speaking is the very creator of the heavens and the earth. It is not just any old pagan God who is speaking, it is yhwh himself, the one who created the heavens and the earth!

The next section is a tricolon, that is, three lines of poetry, and it is pretty amazing how this text is constructed. It is in the form A-B-B’:

A- He established it.

B- He did not create it formless.

B’- He formed it to be inhabited.

Notice how the first colon connects it back to the previous quatrain, although with a totally different construction in the Hebrew. This intimately connects these colons together, and shows us that we are going to be expanding upon the theme of God as creator.

Often times in parallelism, you have a type of parallelism wherein the first sentence or phrase is somewhat ambiguous, and the second sentence or phrase clarifies the ambiguity [Berlin, 96-99]. That is what we have from the first colon to the second colon. The second colon is more specific than the first. It is not just that God created the world, he didn’t create it as the wasteland that it was in Genesis 1:2. He kept on going, and made it the beautiful creation that it is today.

Another type of parallelism is between the second and third line. In this kind of parallelism “the negative transformation is performed on a parallel (i.e. equivalent) sentence” [Berlin, 56]. Other examples of this include Proverbs 3:1 which reads:

My son, do not forget my teaching,

But let your heart keep my commandments;

Proverbs 6:20 is another example:

observe the commandment of your father

And do not forsake the teaching of your mother;

In other words, in this type of parallelism, you say something in a positive way, and then you say that same thing in a negative way. This is very important, because it means that “to be inhabited” is being paralleled with the “formless” that is alluding to Genesis 1:2. Hence, inhabited here is not talking about having so many people that you cover every square inch of the earth, or even having people on every part of the earth. It is referring to the fact that God made this a place in which human beings can live, and not the formless and void wasteland of Genesis 1:2 that is impossible for human life. Thus, even if two people inhabited the earth [as Adam and Eve did], it would fulfill this purpose. Thus, the illusion it not to the creation mandate, but every single creative action of God, in contrast to the “formless and void” of Genesis 1:2. It is not about how many humans are on the earth, but whether or not there are humans on the earth at all!

However, it seems to little to leave this at a simple response. This is all an introduction to the speech of the Lord, and yet, in this short, not even one verse introduction, we have the introduction of yhwh, the distinguishing of him as the true God from the false gods, and a statement about the goodness of yhwh, in that he takes care of his people, and gives them what they need. There is a real artist at work when you can do all of that in a simple introduction to someone’s speech! Think of how many times the introduction to the speech of the Lord is simply “thus saith the Lord.” Now, obviously, there is nothing wrong with that. However, Isaiah, being the beautiful poet that he is, has given us a much more full introduction that moves from the introduction of yhwh, to him as creator (distinguishing him from the false gods), and finally to him as a good Lord who cares for his people. That is especially important in light of the comfort the Lord gives the people of Israel in the verses that follow!

Now, let us return to Genesis 1:28. The main problem with applying this text to individuals is that you cannot read it consistently the whole way through. For instance, if [virtually] every individual is commanded to “be fruitful and multiply,” then is virtually every individual under the obligation to have seven billion children so that they “fill the earth?” Well, of course, no one is going to be willing to say that. However, if you read the first two imperatives as commands to individuals, you must do the same to the third. There is no exegetical warrant whatsoever for a changing of the person to whom the third command is given. It is the very next word in the exact same form as the first two.

The only response I can think of is someone like Albert Mohler saying that he only believes that virtually everyone must be open to having children. He could say that this would harmonize well with this third imperative, since every couple must be open to having that many children, if that were possible [which, it obviously is not]. While this certainly does harmonize well with the third imperative, it does not harmonize well with the fourth. Are we to suggest that we are only to “be open” to ruling over the fish of the sea? Such a view turns the “dominion mandate” into “dominion openness.” Again, the problem with people who take the position of Candice Watters, Debbie Maken, or Albert Mohler using this passage is that they cannot read the text consistently from beginning to end.

Now, there have been some scholars who say that this text no longer applies. I do not agree with that. However, Dr. Morken’s response does not even begin to address the issue. The dominion mandate would no longer apply if, indeed, we “filled the earth.” For instance, proponents of this view will point to passages such as Genesis 6:11 where it is said that the earth was “filled with violence.” It obviously does not mean that there was violence on every square inch of the soil of the world. Augustine is a person who held this perspective, and he said that, it was in the light of this blessing, that there were people all over the world. Now, I could agree with Augustine’s position, but the problem is that, if there are no more children, then the earth is no longer full. Hence, in order to keep the earth full, children must be a vital part of Christian society.

Of course, I would take a totally different interpretation of this passage, as I hold that, as these terms “be fruitful” [hr'p'] and “multiply” [hb'r'] are terms that are consistently used in covenant contexts throughout the Pentateuch, referring to the elect line of the book of Genesis, [Genesis 9:1, 7; 17:2, 6, 20 (spoken of Ishmael in distinction to Isaac); 28:3; 35:11; 48:4], and after this, it is used to refer to the nation of Israel [Genesis 47:27; Exodus 1:7; Leviticus 26:9]. Hence, these terms are very clearly meant to be applied to the covenant as a whole, and not to any one individual in the covenant [unless, as it was in the time of the patriarchs, there was only one individual in the covenant]. Hence, my position is that, the way in which this command is to be fulfilled today, is not by saying that almost every individual must have children, but by saying that every Christian community is under the obligation to raise up a second generation to whom we can pass along the faith. In other words, just as every church must have elders and deacons, every church must have married couples who have children, and bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord with the help of the entirety of the church community.

Thus, I would say that Dr. Morken, as well intentioned as he might be, has applied a text to individuals that simply cannot be applied to individuals. I obviously believe my interpretation fits better with the context of Genesis 1:28, and fits like a glove into my covenant theology. I think that, part of the problem is that we live in such an individualized society, that we think the solution to every problem has to do with individuals. We have even framed the statistics in this fashion, talking about how many children each individual woman needs to produce on average to increase the population. The reality is that, if as much as one third of married couples do not decide to have children, and all the couples that do decide to have children have four children, then you have enough, according to the statistics, to increase the population. Combine that with the fact that, in a lot of reformed churches, you have one family that usually has over ten! Also, combine that with the fact that, later on in life, some couples that had initially decided to not have children, my end up getting pregnant, and that also takes down the number per couple. Not only that, but with all of these children floating around, you are going to need to educate them [both on Sunday and during the week], you are going to need people to watch the children if the mother goes off to work. Add to this the fact that raising children is hard work, and you will need the wise council of other Christians for help. One can see that when the Christian community is “fruitful and multiplies,” it is a whole community effort with the leadership of the parents. That is, I believe, what this text, and the others mentioned are pointing us toward.

Something Found in Proverbs 18:22

Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the LORD.

Candice quotes this text ad infinitum ad nauseum. She also kept on italicizing the word “finds.” I was absolutely perplexed as to why it is that this was being done. Then, I came upon this on pages 63-64 of her book:

It’s one thing to tell a woman to stop looking for a husband and just trust God to bring you one, but to tell a man to stop looking for a wife is a big part of why so many singles who’d like to be married aren’t. To tell a man, “Stop looking for a wife and then she’ll appear” is like telling him to stop studying, stop looking for a job, and stop house hunting in order to get a college degree, land a job, and buy a house. Sentiments like this may be well intentioned and even sound spiritual, but they’re not Biblical. Proverbs 18:22 says, “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord.” To find something-or in this case, someone-requires looking. Marriage is not a thing that’s out looking for people to join. It’s a state to be pursued. Ideally the one doing the pursuing is the man.

Now, I wondered where I had heard that argument before, and, indeed I had, on a comment on my blog. I still stand by what I said on that, but with a few qualifications. First of all, to repeat what I said on that blog, it is totally fallacious to try to use one word to decide a debate. You leave yourself open to all kinds of counter examples, and refutations on the basis of grammar and context.

First of all, the idea that the Hebrew term ac'm' has, in and of itself, some idea of “looking to find” is easily refuted by just a few references to this term in the Hebrew Bible:

Proverbs 6:33 Wounds and disgrace he will find, And his reproach will not be blotted out.

Are we really to suggest that the one who commits adultery is going out looking for disgrace?

Proverbs 20:6 Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, But who can find a trustworthy man?

Is this text really meant to suggest that it is not possible to go out and actively find a trustworthy man, but that it leaves open the possibility of a trustworthy man being “stumbled upon?”

Proverbs 25:16 Have you found honey? Eat only what you need, That you not have it in excess and vomit it.

Again, the clear meaning of this proverb is that, whether we go out and look for honey, or stumble upon it in a nest by the road somewhere, we are only to eat what we need. Again, the artificial distinction found between finding and stumbling upon something takes away the punch of these proverbs.

Genesis 37:32 and they sent the varicolored tunic and brought it to their father and said, "We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son's tunic or not."

Now, obviously, Joseph’s brothers did not mean to tell their father that they went out looking for this tunic! Remember, they are trying to hide that fact that they sold him into slavery.

Genesis 44:8 "Behold, the money which we found in the mouth of our sacks we have brought back to you from the land of Canaan. How then could we steal silver or gold from your lord's house?

This is referring to the fact that Joseph had given orders to restore their money to their sacks of grain, and, in Genesis 42:27, which describes the event to which the brothers are referring, there is a hNEhi clause used showing the great surprise of the brother at seeing his money in his sack. That is hardly someone who went looking for the money in his sack! Yet, the Hebrew term ac'm' is used here.

Now, I write all of this simply to point out that relying on the one term “find” is not only bad hermeneutics, it is also a fallacious argument as the term does not make any lexical distinction between finding by searching, or stumbling upon something. In fact, we use this kind of language in English all of the time. Let us say that a young boy goes out to the field to fly his kite, and while he is running to get the kite in the air, he trips, and when he hits the ground, he sees something shining on the ground next to his face. It turns out to be a gold coin. Now, would it be somehow wrong for this boy to tell his mom when he got home, “Look mom, I found a gold coin in the field today.” Of course not. Hence, you cannot even get this from an English translation.

However, that does not mean that Proverbs 18:22 does not imply some kind of searching. This is where I have changed my views on this text from the time I wrote the response on my blog. I had a class on poetic and prophetic book studies, and I had a little bit of time to study this. It is true that the term itself does not imply some kind of searching, but that does not mean that this kind of searching is not implied in the text. However, that must be argued from the context. A much more sophisticated argument that this is an intentional pursuit is provided by Dr. Bruce Waltke in his commentary on Proverbs [Waltke, Vol 1 p.425; Vol2 p.94]. He argues that this text has parallels to the pursuit of wisdom. For instance, consider Proverbs 8:17:

Proverbs 8:17 "I love those who love me; And those who diligently seek me will find me.

Now, compare that text with Proverbs 8:35 and 18:22:

Proverbs 8:35 "For he who finds me finds life And obtains favor from the LORD.

The parallels between this text and 18:22 are obvious. The word for “find” is exactly the same, the word for “obtain” is exactly the same, and the word for “favor” is exactly the same. Not only that, but the only difference is in the forms of ac'm' and the fact that “what is good” is replaced by “life” here. However, given that they syntax of the first ac'm' in Proverbs 18:22 is awkward anyway, and given that it would be consistent that the book of Proverbs would not want to give life to everyone who is married, such differences are readily understandable.

However, we need to notice the leap in logic that is being displayed here. The problem is that the pursuit here is assumed to be something that is uniquely male. Let me ask a simple question. Where is that in this text? What if I were to define pursuing a wife as “helping marriage happen” [a concept that, as a Calvinist, I believe is totally misidentified]? Obviously, Candice would then have to say that both men and women have to do that, since the title of her book is how women can help make marriage happen. While, upon further study, I have found justification for the idea of pursuit in this passage, where the argument falls apart is in trying to make this something that is uniquely male.

Not only that, where does it say anything about how long this pursuit is to be? Perhaps the pursuit can be something as simple as telling a girl who has said that she would like to start a relationship with you that you would be interested in starting a relationship with her as well. Perhaps it is something as simple as living a life of faith as Boaz did. Either way, the assumption made throughout this book that this is something uniquely male, and somehow connected to initiation of a relationship is totally and completely unwarranted exegetically. This says nothing whatsoever about the initiation of a relationship, but only that no one can sit around and do nothing if the expect a relationship to start. Imagine if a girl says she would like to start a relationship with you, and you say nothing, and ignore her. Will a relationship happen? No, of course not. You must answer her, and this answer is the pursuit and the finding of a wife that is mentioned in this text.

Thus, I would say the emphasis on the text has to do with the goodness of the pursuit, and the goodness of a wife. What it is saying is that, when you find a wife, you have found what is good, and obtained favor from the Lord, and thus, even the pursuit of a wife is something, like the pursuit of wisdom, that is good.

I don’t want to belabor this text, but I would finally like to point out that I think, because of the fact that men are, by nature, more of the “go-getters,” then there will be more instances of men asking women out, rather than women asking men out. When this doesn’t happen, we can see that something is wrong in our society. However, that is no justification for making a blanket statement that it must always be the man who initiates the relationship, as there is simply no Biblical warrant for such a statement.

The “Marriage Imperative”

1 Corinthians 7:2 is one of those texts that is very often quoted by folks in this movement, and Candice Watters is no different. This is another one of those texts upon which Candice relies heavily. I remember that Debbie Maken brought this text up in a dialogue with me.

1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

1 Corinthians 7:2 is one of those texts that is very often quoted by folks in this movement. I remember that Debbie Maken brought this text up in a dialogue with me. Of course, one of the reasons why this text is used so often by Candice Watters is because, according to her, not only does it state that people must marry, but that they must marry to stop sexual immorality.

I have already dealt with that passage here in the context of a response to Candice Watters on the Boundless Blog, and I stand by virtually everything I have said on it. I will repost the comment to which I was responding [in italics], as well as my response:

I would also add that while singles often quote 1 Corinthians 7 in their defense of their "spiritually-superior" unmarried state, Paul didn't just say it's good for the unmarried and widows to stay that way. He also said, "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." (v. 2). This is the most unquoted portion of that passage. And given our present circumstances, I believe it is the most relevant.

And, this text is the most often misused by people who try to say that, because sexual immorality is so rampant, therefore, everyone must get married. That is not Paul's point at all. First of all, notice the structure of verses 2-4

2. ...man...wife...woman...husband.
3. ...husband...wife...wife...husband
4. ...wife...husband...husband...wife

Notice, that verses 2-4 have exactly the same structure, namely, a chiasm. It is in the form of:

A...B...B...A

Thus, most scholars [including Gordon Fee, whom Debbie Maken quotes in her book], will say that verses 2-4 are a unit. However, verses 3-4 are talking about the marital duty of sexual relations. How can this be?

Of course, the simple solution to the problem is that the Greek term echo [to have] can be used as a euphemism for sexual relations. The following texts in the Septuagint and the New Testament are some of the texts mentioned by Gordon Fee as instances in which echo bears this meaning:

Exodus 2:1 There was a certain man of tribe of Levi who took [a wife] from the daughters of Levi, and he had [echo] her. [translation mine]

Deuteronomy 28:30 thou shalt take a wife, and another man shall have [echo] her; thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell in it; thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes of it. [Brenton Translation]

Isaiah 13:16 and they will strike their children in front of them, they will plunder their houses, and they will have [echo] their wives. [translation mine]

Mark 6:18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have [echo] your brother's wife." [NASB]

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has [echo] his father's wife. [NASB]

Thus, the meaning of verse 2 would be "because of sexual immorality, let each man have sexual relations with his own wife, and let each woman have sexual relations with her own husband."

This interpretation would also fit with verse 1. Paul would be admitting that there is some truth to what is said in verse 1 but, because sexual immorality will exist in this life, we are not to refrain from sexual relations with our wives. Indeed, he goes on to say that there is only one case where someone cannot have sexual relations with their wife, and that by an agreement for a period of time so that they can devote themselves to prayer [v.5]. Thus, the text is addressing one topic from verse 1 until verse 5.

There are also some criticisms that can be levied against your interpretation of this passage. First of all, there is a Greek word for "to marry," namely, gameo, and Paul uses that term down in verse 9 in the imperative. It is hard to explain why it is that Paul used the imperative of gameo in verse 9, but not in verse 2. There is no literary reason why he would change, nor is their a contextual reason why he would change.

Also, it would seem, if we take your interpretation, that Paul contradicts himself twice in this passage. First of all, he says that he has no command from the Lord concerning virgins [7:25], and, given your interpretation, this certainly would be a command to virgins. Not only that, but Paul later on commands them not to seek to change their state [7:27]. Now, whether you limit this to the time of the "present distress" or not, you have just made Paul command the virgins in the Corinthian congregation to get married, and yet, to not seek to change their marital status. Such makes Paul utterly self-contradictory.

Not only that, but your interpretation completely disrupts the text of verses 1-7. Verse 2 would be a statement addressed to virgins, verses 3-4 would be a text addressed to married people, and verses 5-7 would again be referring to virgins. Such an interpretation thus makes the structure of the entire passage totally random, and inserts an unnatural break at every change of audience.

Thus, I would say that 1 Corinthians 7:2 is not at all relevant to our present circumstances as single people.

I have also found out something interesting with regards to this passage. The NET has interestingly translated this text as:

1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations withhis own wife and each woman withher own husband.

What is also interesting is the footnote that they give explaining the reasoning for their translation:

tn Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb ἐχέτω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice] 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29).

It is interesting that they have said the very same thing I said above. Not only that, but other very well known commentators say the same thing. Dr. Craig Blomberg [pgs. 133, 136], Gordon Fee [pgs. 278-279], and Dr. Richard Hays [pgs. 113-114] have all taken this interpretation of this passage in their commentaries. In fact, Gordon Fee says he knows of no instance in which the idiom "to have a wife" means "to take a wife" [Fee, p.278 n48]. He says that, in most of those instances, the Greek term lamba,nw is used. He sights the fact that this idiom is used in a Western text variant of 7:28 where it replaces the Greek verb game,w which means "to marry." He also cites an apocryphal text in Tobit 4:12 which does, indeed, refer to taking a wife because of sexual immorality [pornei,a], and lamba,nw is clearly used there. He concludes that, "Paul's usage is clearly different from these" [Fee, 278 n.48]. Furthermore, Fee notes that, for a woman to "take a husband" was utterly foreign to first century cultures [Fee, 278 n48].

Hence, when someone tells you that you should marry because of the rampant sexual immorality in our culture, and they point to 1 Corinthians 7:2, read it from the New English Translation, and then have the citations from Gordon Fee, Craig Blomberg, and Richard Hays ready and waiting.

This concludes the first section in my review of Candice Watters' book.

Bibliography

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, Indiana. 1985

Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians from The NIV Application Commentary. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1994

Collins, C. John. Genesis 1-4, A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 2006

Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1987

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Kautzsch, E. (ed). Cowley, A.E. (trans). Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England. 1990 [cited as "GKC"]

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians from Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky. 1997

Jouon, Paul. Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Two Volumes. Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Rome, Italy. 1993

Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis from The New American Commentary Series. Broadman and Holman Publishers. Nashville, Tennessee. 2005

Sailhamer, J. Genesis. EBC. Grand Rapids. Zondervan, 1990. Quoted in Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. NAC. Broadman & Holman Publishers. P.251

Waltke, Bruce. O'Connor, Michael. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns Publishing. Winona Lake, Indiana. 1990

Waltke, Bruce. The Book of Proverbs from The New International Commentary Series. 2 Volumes. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2005

2008-06-11T12:45:00.000-07:00

The Entemena Statue of the Baghdad Museum

This semester I had the privilege of studying Sumerian under Dr. Richard Averbeck. Sumerian is one of the oldest languages known to man [that we can read anyway]. There is a debate amongst scholars as to whether the oldest language we know is Sumerian or Egyptian. However, it was hard in that much of our knowledge of Sumerian is incomplete precisely because it is so old. Also, there is no known language related to Sumerian, and this also made it more difficult to study. Thus, many times you would ask a question in class for which no one knows the answer. That made it very difficult, but very interesting at the same time.

Anyway, I got through alright. For my final project, I had to transliterate, normalize, translate, and research this text from the Baghdad museum. Here is the final result of my project:

Transliteration:

Column I

[^de]n-lil
[e₂-a]d-[da]-ka-ra
en-te-me-na
ensi₂
lagaš^ki
ša-pa-da
^dnanše
ensi₂-gal
^dnin-gir₂-su₂-ka
[dumu-e]n-an-[na]-tum₂
[en]si₂
lagaš^ki-ka
dumu-ka
ur-^dnanše
lugal
lagaš^ki-ka-ke₄
^dnin-gir₂-su₂-ra
eš-dug-ru
mu-na-du
a-huš

Column II

e₂-igi-zi-bar-ra
mu-na-du
^dlugal-uru_xkar₂^ki-ra
e₂-gal-uru_xkar₂^ki-ka-ni
mu-na-du
^dnanše
e₂-engur-ra-zu₂-lum-ma
mu-na-du
^den-ki
lugal-eridu^ki-ra
abzu-pa₅-sir₂-ra
mu-na-du
^dnin-hur-sag-ra
gi-gu-na
tir-ku-ga
mu-na-du
^dnin-hur-sag-ra
an-ta-sur-ra
mu-na-du
sa-pa-da
mu-na-du
e₂-^dga₂- tum-du₁₀
mu-du

Column III:

^dnanše
gi-gu-na-mah-ni
mu-na-du
e₂-ni ki-be₂ mu-na-gi₄
^den-lil₂-la
e₂ ad-da-im-sag-ga₂
mu-na-du
u₄-ba-en-te-me-na-ke₄
alan-na-ni
mu-tu
en-te-me-na ^den-lil₂-le ki-ag₂
mu mu-ni-sa₄
^den-lil₂-la
e₂-a

Column IV:

mu-na-ni-du
en-te-me-na
lu₂ e₂-ad-da du-a
digir-ra-ni
^dšul-utul₁₂
nam-ti
en-te-me-na-ka-še₃
u₄-ul-la-še₃
den-lil₂-la
kiri₃ šu he₂-na-gal₂

Column V:

25; gana₂ en-an-na-tum₂ sur-^dnanše e-ta-e₁₁
11; gana₂ im-ka-^zi-zi-še₃
gana₂-ambar-nina^ki-ka
pa₅-ku₃-ge us₂-sa
1, 0; gana₂ ^denlil₂

Column VI:

gana₂-gu₂-eden-na-ka
en-te-me-na
ensi₂
lagaš^ki-ke₄
^den-lil₂
e₂-ad-da-ka-ra
gir₂ e-na-du

Normalization:

Column I

enlil
e adakara
entemena
ensi
lagaš
šag pada
nanše
ensi gal
ningirsu-k(a)-a(k)
dumu enanatum
ensi
lagaš-(a)k-a(k)
dumu-(a)k-a(k)
urnanše
lugal
lagaš-(a)k-a(k)-e
ningirsu-ra
eš dug-ru
mu-na-(n)-du
e hus

Column II

e igi-si-bar-a
mu-na-(n)-du
lugal uru-ra
e gal uru-k-ani
mu-na-(n)-du
e engura(k) zuluma(k)
mu-na-(n)-du
enki
lugal eridu-(k)-ra
abzu pasira
mu-na-(n)-du
ninhursag-ra
giguna
tirkuga
mu-na-(n)-du
ningirsu-ra
antasura
mu-na-(n)-du

19. ša-pad-da

20. mu-(n)-du

21. e gatumdu

22. mu-(n)-du

Column III

nanše-(ra)
gi-gu-na-mah-ni
mu-na-(n)-du
e-ni ki-bi-e mu-na-(n)-gi
enlila
e ada imsaga
mu-na-(n)-du
u-bi-a entemena(k)-e
alan-ani
mu-(n)-tu
entemena enlil-e ki-a
mu mu-ni-(n)-sa
enlila
e-a

Column IV

mu-na-ni-(n)-du
entemena
lu e ada du-a
digir-ani
šulutul
nam-til
entemena(k)-(a)k-še
u ula-še
enlil-e
kiri-šu- he-na-(n)-gal

Column V

25 gana enannatum sur-nanše
e-ta-(i)-(n)-e
11 gana ambar ninak-a(k)
pa-kug-e usa
1 gana enlil

Column VI

gana gu-edenak-a(k)
entemena
ensi
lagaš-ak-e
enlil
e ada-ra-(a)k-a(k)
gir e-na-du

Translation:

For Enlil of the house of Adakara, Entemena, the ensi of Lagash, chosen by Nanshe [in her] heart, the great ensi of Ningirsu, the son of Enanatum, the ensi of Lagash, the great grandson of Urnanshe, king of lagash built the sanctuary of Dugru, and a fearsome house. He built the house he chose. For the king of Uru, he built his great house of Uru. He also built the house of engura Zulmuma. For Enki, the king of Eridu, he built the Abzu of the Sira Canal. For Ninchursag, he built the reed chamber of Tirkuga. For Ningirsu, he built the Antasura. He built the chosen house, and he also built the house of Gatumdu. For Nanshe, he built his reed chamber, and restored his house to its place. For Enlil, he built the house of his father, Imsaga. On the day Entemena built his statue, he named it: “Entemena, beloved of Enlil,” and built it by Enlil in the temple. Entemena, the man who built the house of his father-may his God Shulutul, on a distant day, for the sake of the life of Entemena, pay homage to Enlil. Enannatum annexed 25 plots of land from Surnanshe. 11 Plots of land of the swamps of Nina, at the pure canal, and one plot of land of Enlil, the land of the Guedena of Entemena the ensi of Lagash to Enlil of his father’s house…

Column II

zuluma(k)-This word literally means “date fruit.” [Haloran, 159]

ninhursag- This proper name literally means, “The Lady of the Mountain Range” [Volk, 102]

14. tirkuga-This place means, “pure forest” [Volk, 109].

antasura-This name literally means, “The house that twinkles in the heavens” [Volk, 110].

Column VI:

Guedenaka-This is a steppe of land between Lagash and Umma, and there were often wars to decide who would control this state.

gir e-na-du-I have found no one who can tell me what this verb means. Volk suggests that it may mean, “to cut off,” thus paralleling the “annexed” of Column 5, line 2. Cooper does not even attempt a translation, and I cannot even find the verb in Halloran. The reality is that we simply don’t know what this word means.

It is also worth noting that this is probably in the context of Entemena’s wars with Ur-Lumma and Il of Halab [Kramer, 56-59].

Bibliography

Cooper, Jerrold S. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, Volume I. Presargonic Inscriptions. The American Oriental Society. New Haven, Connecticut. 1986

Kramer, Samuel, Noah. The Sumerians, Their History, Culture, and Character. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. 1963.

Steible, Horst. Die Altsumerischen Bau-Und Weihinschriften Teil I. Franz Steiner Verlag. Wiesbaden, Germany. 1982. pgs. 211-214.

Volk, Konrad. A Sumerian Reader. Second Edition. Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico. Roma, Italia. 1999

2008-05-29T15:20:00.000-07:00

Polygamy and Homosexuality on Iron Sharpens Iron

Chris Arnzen is a radio talk show host in the New York metropolitan area who I listen to every once in a while. One of the odd things about his program is that, in his Mp3's he always has about a minute of music before the program starts. So, if you are listening to the programs, and you happen to get music at the beginning, don't worry, you do have the correct file.

Two of his programs really caught my attention. The first is an interview with Irene Spencer, author of the book Shattered Dreams, My Life as a Polygamist Wife. What she says in this interview is just absolutely disgusting. If there is any doubt that polygamy and conservative Mormon sects are degrading to the institution of marriage. This program should leave no doubt. The things this woman had to put up with are things no woman should have to put up with. She is absolutely right. This is abuse of women par excellence!

However, homosexuality is something that is definitely a competitor to how badly marriage is being degraded in the Mormon cults. One of our OPC pastors, Chuck McIlhenny, had a very interesting story to tell when he was interviewed by Chris Arnzen. You will just be amazed that, after all that this man went through, he still stayed in the same area to minister the gospel.

Also, Dr. James White had an excellent program on his show The Dividing Line on the California court decision making Homosexual marriage a civil rights issue, and legalizing "same sex marriage." What he says is right on as far as application to God's law, and our need to speak out against this stuff before it is illegal to hold the Biblical position on homosexuality.

This is what it means to degrade marriage. We need to keep these things in mind when we are accused of "degrading marriage" and "abusing women" by the radicals of the Mandatory Marriage Movement. These programs lay out what true abuse of women and degradation of marriage is in a way that makes the issue with the mandatory marriage radicals almost seem inconsequential. You will be amazed that the connection is even made.

2008-04-25T17:57:00.000-07:00

Albert Mohler Does It Again

I was just listening to Albert Mohler's most recent radio program, and, to be honest, I think that the tactics that Dr. Mohler uses in this program are simply reprehensible.

The program is the discussion of an article about wealth, and how conservative evangelical protestants who believe the Bible to be inerrant have less than half the net worth of all other religions. This is, indeed, a great testimony to how we are living out our faith. We do not care about money, but are, over all, more concerned for the glory of God.

Although Albert Mohler does mention a few things about moderation in Christian living being commanded in the Bible, he brings in his odd "delay of marriage is a sin" ideas, and picks up on this point about how conservative evangelical protestants who believe the Bible to be inerrant marry earlier, and have more children than all other religions. He then goes on to try to make a connection between his idea that delay of marriage is a sin, and evangelicalism. He says that "Evangelical Christians are making less money because they are making the decision to have the baby." He goes on to practically equate is "delay of marriage" ideas and his idea that all married people must have children with conservativism.

Something that I find interesting as a side note is that Dr. Mohler did not deal with the arguments of those who oppose him. The only time I ever heard him deal with the arguments of a decenter was a woman by the name of Camerin Courtney, who had badly misrepresented Dr. Mohler. However, why does he not deal with anyone who as actually addressed his arguments? Now, I am obviously not expecting him to know who I am, but does he not know that Andreas Kostenberger has had this huge dialogue with Debbie Maken? What about my professors who descent from his position that delay of marriage is a sin? What about the hundreds of other exegetes who are well trained in this subject? He never touches the other side at all. Sadly, this is a common theme amongst those who hold to these beliefs [which is why I always commend Boundless for having the opposite attitude].

What I find most fascinating is that 95% of conservatives would disagree with him that delay of marriage is a sin, and that children are mandatory to a marriage [a fact he conveniently never mentions]. Yet, they still marry early, and have children. Why is that? Could it be that it is not necessary that it be mandatory in order for people to do it? Could it be that the sheer goodness of the responsibility of marriage and children will naturally cause people to want to do it, even though it is not mandated by the Bible? Indeed, far from upholding Dr. Mohler's beliefs, it is actually the strongest refutation of his beliefs. People do not need to hold his views to be conservative, and they don't need to hold his views to have early marriage and children.

I also find it ironic that many people have left conservativism for liberalism simply because many conservative churches refuse to embrace his teaching. I can't tell you how many notes I have gotten from women who left evangelical churches that believe in inerrancy for liberal churches just simply because the evangelical church would not buy into this thinking, and also hold that against evangelical churches. In fact, you have many people in this movement arguing that women should be pursuing Christian men outside the church [which, if you are going to believe in inerrancy, is an oxymoron]. I wonder how Dr. Mohler would explain this?

In fact, I would argue that his view actually does damage to our view of marriage and children. By adding certain commands to God's word, such as the idea that delay of marriage is a sin, and children are mandated within marriage, he has actually stated that the definition of marriage as found in God's word is not sufficient. We have to add things to these definitions, and thus, they are not the very good things they are said to be in God's word. Thus, people view them as a burden, and I know of many men who say that they refuse to marry any woman who holds to these ideas. The reason is very clear. The women who hold these views put an unbiblical burden upon others, and thus, we do not have the easy and light burden of Christ, but the heavy and hard burden of unbiblical tradition.

2008-04-23T17:13:00.000-07:00

Oh Brother!!!!!!!

I agree with Eric Svendsen on this. It is spring. That must mean that another unqualified antichristian bigot taking shots at Jesus. I mean, come on, if people can't see the bias in a worldview that would produce movies such as Showgirls, and Basic Instinct, and also sit in on the Jesus Seminar, then I don't know how to define bias. The whole thing is laughable from the beginning. Sadly, those who look for any reason whatsoever to disbelieve the gospel will grab hold of this.

2008-04-16T15:59:00.000-07:00

Reports of the Death of the Gift of Singleness Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Recently, Gortexgrrl posted this over at the Gift of Singleness blog:

BREAKING NEWS -----

THE GIFT OF SINGLENESS IS DEAD!

After months of campaigning to have it removed from the remaining modern Bibles where it still occupies a place in 1 Cor 7:7, IT HAS FINALLY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION.

Check the online version for yourselves here.

Dr. Eugene Peterson at The Messsage has also agreed to do the same.

This is a tremendous victory, folks. Now the next task is to get the NLT to have the word "better" ("to remain as you are") changed to "good" in 1 Cor 7:8 (as it is written in most Bibles). Also, there are still some problems with The Message's version of Matthew 19:10-12. But for now, let's savour this moment and express thanks!

Now, I happen to know one of the translators of the NLT. So, I e-mailed him, and he fowarded me the meeting notes from their discussion of this passage. Here are the meeting notes that were fowarded to me:

We have received an eloquent letter from four single women who take issue with our translation of this passage. They have respectfully asked that we reconsider our translation of this verse (the wording of which is similar to that of The Living Bible) and make it more generic in relation to the various gifts.

Norm has read and evaluated their letter, and he responded with this translation draft:

7But I (might?) wish that everyone was just like me. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another.

He went on to say, "I think the important feature is to eliminate a reference to the gift of tongues [does he mean singleness?] and then make the final phrase of 7:7 a general statement applying to all and any gifts, not denoting the gift of tongues [does he again mean singleness?]. Paul affirms that all Christians have a spiritual gift, but not all Christians have the gift of tongues [??], as he proceeds to apply the matter to marriage and abstinence.

Now, before we get too excited, I was also fowarded a letter by the editor of the NLT, Mark Norton in which he explained the committee's reasoning at this point. It will give you all of the context you need [The reference to the idea of manhood is something I had mentioned about Dr. Albert Mohler's recent statements on his blog]. You will just be left shaking your head that such a thing would ever be misconstrued as the "death" of the Gift of Singleness:

Hi Mark and Grant.

I just pulled up this content on our discussion forum as well and have been reviewing it. I think we did the right thing We were concerned that our rendering “But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness” was too specific. I don’t think anyone disagreed with the meaning expressed in our earlier more dynamic/contextual rendering. I think it obvious that in context some are gifted with singleness. But with our more literal rendering (“Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another”), we have allowed Paul to connect this discussion of marriage and singleness to the larger discussion of spiritual gifts.

I recall that the young woman who brought this up was concerned that our wording (“the gift of singleness”) was fueling an unhealthy assumption among some Christians, i.e., that if God hasn’t provided a mate for you, then you must have the “gift of singleness” and should just accept it and be happy. From perspective of the young woman who wrote us, we had given unnecessary ammunition to people who had drawn a black and white conclusion in a world of difficult gray.

The problem in this case is a little different, where someone out there has taken our change toward the literal as an indication that we have strong feelings against the idea of a gift of singleness. I don’t think any such thought was ever expressed. I think we were happy with the meaning of our earlier rendering. We don’t advocate the idea that the only path to manhood is through marriage. Paul made it clear that there are some would be far better off single. On the other hand, we don’t want to fuel the idea the young woman was struggling with, i.e., that there is this particular “gift of singleness” that (assuming God’s sovereignty) all the “unclaimed” must be gifted with.

Anyway, Grant, I think the young man who has queried you can rest assured that BTC isn’t against the concept of a “gift of singleness,” only the abuse of such a concept.

Mark

Notice, the NLT is not against a concept of the "gift of singleness," but against the abuse of that concept, that is, if God hasn’t provided a mate for you, then you must have the “gift of singleness” and should just accept it and be happy, which is something I stand on the record as being totally against. I have said many times that I have no problems with a woman pursuing marriage if she wants to do so. I also have no problems with a woman wanting marriage. In other words, they [like me] are against the fatalistic notion that, if you are not married, you should just accept it, and do nothing to get married. The issue is whether or not God can say "no" to your request for a spouse both in your actions and in your prayers, and how you will handle it if he does.

Not only that, but also notice that the main reason why the translated it this way is because of the context of spiritual gifts. One of Gortexgrrl's main arguments is that the phrase "one in this manner, the other in that manner" can be a generic statement of all gifts, without referring to any specific gift. However, I argued that we are in the context of marriage and singleness here, and that there is a contrast presented in the text. The NLT committee agreed [and still does agree] that marriage and singleness are both gifts. The NLT committee is taking a position somewhere inbetween what I stated and what Gortexgrrl stated. They agree that the phrase "one in this manner the other in that manner" is referring to a general statement [which it certainly can], but are arguing that singleness and marriage are two of these gifts, along with the spiritual gifts that are mentioned in this chapter. Thus, they wanted to stress the connection between this passage and the discussion of spiritual gifts that will follow. In other words, they reject Gortexgrrl's argument that, because the phrase "the one in this manner, the other in that manner" can be used generically, that, therefore, it precludes the inculsion of singleness and marriage within the realm of spiritual gifts.

Here is again where professional exegetes trump college graduate level exegetes, and why I am still learning in college while they are making money selling translations. I must say, I am impressed with this interpretation of this text. It fits Paul's argument nicely, and shows that Gortexgrrl's arguments from the text are irrelevant.

We must again point out that Gortexgrrl has no training in this area. Now, it would not be hard to get training in this area. In fact, I think one of the main reasons that Debbie Maken's book has become so popular is that young girls and boys are not trained how to do exegesis of their English Bibles in their preteen years, and thus, are left with their feelings, the way things always were, what is "countercultural," and the endorsement of the author on the back of the book to decide who has done the most accurate exegesis of the passage. Her linguistic philosophy is basically, if the Bible does not use a specific term to identify something as a "gift," then, therefore, the Bible does not say it is a gift. However, almost no one today holds that philosophy of language. In fact, the reality is, divorced from a context, words have no meaning whatsoever. My hermeneutics professor, Dr. Grant Osborne, in his book The Hermeneutical Spiral writes that:

Without grammatical relationships to other words, there is not meaning. If I utter the term counter, the hearer has no idea what I mean. Without a context in a grammatical sentence, a word is meaningless. Only as I say "Look on the counter" or "Counter his argument" does the term have a connotation [Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. IVP Academic. Downers Grove, IL 2006 pgs.82-83 (emphasis mine)].

However, by contrast, Gortexgrrl believes that the specific term "gift" must be used of singleness, or the Bible does not say that singleness is a gift. However, what if other words were used in such a way that they stated that singleness was a gift without using the specific term "gift?" Or, in the case of this passage, what if a generic phrase was used in the context of singleness and marriage to clearly include singleness and marriage as a gift, but not to the exculsion of other spiritual gifts? Indeed, if we allow what Dr. Osborne has said to be true, then we can see that it is not impossible.

In fact, the whole reason why Gortexgrrl is leaping for joy, and misrepresented the NLT translators is precisely because of this odd view of language. She thinks that, if they don't translate the passage with "the gift of singleness," then they must not believe that the text teaches that singleness is a gift. That is saying too much. In this case, they wanted to emphasize the continuity with the passages that follow, without denying that singleness and marriage is a gift, and thus, they decided to make the translation less specific.

As to Gortexgrrl's statement, that "the next task is to get the NLT to have the word "better" ("to remain as you are") changed to "good" in 1 Cor 7:8 (as it is written in most Bibles)," she is referring to an article she wrote here for Thegiftofsingleness blog. In this article, she said:

Verse 8: The NLT translates this verse to mean that it's BETTER to not marry, despite the fact that the original Greek uses the word "KALOS", which is more correctly means "GOOD", as written in the KJV, NASB and the NRSV. Again, it leaves us to wonder why the editors of the NLT would take an interpretation so denigrating of marriage? Even if there are other passages in 1 Cor 7 that suggest the superiority of singleness over marriage (v. 38), they must be looked at within the context of "the present distress" (v. 26, and also 29, 31) that faced the Corinthian people at that time.

Now, I find it interesting that New English Translation, whose New Testament editor is none other than Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, translates the passage like this:

1 Corinthians 7:8 To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am.

Again, Gortexgrrl's erronious philosophy of language is coming back to bite her. It is, indeed, true that the Greek term kalo,j means "good" and not "better." However, again, Gortexgrrl has not considered the possibility that grammatical constructions, indeed, even the argument of a whole book can greatly effect the meaning of one word. This is an issue known as syntax. How is it that the usage of a particular for in a particular phrase, sentence, and paragraph can effect the meanings of words and grammatical constructions? What are the possible meanings for any given form? This is a very technical study, but books like Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, and Bruce Waltke and Michael O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax are very good tools for learning the basics of the syntax of Greek and Hebrew, and I am indebted to these scholars for all I have learned in this field, and highly recommend these books to anyone wanting to study this area.

First of all, let us define our terms in terms of the English language, so we can understand what we are talking about when we discuss the Greek language. If you add an -er to the end of a word, it makes the adjective comparitive. For instance, if you add an -er to the end of "high" you get "higher." If you add an -er to the end of "hard," you get harder. Thus, "higher" and "harder" are comparitives. Now, some English words are irregular. Consider the English term in question, "good." To make this a comparitive, you add an -er to the end, but the entire word changes to "better." The initial words "high," "hard," and "good" are what are known as "positives." Thus, "large," "hard," and "good" are positives, while "larger," "harder," and "better" are comparitives. The easiest way to remember this is that a comparitive adjective is used to compare something, while a positive adjective is just stating something positive about the object [there is one more category called the "superlative," but is not relevant to this discussion].

Now, Greek has a system very similar to this. They have positive and comparitive adjectives as well, and yes, this is not a comparitive adjective. However, Greek can, in point of fact, use a positive adjective in place of a comparitive adjective. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace in his Syntactical Grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, writes the following:

2 . Positive for Comparative

On a rare occasion , the positive adjective can be used for the comparative.

Matthew 18:8 kalo,n soi, evstin eivselqei/n eivj th.n zwh.n kullo.n
it is better to enter life crippled

Here, h' is used later in the sentence to indicate comparison . Obviously, the idea of the positive adj. is insufficient, i.e., it is not good in and of itself to enter life crippled!

Luke 18:14 kate,bh ou-toj dedikaiwme,noj eivj to.n oi=kon auvtou/ parV evkei/non
this man went down to his house more justified than the other

In this text the adjectival participle functions as an adj. Zerwick notes that the true force of Jesus’ words here is that the tax-collector was"justified whereas the other was not." A better gloss would thus be justified rather than the other.

1 Corinthians 10:33 mh. zhtw/n to. evmautou/ su,mforon avlla. to. tw/n pollw/n
not seeking my own advantage, but that of the majority

Certain substantival adjectives which have the notion of comparison embedded lexically (esp .
polu,j) are used for an implicit comparison. Such examples do not follow the structural pattern of comparative adjectives(e.g. , they are not followed by a gen . or h').

c.f. also Matt. 24:12; Luke 16:10; John 2:10 [Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1995. from the Pradis Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics CD ROM.]

Notice, incedentially, that the term that Dr. Wallace translates as "better" in his first example [Matthew 18:8] is kalo,j. Also, notice that Gortexgrrl's methodology does not work here, as it is "totally insufficient" to translate kalo,j as good. Thus, we have established that, in New Testament Greek, positive adjectives can be used where one would expect a comparitive adjective.

At this point, this is where exegesis comes in to play. You have to be able to defend your choice of a positive translation, over and against a comparitive translation. How does Gortexgrrl do that? She says:

The NLT translates this verse to mean that it's BETTER to not marry, despite the fact that the original Greek uses the word "KALOS", which is more correctly means "GOOD", as written in the KJV, NASB and the NRSV. Again, it leaves us to wonder why the editors of the NLT would take an interpretation so denigrating of marriage?

On any level, Gortexgrrl has failed to give an adequate defense of the positive here. The dictionary meaning is not in dispute. In fact, BDAG lists two definitions with several subcategories, and subcategories of those subcategories. The question is what is the syntactical function of the adjective here. As far as it being "denegrating to marriage," notice how Gortexgrrl has sorta begged the question. She seems to assume that, if you take this interpretation, you are denegrating marriage. Of course, she never bothers to prove that.

The reason why some scholars today take this to be a positive used as a comparitive is because these two are compared again in verse 9, where Paul says "It is better to marry than to burn." Thus, this sets up a parallel with verse 8, and thus, they argue, this is how we should understand verse 8.

Now, maybe they are wrong. However, Gortexgrrl's answer doesn't even begin to prove what she is trying to prove. To go back to the dictionary definition is to once again display this bad linguistic philosophy that every word has meaning in and of itself, and, you cannot identify something as a gift, unless the specific word is used of it. As a matter of fact, that is why Gortexgrrl thought that the gift of singleness was "dead." If the very words are removed from the Bible, then, obviously, it must not be in the Bible. As I pointed out, Gortexgrrl could never translate the New Testament or any document that way. However, I guess that is what you have to do to defend Debbie Maken.

2008-04-15T18:55:00.000-07:00

A Few Odds and Ends

I wanted to let everyone know that Dr. Daniel B. Wallace debated Dr. Bart Ehrman at the Greer-Heard Point/Counterpoint forum. Dr. Wallace is no slouch. He is one of the top experts in New Testament Greek in the world. On top of that, he is also an evangelical. I cannot wait to hear the audio of this discussion. Bart Ehrman is quoted by just about all enemies of the faith, but rarely does he come up against someone who knows the issue like Dr. Wallace does. He has written a Greek Grammar, and has written many articles on issues of exegesis and textual criticism of the New Testament.

In fact, Dr. Wallace runs the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Their main purpose is to go around the world, and take high quality digital photographs of all the major New Testament Manuscripts. Just take a look at the detail on this photograph of Codex Sinaiticus. The reason for this is that, as these manuscripts get older, they start to decay. Having these high quality photographs enable us to study them long after they have decayed.

Also, Dr. James White recently debated a Muslim by the name of Jalal Abualrub. Here are some clips from the debate. The topic was whether the New Testament teaches the Diety of Christ. Some of the argumentation of Abualrub mimics arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses. That is really interesting considering Muslims would be up in arms if we tried to use arguments from Muslim cults. Either way, I appreiciate the work that James White is doing on Islam. I only wish more reformed Christians would engage Muslims in dialogue.

2008-04-09T07:04:00.000-07:00

How NOT To Use The Rod

I recently found a blog that was also addressing the whole Debbie Maken debockle a few weeks ago, and have continued reading. The author, Amir Larijani, is very good at finding interesting stories, and his blog is a very interesting read.

In a post published this morning, he gives the link to a very sad story about a two year old girl who was beaten to death by her mother's "boyfriend" with a video game controller. Apparently, this was not the first time it had happened. According to the article, "It was clear from the bruises and other injuries on the little girl's body that Sunday was not the first time she had been abused, Dauphin County coroner Graham Hetrick told WGAL-TV. He said it was one of the worst cases of child abuse he has ever seen."

Such is what happens when the rod of correction is used as an instrument of your anger and frustration rather than an instrument of discipline. That is the difference between child abuse, and Godly discipline. In child abuse, the rod is an instrument of your rage such that the child can die because you are beating him so hard. Anger and rage can get out of control, and if you use the rod as an instrument of your rage, don't be suprised if one time it *does* get out of control, and your child ends up dead, and you end up with a charge of child abuse. In Godly discipline, just enough pain is inflicted, not to satisfy your own anger, but to teach the child that his behavior is wrong, and to get him back on the right path.

That is why, when I have children, we are going to have a rule that no spanking is ever to be administered unless all parties involved have calmed down. I fear that, if this is not a rule, you will see more incedents like this.

The main problem that I see in today's society with regards to the rod is two extremes. Either it is avoided altogether because any corporal corrective action is viewed as "child abuse," or it is used as an instrument of one's rage and frustration, such as in the above example. I think that both of these errors can be avoided if we remember that 1. The Bible commands that we use the rod, and 2. The rod is to be used for discipline, not for the satisfaction of our own anger and frustration.

Now, I realize that this is easier said than done, especially when you are raising a child who knows how to push all of the right buttons. However, remember that both not using the rod, and using the rod for the wrong reasons are acts of sin. Thus, as Christians, we should work to always be faithful to God and his word in whatever we do. Then, we can help help a society that is utterly confused about this issue.

2008-04-09T06:49:00.000-07:00

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Well, I could probably pick any of Gortexgrrl's posts from last time, but, as many of you know, Darren Allen absolutely takes the cake when it comes to nastiness, irrationality, and just downright refusal to even listen to what the other side is saying. No comment is really needed here. I just let his own words speak for themselves. He is such a kind soul :-).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hey when can we see your picture?

I am sure there are a lot peoplr here who want to see your mug.

How come we have no pithy commnents from Ted Slater?

Ted, where are you?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam,

You are a jackass.

We don't care what that means in greek or ancient aramaic.

Thanks,
The Hobbits
---------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind, this is a man who goes to Wheaton. Yes, that's right. Yet this is the best he knows how to respond???????? Now, I have no idea if it is the same Darren that is found in Debbie Maken's recent post, but I do know one thing interesting. Debbie Maken will talk about the fruits of her movement in terms of marriages, but she will never tell you about the fruits of her movement in terms of the behavior of the adherents. Her version of this movement has become just as nasty and cultic as Peter Ruckman ever dreamed of being. Apparently, marriage is so important that your behavior is secondary.

However, Darren's behavior is certainly a fruit of this movement. As I said, it speaks for itself.

2008-04-07T16:07:00.001-07:00

Don't You Dare Hold Us Accountable Or...

We will shame you, call you all kinds of colorful names, and tell you to "get some help." Yes, apparently, that is exactly what Gortexgrrl, one of the most radical of the Mandatory Marriage advocates, done in an attempt to defend "Captain Sensible" [aka, Deanna Holmes] from having to be held responsible for the hatred she has spewed at myself and Ted Slater.

Here are her posts, in order:

--------------------------------------------------
Adam, you know what I'm talking about -- posting her photo, personal information, etc. You've both engaged in some pretty intense mud-slinging, but nothing she has said about you even begins to compare with this kind of exposure and character assassination. This is your eighth post in a row about her. You have gone way too far with this. It's so spiteful and mean-spirited. The sheer wickedness of what you have done eclipses any theological truth that may have been intended. You are nowhere near being in the company of these Calvinist greats. Surely, if they could see what you have done they would certainly shake their heads and walk away from you.Shame on you.
-------------------------------------------------
Excuses, excuses.Basically, you're giving us the "bu-bu-but, she started it" little brother business.It's very plain to see where your heart is at, Adam. It's all about retaliation for you, isn't it?
-------------------------------------------------
Adam,If you have to be shown, chapter and verse, post for post, why what you did was wicked and vengeful, then there really is not much hope for you.
You have carried on now, for eight posts about CS. And in the same amount of time, she's mentioned your blog perhaps twice and on one occasion she contritely retracted -- something I doubt you would ever do.Not only to yourself, but to your school, you bring shame. It's just absolutely disgraceful.
-------------------------------------------------

First off, again, notice the pure acid from the folks in this movement. I have received a whole lot of mail from these folks, and it is by far the nastiest stuff I have ever read. I have talked with Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and King James Only advocates, and the notes that I have received from these folks are, by far, the most nasty of any group.

However, let us take a look at her claims one by one, and we will say that any person thinking rationally about this situation will be forced to the conclusion that, for some reason, these folks do not want to be held accountable for their behavior.

First of all, yes, the last eight posts mention Captain Sensible, but, first of all, who else do they mention? Debbie Maken, Ted Slater, William Shishko, etc. Not only that, but did she notice how many of Captain Sensible's posts mention Ted Slater? I went to her blog and found that six out of the eight posts now up there mention or allude to Ted Slater in some way shape or form. Yet, why is it that Gortexgrrl is not over there accusing Deanna Holmes of the same things she is accusing me? The double standards here are amazing.

Not only that, but let us not forget the number of times that Captain Sensible has used terms such as "false teacher" of Carolyn McCulley. Yet, Gortexgrrl refuses to say anything about that. Now, I am not saying that this exhonorates me of wrongdoing if, indeed, I have done something wrong. It is just amazing how Gortexgrrl uses one standard on those who oppose her movement, but another standard on those who support her movement.

The reality is, if you look at my posts, my posts are not personal attacks on Captain Sensible. They are discussions of what she is teaching, and how it is dangerious to the church, imparticular, the church in England. They are also discussions of her and Debbie Maken's behavior showing the fruits of this movement in terms of how selfish these people bahave. Not only that, but it is also a discussion about the way her and Debbie Maken treat those that disagree with them, yes, even those who agree with their movement such as Ted Slater! Gortexgrrl would have you believe that I have some personal vendetta against this woman. I simply do not. I am concerned about what she is teaching, and I am concerned about the fruits of the radical version of this movement. Does that mean that, if someone takes the shots that she has taken against me and Ted Slater that I am not going to call her to the carpet for it? Absolutely not. However, that seems to be the expectation. We can hit you, but don't you dare hold us accountable for it. There is nothing wrong with using eight posts to continuiously point out the ungodly behavior and nastiness of this movement so that others will avoid it.

Not only that, but notice how she uses words like "personal information" as if I had put her credit card number up on the internet or something. Everything that I put up had already been posted on the internet long before I ever saw it! The only difference is that now I am letting people know that Captain Sensible is this woman who was interviewed over on Spiral Universe. Why is there some problem with that? Why is there something wrong with finding out that the person who has written personal attacks against you and Ted Slater happens to have a name, and posting it so that people know exactly who is responsible for this acid? Secondly, she says I engaged in character assasination. On the blog, I asked her to prove it. She never did.

Also, she says that what I did is "spiteful." I am beginning to notice that you can make anything wrong so long as you use the right vocabulary [and, yes, Debbie Maken does this too]. No, I am simply pointing out that this attack across my bow is coming from a very influential figure in the church in England, and that this figure is directly responsible for the personal attacks she has written against Ted Slater and myself. BTW, just to show that I am consistent at this point, I have criticized people from my own side when they have behaved in the same way. Apparently, I was also being "spiteful" to the manyluxuryvacations blog when I wrote that post.

Secondly, as far as posting retractions, I even mentioned that I had to apologize for the harshness of my language. However, again, that does not matter to Gortexgrrl. I would never post a retraction, and don't confuse me with the facts. Also, isn't it interesting that I have changed my perspective on a whole host of views with regards to this issue. I now no longer hold the same interpretation of Genesis 1:28, Malachi 2:15, 1 Corinthians 7, and many other texts that I held when I first started writing on this issue. However, you know something very interesting? I have *never* heard Debbie Maken admit that she is wrong. Even when her position results in utter nonsense, she refuses to admit she is wrong. Yet, according to Gortexgrrl, I am the one who would never retract a post.

Again, the hypocracy of Gortexgrrl's attack on me is simply unbelievable. She tells me I need to "get some help." Let me ask, how does Gortexgrrl understand this verse?:

2 Timothy 2:24 - 26 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Does it sound like this girl is showing much "gentleness" using phrases like "get some help?" Does that show much "patience?" Interestingly enough, this is in the context of refuting false teachers! How do you understand this verse if you follow Debbie Maken, and language such as this is acceptable?

I think we all need to restart, and attempt to deal with this issue in the very manner spoken of in this verse. I am willing to do so, but, apparently, Captain Sensible and Gortexgrrl are not. I simply let that contrast speak for itself with regards to the integrity of the folks that are part of the radical version of this movement.

2008-04-01T16:02:00.000-07:00

Beware of "Captain Sensible"

I will have to begin with an apology. I have been ill recently, and have not even been able to concentrate in my classes. Hence, I don't know how good this post is going to be, but I simply must post this before Captain Sensible gets away with more of this kind of post.

Many people have wondered why it is that I have bothered to respond to Captain Sensible, and I responded in my last post by saying that Captain Sensible is an influential figure in the Church over in England. I said that I could not reveal any more, but, as a matter of fact, I misunderstood the person who fowarded me these things, and I was written again, and told that I do have the ability to release this information.

Hence, just click on this link, and go and read the biography at the bottom of the page. It will tell you all you need to know about this anonymous "Captain Sensible," and why it is that I keep responding to her. A whole lot makes sense now. We all know that Debbie Maken made a trip to London last year. The interesting thing is that this is right in "Captain Sensible's" backyard, and yet, somehow "Captain Sensible" never made a comment about it on Debbie Maken's blog when she announced that she was going to London. That seems really odd [especially since every time Debbie Maken breathes, Captain Sensible writes about it] until you find out that Deanna Holmes actually did make a comment on Debbie Maken's blog when she announced she was going to London. Not only that, but one always wondered why it is that there is a link from Captain Sensible's blog to the website of London Christians.

Not only that, but, if you do a Google search for "Deanna Holmes," you will find that, in all of her writings, she has used very similar phrases as "Captain Sensible," such as "Well meaning Platitudes" [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes] , "For such a time as this" [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes], both have attacked Carolyn McCully [Captian Sensible, Deanna Holmes], and have even used the "job" analogy [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes]. Indeed, there seems to be no doubt in my mind that "Captain Sensible" is Deanna Holmes, the head of London Christians.

In other words, how much do you think that these ideas are presented at the social events of London Christians? Probably quite a bit. That is why I have continued to respond to this woman, so that our brothers and sisters in Christ who get involved with these social events will be able to respond in a Biblical fashion to the unbiblical position of Debbie Maken. I want people who go to these events and hear these things to find a website like this, and be able to respond to what is presented to them.

With all of that said, I want you to look at the selfishness of Captain Sensible's recent post. First of all, she says:

We are seriously misrepresenting God when we attribute to Him situations causing suffering that we have actually caused ourselves, because we have strayed so far from the Bible. Talk about blaming God for our wrongdoings!

First of all, Captain Sensible's position is not Biblical. That is the whole point of the debate. If anyone wants to see just how these people respond when challanged with exegetical objections to their position, click here, and read my interaction with Debbie Maken. Debbie Maken was reduced to nothing more than empty accusations when she was put up against someone who actually knew how to do exegesis. I will let Debbie's behavior and her refusal to answer direct objections to her position be the refutation of the idea that their position is Biblical.

Secondly, is it true that we are "blaming God for our wrongdoings?" Apparently, Captain Sensible does not believe that God can ordain the pain that we inflict on ourselves because of our sin to conform us to the image of his son. The whole point of this pain is that it is discipline so that we repent of our sins, and turn to Christ. Hence, even the suffering we inflict on ourselves has redemptive value, because it teaches us to turn from our sin, and turn to Christ. Thus, Christ's purpose in his ordination of our sin, and our purpose in committing that sin are two totally and completely different things. Of course, that is why the exegetical issues in this discussion are so important.

Single Christian women, beware!

Instead of addressing the root cause of the problem, this is another attempt to keep you subdued, by making you feel that you should stoically bear your singleness -- and basically not make too much fuss it.

This will allow the enemy to continue to destroy masculinity in the church, and dishonour marriage by making you feel sinful for not being joyful about the suffering or "discipline" singleness causes.

We, as the contemporary church, have brought this problem about.

Here is where the real selfishness of Deanna Holmes' post shows through. What she is basically saying is "I have the right to feel comfortable with regards to marriage and singleness, and, if I do not, it must be someone's fault, either the man's fault, or the church's fault. In fact, this is the very thing I am going to bring to the scriptures, and interpret the scriptures in this light." As I said in my last post, God does not care one iota about your comfort. He wants to conform you to the image of his son. As I have said before, I am not against being proactive in finding a spouse. The way I found my fiancé and [soon to be] wife is by people in my church praying for me, and by actively pursuing a relationship with her. I think the question has to be asked as to whether or not, when we are proactive, God has the obligation to say "yes." I do not believe the scriptures give us any warrant to such a position.

This is why I always bring up the issue of idolatry. If you say that you must have marriage, and God cannot withhold it from you because your comfort is the most important thing in the world, then, yes, you are committing idolatry. And before they go using the starvation analogy, yes, there are many brothers and sisters in third world countries who are starving to death. And you know what? There faith is far stronger than any of ours ever could be. God certainly can grant food, marriage, and conforming to the image of Christ to any person if he so desires, but he is under no obligation to do so. Captain Sensible appears to want to lower God down to her level, so as to make him take her comfort as the highest priority, when it simply is not. And then, to misuse the text of scripture, and selectively cite the reformers in order to make yourself feel better about your idolatry is just simply to get yourself into even deeper water.

Yet, this is what we have to deal with when we deal with these folks. This also, incedentally, shows us why it is that Open Theists are so popular with these folks. They don't want the almighty God of the scriptures who ordains whatsoever comes to pass. They want a God they can control with their own comfort. The God of Open Theism fits that bill very well. It is a sad thing to see, but, hopefully, what I have written with regards to this topic will enable our brothers and sisters in England to see the dangerous road down which this position leads.

In fact, Debbie Maken has been reduced to the level of saleswoman on her blog. The whole post is nothing more than, "Look at the personal comfort that will come to you if you adopt the ideas presented in my book." That is why we need to be careful. Once we value our own personal comfort to the point were single men are shamed, and the church is blamed for everything under the sun, we might feel comfortable, but we will feel comfortable in our sin. That has to be the major question for the church. Do we value marriage more then conforming to the image of Christ, or do we value conforming to the image of Christ more than marriage? By all means, we should help those who want to get married, but to assume that God must give you marriage simply because of your own personal comfort, and assume that someone is sinning by not giving you what you want is simple idolatry.

This whole fiasco also shows the necessity of having sound teaching on the little things in the Christian life. This is why it is important to pay attention to your pastor when he speaks, and to read good sound books on Christian living. I would very highly recommend the preaching of Pastor William Shishko, anything by Edward T. Welch, and, though I don't agree with him on everything, Pastor John Piper has written some excellent things on practical theology. This is why it is so important to, not just be able to interpret the scriptures, but to see how it applies to our everyday life.

All in all, I am glad my post has had the reaction that it has. It really displays the selfish character of this movement, and shows us why it is that proper training Biblical Hermeneutics and practical theology are things which are so desparately needed in the church today. I am also glad that Ted Slater has posted something very similar on the Boundless Blog, and has gotten quite a positive response from single Christian women. I hope that more and more single Christian women start running from Debbie Maken and Deanna Holmes' ideas as fast as they can. However, until then, I guess this website can be a place to which people can point others who are struggling with these issues, both in England, and around the globe.

2008-03-30T05:25:00.000-07:00

Suffering Gets the Goat of the Marriage Mandators

I know some of you have complained that Captain Sensible is not someone people take seriously, and that she is nothing but a bully, and, to both, I would agree. However, I have recently been fowarded some information about this woman showing that, while many people may not take her seriously, and she may be a bully, she has a position of influence in the Christian church over in England. I cannot tell what it is because I have been sworn to secrecy. Hence, for the sake of our single brothers over in England, we need to continue to give them a response to this woman so that they will be able to combat the arguments written on her blog.

Anyway, my recent post on suffering got a real stir out of these folks. I was very thankful to Ted Slater for his appriciative comments. I am finding Ted and Boundless to be the most fair of anyone who discusses this issue. It has been hard, in this discussion, to keep your cool. I learned the first time that I dialogued with Debbie Maken last year that, when someone responds to you in an arrogant and nasty way, it is hard not to respond back in an arrogant and nasty way. I have gotten a whole lot of hate mail from these folks too [although, thankfully, I have not gotten any recently]! Anyway, I have found that, if you are not careful, you can let it become a sore spot, and you think that anytime someone makes an argument, they are attacking you in an arrogant and condecending way. I have tried to avoid doing this, but I had Dr. Averbeck tell me that he thinks that I haven't succeeded, and also, Ted Slater has told me that he thinks I have not succeeded. Hence, I just wanted to clear this up before I go on to something else. I think that we need to be careful that we do not lower ourselves down to these people's level when we speak about this issue.

Anyway, even though Ted may find this hard to believe, I do support Boundless on many issues. I have defended them on feminism, abortion, atheism, homosexuality, and a whole host of other topics. Hence, I am not "anti-Boundless" by any stretch of the imagination. I just happen to have a disagreement with them on this topic. However, what is interesting is that, from reading Ted's comments and my comments both on my blog and on the Boundless blog, it appears that we are getting closer in terms of our perspective, and, as I said, I look foward to continuing the conversation. I think we need to make a clear cut distinction between the nasty and arrogant radicals like Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible, and Focus on the Family and Boundless. They are by no means the same.

Now that I have commented on the people who have given my post a positive review, let me comment on the folks that that have not done so, namely, Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible. First of all, Captain Sensible seems to think, for some reason, that I said singleness was a gift because it causes suffering. I never ever said singleness is a gift because it causes suffering. What I said was that, even if one wants to argue that singleness can cause suffering, that still does not mean it cannot be a gift. Of course, Captain Sensible, because she believes that all singleness causes suffering, read it in this way. It is an important clarification mostly because it illustrates a major difference between us. There are many men on the internet with whom I have dialogued who are single and like it, and have no intention of dating or getting married. In this case, I would argue that singleness causes no suffering, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

Now, Debbie Maken has commented on this on Captain Sensible's blog. Maken argues that I am "imposing "intentions" onto God that simply are not there." Ummm, did Debbie even bother to listen to Pastor Shishko's discussion about the nature of suffering in the Christian life? Did she bother to listen to his argument that all suffering in our lives is to conform is to the image of Christ? Secondly, she said it is God's "explicitly revealed prescription" to be fruitful and multiply. Anyone who knows anything about the issues I went through with Captain Sensible knows that this is absolutely amazing. Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken were caught utterly flat footed when I pointed out that the next phrase is "fill the earth." Now, are we to say that only have fifteen kids somehow causes unnecessary suffering because it is against God's revealed will to have seven billion children so that we fill the earth? You see, Debbie cannot respond to this, even though she claims that she has, she has not. Here is what a response would look like. You would have to say something like, "Here is where there is a clear cut distinction between the first two imperatives, and the third imperative in this text, and here is why your interpretation of the covenantal usage of this phrase is a misinterpretation." When she actually starts dealing with what I say, rather than engaging in name-calling, then I will say that she has actually answered what I have said, and I will give a sound reply.

However, I want you to examine the man-centeredness behind Debbie Maken's post. She said, "Examining the 800 lb gorilla that the Pinto had a major design flaw, and eradicating same might mean less deaths and less unnecessary suffering. Would that then mean that God was not bestowing the gift of accidental death as much?" Notice, from Maken's perspective, what happens in this world is a result of what man does. Man determines his own destiny. In simple response to Debbie Maken we need to point out that it was impossible for there to not be unnecessary suffering. It was impossible for this company to have examined the Pinto more carefully. Why? Because God had ordained both that that these tragedies would happen, and he also ordained the means whereby they would happen [i.e. the carelessness of the workers]. You see, from Maken's perspective, everything that happens in this world is the result of man. She has a very man-centered view of suffering.

Also, notice Debbie Maken's closing statement of her post:

There is nothing glorious about interminable singleness that many Western Christians endure, and this endless search for that glorious rationalization would produce better fruit if we actually searched for ways to reform dating.

In other words, she tells us that she accepts, presuppositionally, that there can be nothing glorious about wanting a spouse and not being able to find one. This is where I think Pastor Shishko's discussion in the first hour becomes extremely important. He told us that, one of the major ways our culture does not have a Godward focus in our suffering is that we think that we have a right to comfort. Interestingly enough, this seems to be largely a female problem. I remember talking to one girl who had just accused a man of sexual harrassment, and she simply said that, the reason she accused him was because he was making her feel uncomfortable. She never mentioned anything that he did that was wrong. It was just the fact that it made her feel uncomfortable. Let me say this very calmly and plainly. God doesn't care one iota about your comfort. If you have this view of God that your comfort is the most important thing, especially in the realm of singleness and marriage, then you need to repent, and put God back on the throne. God doesn't care about your comfort. He cares about conforming you to the image of his son. And is this not what should be most important to the Christian?

I would encourage any of you to read the letters of Samuel Rutherford, and listen to that lecture series by Pastor Shishko. The fact that so many of these folks refuse to deal with it means that we have hit on something very important. I would also recommend, a very good article recently published by Boundless makes this one final excellent point. I will close with this, as it is excellent food for thought:

If I lose a job I reflexively ask, "What is God teaching me?" If my elderly parents need care I ask, "How is God using this in my life?" If a child is in an automobile accident I want to know, "What is God teaching our family?"

And the Bible encourages us to ask those questions. Hebrews 12:7-8, James 1:2-4, and other texts tell us that God uses our suffering to discipline us. God's discipline then brings about our full salvation which includes holiness. That is, suffering is redemptive in our lives.

Indeed, if we have more people following this advice, it may be that Debbie Maken's movement would not seem attractive to anyone.

2008-03-21T05:25:00.000-07:00

Could our Suffering be a Gift?

Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible constantly speak about how singleness cannot be a gift because of the fact that it produces suffering. In fact, if you read the promo for Debbie Maken's book on Amazon it says:

Singleness is a gift; at least that's what we've been taught. But if singleness is a gift, then why does it make us feel so miserable so often? Does God really want his children to embrace a gift they resent so much?

Debbie Maken proposes that marriage is the fundamental design and structure for life that God chose for his people. She argues that the church needs to reemphasize the importance of the gift of marriage. This book issues a challenge to churches in their teaching and attitudes toward singleness and to believers in their understanding of God' s intentions regarding marriage.

What if the answer were, even though you resent it, and it makes you feel miserable, it is still a gift, because even the things that you resent, and that make you feel miserable, are gifts? Of course, Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible would probably mock such an idea. However, as I pointed out, mockery is not an argument.

This brings me to one of my favorite sermons by one of my favorite speakers. Pastor William Shishko is pastor of Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and professor of pastoral theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Back in 2003, he preached a series on suffering called Where's God When it Hurts? One of my favorite sermons is part 3 of this five part sermon series, where Pastor Shishko talks about how Christ relates to our suffering. It is one of the best expositions of the phrase "fill up what is lacking in Christ afflictions" in Colossians 1:20 that I have ever seen. Not only that, but Pastor Shishko shows the necessity, even the goodness of suffering in our lives. How is it that the suffering of Christ is related to our suffering? How does it relate to our salvation as a whole? How does it help us to even define salvation? I was listening to it again this morning and was just struck by how relevant the sermon is to, not only our views of marriage and singleness, but also the modern church in general.

Sometimes discernment is required in these little areas so that we can have discernment in these greater areas. One of the many reasons why Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible's ideas have absolutely no appeal to me is because of the fact that I want to know Christ above all things, including being married. That is, if my singleness makes me know Christ more, it is to be perferred. Even if I suffer in "protracted singleness," and it helps me know Christ more, I would rather know Christ than marry. Now, could I have both? Yes, God grants both to many people. However, ultimately, it is more important to me to know Christ than anything else. Therefore, as I learn the sufferings of Christ, I am learning more and more to trust in him in whether I get what I want, or whether I do not. I know that, whether I go through times of pleasure or times of suffering, Christ is right there going through it together with me.

Throughout in this series, Pastor Shishko quotes a man by the name of Samuel Rutherford, a man who suffered greatly for his faith. Rutherford said that he feared that he might make his suffering an idol, because, through his suffering, he knew Christ more. Sadly, this is not a problem in the modern church. This is one case where comparing the problems of the church in Rutherford's time and the problems of the church in our time says a whole lot about the state of the church today.

2008-03-18T13:15:00.000-07:00

Captain Sensible More Sensible than Debbie Maken!!!!!!!!

I have been [trying to] have a dialogue with Debbie Maken [which begins here] on the Boundless Blog. She keeps on running out the exact same arguments that I then refute. However, she has been charging me with "bearing false witness" against her. So, I challanged her to show where I had done that. Here is her response:

To that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors):

I am surprised. I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door, so one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness) against those who do not live next door.

It's hard to take you seriously because you want to characterize perfectly substantive answers, as no answers, simply because you do not care for the answers. You want to raise specious questions like, "Where does Luther say rare?" (See your own blog). When you yourself quote Luther as saying "rare, not one in a thousand." (See comment #147). Please do not take Boundless' highly liberal posting policy of your intellectual garbage as an indicator of merit, but more of a "let a fool speak and remove all doubt."

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. First of all, here is what I *actually* said with regards to Martin Luther and rareness of the gift:

Ok, and where does Luther every say that it always would be rare?

See, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Luther believed the gift was rare, but whether he believed that it would continue to be rare. Of course, Maken simply skirted this, so she could get back to her mocking tone.

It seems like Maken thinks that skirting the issue, and using acid-filled language is giving an answer. It simply is not. As others have pointed out in the comments to my last post, the best these folks can do is attack my credentials, and my spelling.

However, what I wanted to point out is the language that is used in this "response." She uses phrases like "that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School," "I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door," "one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness)," "intellectual garbage," and "let a fool speak." I must ask you. How is this any different from Captain Sensible's "Dumb and Dumber" post that Captain Sensible herself has since decided to remove? What level of nasty language did this woman use that Captain Sensible did not use in her last post that she eventually took down? At this point, I have to say that Captain Sensible is far more sensible than Debbie Maken.

This is the same woman who has written articles for Boundless, [in the "best of" section, no less] whose book Boundless endorses [also in the same "best of" section], who has the approval of Albert Mohler and Tim Challes, and who has endorsed Candice Watters' book. Let me ask why it is that a woman who cannot answer straight questions like this, who must resort to all kinds of acid, to cover up for the fact that she is only skirting everything I have said, would ever end up with this kind of support from Christians.

I am hoping to, in the next few days, write to Albert Mohler and Boundless and point them to this discussion. I am hoping that they will see that an endorsement of this woman's work is simply not possible from such influential Christian institutions. I mean, if Albert Mohler still wants to support Candice Watters, and Boundless still wants to support Albert Mohler, then I see nothing wrong with that. However, giving approval to this kind of irrational nastiness from a position such as Debbie Maken's that is based in nothing more than emotion, is not something that Christians should be doing. We should care enough about truth that we are willing to answer each other's questions in an honest, open manner. It is obvious from this discussion that Debbie Maken cannot do that.

I hope this has been instructive. The dialogue is a good example of how to deal with someone that comes from the cultic version of the Mandatory Marriage Movement. However, unfortunately, there will be many people out there who do not know that there are responses to this stuff. I only hope and pray that there will not be more people who take the cultic approach to this issue like Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible have.

That is, again, why I have to say that, while I criticized Boundless a minute ago for supporting this woman's work, I have to say that, from all of the people in this movement with whom I have dialogued, they are by far the most Godly of any. They are, at least, willing to consider what you say, and come up with an honest answer. For that, they are to be commended. Again, I pray that, whichever side of this discussion you take, we honestly deal with these issues in a fair, God honoring manner. This is something for which, given her consistent campaign to silence me, Debbie Maken simply cannot do.

2008-03-15T08:04:00.000-07:00

Captain Sensible says..."Maybe I have gone too far??????"

First of all [and this may come as a shock], I have to commend Captain Sensible for removing her post that I blogged about last night. However, there is the possibility that it will show up again, as the post that appeared on her blog implies. Here is what she wrote in its entirety:

---------------------------------
Time to consider...

Notice: The post that was originally here has been removed while I take some time to consider, and seek advice, as to whether I have gone over the top.
Thanks for your understanding.
----------------------------------

Hence, on the one hand, I commend Captain Sensible for removing her last post, and for considering the possibility that she should not have posted it. However, on the other hand, I guess my whole question is why it is that someone has to think about something like this. I mean, as I said in my last post, I had to warn everyone go get their asbestos gloves before reading it. The nastiness was just so bad that my fiancé was asking me "Why do you subject yourself to this?" I would invite anyone to read the sections of the post she removed that I quoted in my last post, and see if, indeed, there should be any question as to whether or not Captain Sensible has gone "over the top."

Again, I commend Captain Sensible for doing the right thing in removing that post, but it is somewhat disturbing that she thinks it is possible that that kind of language is acceptable for a Christian.

2008-03-14T15:48:00.000-07:00

Captain Sensible is at it Again!

(Warning!!!!!!! Make sure you put on your asbestos gloves before reading this post!!!!!!!)

Wow, I mean, I have never seen such venom as what is in this post from Captain Sensible. She calls Ted Slater and myself "Dumb and Dumber." Now, I know that it is difficult sometimes to control your language when you are addressing such a hot topic. In fact, one of the greatest challanges in addressing this issue is to control my language when I am hurled the insults that Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken send my way. That is one thing about which my professors told me to be careful. I am even somewhat concerned about my last post. It is not easy. However, this post by Captain Sensible absolutely takes the cake. I will leave it to the reader to decide if this is truly Christian behavior.

Captain Sensible really only makes one substantive argument:

We currently have "Adam" arguing that because the creation mandate starts with "Go forth and multiply" and continues "fill the earth and subdue it", then it cannot apply as a mandate to marry because no one person can possibly "fill the earth".
Huh?
Maybe this will help him.
Imagine the scenario of a sales team. Their manager says to them "Go out and make sales. The target for this month is £100k!"Does the manager mean that each individual has to make £100k in sales, otherwise s/he is exempt from the work?

Or is the normal, sensible, logical understanding that collectively, the team should make £100k in sales, and that each member of the sales team should do their best to contribute their share, unless there is a very good reason for them to be excused from the work?

The problem with Captain Sensible's interpretation is that she is being arbitrary. She wants to say that the imperatives "Be fruitful and multiply" mean "everyone must be fruitful and multiply" and the phrase fill the earth means "everyone in a group of people must contribute to a quota of filling the earth." However, such is totally arbitrary. Notice, the analogy to the sales manager doesn't work because he changed his language from the imperative mood to to "the target for this month is." The Hebrew text simply does not do that. It is three imperatives in a row:

#r,a'Þh'-ta, Waïl.miW Wb±r>W WrïP.

All of the words in purple are imperatives with a prefixed conjunction [except for the first word that has no prefixed conjunction]. "Be fruitful," [WrïP.] "Multiply" [Wb±r>W] and "Fill" [Waïl.miW]. However, notice, they are right next to each other. There is nothing between the but a conjunction. Captain Sensible would have us believe that [WrïP.] and [Wb±r>W] are commands given to individuals while [Waïl.miW] is a given to a group of people. Such is totally arbitrary. What warrant do we have for saying that the first two imperatives are addressed to individuals, and the second is addressed to a group when [Waïl.miW] is the very next word!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that how we do exegesis? We can just arbitrarily change the referent for the commands right in the middle of the sentence, even though it is exactly the same form, and the very next word?

Also, would Captain Sensible say that it is a correct interpretation for a group of people to "be fruitful and multiply?" In other words, "Be fruitful and Multiply" is not a command to individuals, but to a group of people, just like she says "fill the earth" is a command to a group of people? And if not, why the arbitrary switching of the person to whom the third command is addressed when it is the next word????????

Secondly, the only way I can see Captain Sensible trying to get around it is from her statement to the effect of "contribute to the sales?" I assume she is implying that we must only contribute to "filling the earth." So, would it be alright, then, if I just contributed to "being fruitful and multiplying" by being a matchmaker, and getting people together, even though I have no children of my own? Well, Captain Sensible will never go for that one!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, no Hebrew grammar lists "contributive" [is there really such a thing????] as a valid sytactical function for the imperative. There is simply no usage of the imperative that means "contribute to x." Captain Sensible is just making it up as she goes along, not realizing that she is unnaturally breaking up the text in an effort to preserve her exegetically weak interpretation of Genesis 1:28.

Now, I just simply have to quote the rest of the stuff that was said about Ted and I, because it is just full of acid. It amazes me that she can call Ted and I "Dumb and Dumber," then present a very weak exegetical presentation on Genesis 1:28, and state the following. It is truly amazing:

Ted Slater seems impressed by the great wisdom on display in Adam's posts - even offering a recent "well done"! Shame he didn't use his comment intervention on that thread to "encourage" and give "hope" to a poor woman (see below) who wrote about how it was just too painful to desire marriage any more. No, Ted Slater ignores that, and instead offer a pat on the back to an amateur theologian whose arguments are too stupid to even take seriously. (Maybe Ted thinks she "intentionally" delayed marriage, and now good Christian men will understandably pass her by in favour of women with more "vigour" and "youthfulness"?)

I am also sick and tired of reading about Christian women who "haven't had a date in 10 years", yet are "constantly being approached by men in the world.

"This is simply unacceptable.

Single Christian women must not put up with this any longer. I would suggest marrying a Godly, believing man in the world, one unsullied by all this falsely "Christian" poison, and then once settled with a husband and family of your own, focus on changing this situation for your still suffering sisters.

Shame on Ted Slater. Shame on Boundless. Shame on Focus on the Family. Shame on the lot of them. They have the power and position to do good. But they are instead choosing to continue the madness.

Focus on "the Family"? I think not...

Incidentally: Here is that heart-breaking comment that was posted and which Ted ignored, preferring to post a comment saying "well done" to Adam, and another which effectively encourages men that have delayed marriage for decades to chase after younger women>

Tell me, shouldn't this poor young woman have been addressed? My heart truly breaks for her. How is it possible for Ted Slater to leave her comment ignored, and make such car crash interventions instead? And still keep his job???

Wow, I mean, first of all, these folks refuse to admit that we do not believe that there is anything wrong with wanting marriage, so, her criticism of Ted with regards to this post is just downright absurd.

Second of all, she suggest "marrying a Godly, believing man in the world." The phrase "Godly, believing man in the world" is an oxymoron. If someone is a Godly, believing man, he will not willfully refrain from the covenant community. I know I will probably alienate some people by saying this, but, if you are willfully not a member of the local church, not subject to the elders of that church [1 Peter 5:5], and are forsaking the assembly together [Hebrews 10:25], then you are living in sin. People who intentionally live in unrepentant sin, who wilfully refuse to be obedient to God in his commands as to how we are to live our Christian life in the covenant community are not believers. Now, I am not talking about those who are unable to regularly attend a church because of an illness or because they live too far away from the nearest church, etc. I am talking about a person, like Captain Sensible is talking about, who, by willfully refusing to be a part of a covenant community, is living a life of sin. Such a person is not a Christian in the Biblical sense, and I believe that, therefore, Captain Sensible is telling Christian women to marry unbelievers.

However, beyond these two serious flaws, look at the acid in this post. You have words and phrases like "amateur theologian," "too stupid to be taken seriously," "falsely Christian poison," "shame on Boundless, Focus on the Family, a lot of them," Focus on the Family...I think not," "heartbreaking comment which Ted ignored," "which effectively encourages men that have delayed marriage for decades to chase after younger women," and "How is it possible for Ted Slater to leave her comment ignored, and make car crash interventions instead? And still keep his job???" And, of course, we have Debbie Maken jumping in to rebuke Captain Sensible for her personal attacks on Ted and I......well, of course not. Debbie Maken called me an "amateur theologian" as well in her post that I linked to in my last blog entry. I really have to wonder if these women recognize that their language is giving away the fact that they are unable to answer the criticisms we are using against them.

Again, I absolutely cannot believe that people take Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible seriously. They are on crusades, and are unable to stop and hear what the other side is saying. It is merely a game to smear the other side, and make them look so stupid that no one would ever dare believe what they have to say. Of course, if our arguments were so stupid, you would think that they would be jumping at the opportunity to show it. I will be interested to see if she will post this argument about Genesis 1:28 on Boundless, because I would love to have the opportunity of showing why it is that these people have to keep on saying that we are "stupid" and "dumb and dumber" on their own blogs where they have comment moderation, and yet, will refuse to subject themselves to an *open* dialogue about the issues with the very people they are willing to call "stupid" and "dumb and dumber" on their own, comment moderated, blog.

At least it is good that Ted Slater is out there being shot at too. It feels good to not be the only moving target.

2008-03-13T19:20:00.000-07:00

Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible...Cut From the Same Cloth

Well, I absolutely can't believe it. Debbie Maken has responded to my post on the Boundless Blog about Martin Luther...sort of. All you will find is the same kind of condescending rhetoric, and repitition of the same arguments that have been refuted over and over again.

However, what I find interesting is the last paragraph of Maken's post:

There is no common ground with these rogues because all we will see is lip service to the general rule drowning in an endless sea of exceptions that swallows/undermines the very rule. Boundless should not be an instrument or platform for this kind of sophisticated undermining of marriage in the name of fostering discourse.

So, now, Debbie Maken has joined in the campaign to silence any opposition to her beliefs. What I find so interesting is that this is the same kind of things that cults do. Again, don't the Jehovah's Witnesses have this idea of "apostate literature?" Do they not forbid their readers from reading anything critical of their society? There you go. I think I can now safely include Debbie Maken in the cultic version of this movement.

I posted this on the Boundless Blog, but I figured I would post it here, just to give you the idea that I have answered all of this stuff before, and now, Maken, rather than responding to me, just keeps repeating the same old arguments that I have dealt with a hundred times over.

-------------------------------------------
Debbie Maken,

Ultimately, his words speak for themselves, and they are quite clear. . . . "Apart from these three categories of eunuchs, let no man presume to be without a wife. . . ." To then say, as some have suggested, that Luther says nothing of people being "called to singleness," is intellectually dishonest. The exemptions are clearly outlined. If you don't fall into them, then get married. If Luther says that "not one in a thousand" falls into these exceptions, the emphasis is NOT on the "not" to suggest that Luther perhaps meant "more than one in a thousand." How opinions and tortured conclusions like these continue to receive Ted Slater's warm applause ("well said" of comment #28) baffles me.

What is intellectually dishonest is that you refuse to quote me in context. I said that Luther defined the third category as someone who "willfully refrained from marriage." Please deal with Luther's own discussion of that third category.

This open-ended idea that people are somehow individually "called to singleness," just right up until the time they decide that they are called to marriage, is to give the creature a guilt-free, shame-free, spiritually-unquestionable license of pursuing marriage whenever and without any regard to the cost, either individually, or to the spouse one could have had, to the collective impact on the church and society.

Then why is it that Luther talked about those who "willfully refrain?" Not only that, Debbie, but could you please explain the following quotation from Luther, given your interpretation of him?:

Here I will let the matter rest and leave to others the task of searching out further benefits and advantages of the estate of marriage. My purpose was only to enumerate those which a Christian can have for conducting his married life in a Christian way, so that, as Solomon says, he may find his wife in the sight of God and obtain favour from the Lord [Prov. 18:22]. In saying this I do not wish to disparage virginity, or entice anyone away from virginity into marriageLet each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God.

As I said on my blog, Debbie, your position is a modern invention. It never saw the light of day before the twenty-first century.

There is nothing unusual or new about the marriage mandate position—generally understood, it is one that believes that marriage was instituted by God, is to be honored by all, is expected to be lived in as the norm for adult life, is a sacred duty for those to enter into during the season of youth,

Which, of course, the scriptures never teach.

and the "rare" (to borrow Luther's word) exception is just that, "rare," and not be dwelt upon incessantly since it "rarely" applies, and such musings are only fancy sidetracking attempts to further add confusion to an area already scarred from misinformation.

Ok, and where does Luther every say that it always would be rare?

Consequently, those who choose to be and/or find themselves single without the biblical warrant for exemptions from marriage

Again, where do you get this idea that there must be "Biblical exemptions?" Even Martin Luther allowed for a person to willfully refrain from marriage.

The question is does Scripture mandate marriage for the vast numbers of men and women. And do the creation ordinances of Genesis (and replenishment commands post deluge) mandate marriage in a way that children grow up and assume the mantle of adulthood by marrying a spouse of their youth and siring another generation so that they are counted among those who were told to "be fruitful and multiply"?

Well, again, if you are saying that this command applies to individuals, then would you not say that every person is under obligation to have a thousand children each year, so at the end of their lives they have "filled the earth?" As I have said before, these imperatives are right next to each other. Whoever is being commanded to be fruitful and multiply is also being commanded to fill the earth. Your exegesis forces you to the absurd conclusion that everyone is obligated to have seven billion children in their lifetime so that they fill the earth

are in a spiritual no man's land and they are going to go without certain blessings because God is not required to bless outside of the boundaries He himself has instituted. If this viewpoint then raises some eyebrows as to why perfectly normal eligible bachelors go year after year being perennially single, it is a logical outflow, a necessary conclusion, and a good in and of itself, for it serves as an additional impetus to push those dragging their feet toward marriage.

And, of course, none of them require marriage.

And if Luther had agreed with the status quo of open-ended reading of I Corinthians 7 and private conscience driven singleness, we would have heard about these Luther sermons long before Getting Serious about Getting Married was published.

We did. In the very sermon you quoted, Luther said "Let each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God." Again, I have to wonder if you even read the resources that you quote, or if you just went through them looking for anything that seemed to support your position.

We certainly did not need a theological giant from Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors) showing us how to reconstruct very simple words.

Lol, silent backing?????? So, Dr. James Hoffmeier saying that he agreed with me, and Dr. Richard Averbeck telling me that your perspective is a "classic overreaction?" That is hardly silence. It sounds more to me like they think the same thing I do of your position.

We want single people to have accountability of their singleness and the extension of their single years on their own terms without feeling any pinch whatsoever since we cannot know every one's peculiar individual situation. That is not accountability; that is man saying that he rules his life the way he sees fit under some spiritual carte blanche, and how dare others judge him for it.

Well, again, that would require that you show us that there is some obligation from the scriptures in order for you to "hold someone accountable."

Ultimately, there is no reason to castigate "the marriage mandate for the masses" crowd because the contrary position is a giant ball of self-contradiction.

My position has been held by reformed churches for four hundred years? And if my position is so self-contradictory as you say, why is it you have consistently refused to respond to any of your detractors? I mean, if we are so "self-contradictory" as you say, it should be very easy to take on our arguments rather than just repeating the same things over and over again.

The author of the original article regarding Luther did an excellent job appreciating Luther's depth on this subject, and extrapolated exactly what Luther's own writings would indicate.

Then, again, it should be very easy to respond to the things that I have said. However, you seem to have the ability to keep repeating things, and also use condescending language to cover up for the fact that you guys seem to have no answer to the things we are saying.

However, many of your bloggers comments have sought to do the exact opposite in misdirecting the reader from what was actually written by Luther, and have sewn seeds of doubt on writings where there are no doubts.

How can someone be misdirecting the reader from Luther's writings when I am actually quoting him! When I am examining him in the context in which he made these statements. You say that there is no doubts. Again, Debbie, then it should not be too difficult to prove by showing that I have somehow misused Luther in his context.

There is no common ground with these rogues because all we will see is lip service to the general rule drowning in an endless sea of exceptions that swallows/undermines the very rule. Boundless should not be an instrument or platform for this kind of sophisticated undermining of marriage in the name of fostering discourse.

No, actually, I respect Ted Slater and Boundless for being willing to dialogue about this issue. BTW, Debbie, I allow homosexuals, gay marriage proponents, and virtually anyone with any false view of marriage and any false teaching to post on my blog. You know what? I have never had anyone that I am aware of who agrees with my position, and reads my blog ever convert to false teaching. Why? Because I believe that the contrast between the Biblical position and the worldly position is most clearly seen when we place them side by side. That is what makes my wander about Captain Sensible's [and now your] crusade against academic discussion of these matters. If you guys don't have the courage of your convictions, and you have to keep repeating the same arguments that have been refuted a hundered times, keep giving us nothing but dogmatism, and want to silence the opposition, then I really don't know how you can honestly say that you believe your position is rationally defensible.

BTW, for those of you who want to see just how bad Debbie Maken's scholarship is with regards to Calvin and the reformers, here is an article I published wherein I documented several academically dishonest uses of the reformers and works about the reformed views of marriage:

http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/was-calvin-marriage-mandator-this.html

Again, I would ask anyone to go read Luther's sermon, as well as his other works on marriage [His commentary on Genesis, his Commentary on 1 Corinthians, and his other sermon entitled "The Estate of Marriage" and come to your own conclusions. I can confidently say that I believe, when the two are put side by side, that it is very clear who is accurately representing the reformers.

God Bless,
Adam
-------------------------------------------

Well, I just leave it to the reader to decide about the integrity and credibility of Debbie Maken.

What I also find interesting is that this is the only topic I have ever seen Debbie Maken address at an academic level. I just got done doing a presentation on Proverbs 2:1-10, and doing work in Paleo-Hebrew on the West Semitic inscriptions that mention the "house of the Lord." Not only that, but I have been taking a class in Hermeneutics, which is a class on the entire theory of Biblical interpretation. One of the values that I am finding in studying all of these topics is that it helps keep me focused on proper interpretational methods in texts that have nothing to do with this issue so that, when I address it, I am able to be more Biblically faithful in doing so. To my knowledge, Maken has not done exegetical work in an academic setting outside of this area, and thus, I think that this might be contributing to the problem.

However, again, I wonder how anyone could support a position in which there is a conscious effort to silence any opposition to what they are saying. In fact, Ted Slater said that he thought that my post was well said. I hope that means that we are getting closer in our respective beliefs about this topic, and I look forward to continuing the conversation. Of course, if Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible get their way, then that will be impossible. Then, I guess, I will have to rely on their inability to handle cross examination of their position as the final nail in the coffin of their position.

Again, I respect the Boundless Blog for their commitment to allowing both sides to speak, and I have attempted to model my blog after the same manner. In fact, I read several articles on the Boundless Blog that have nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Hence, with all of this stuff going on with Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken, I would just like to applaud Boundless for their commitment to integrity, and open, honest discussion of in house debates such as this, and even things like atheism, abortion, pornography, etc. that we all agree is wrong. I can only pray that one day Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible will learn the same.

2008-03-07T15:39:00.000-08:00

Captain Sensible Does It Again

I really cannot believe that people still take Captain Sensible seriously, after she has posted so much nastiness, and desires to silent any opposition to her movement. I mean, her version of the Mandatory Marriage Movement is downright cultic, and it is obvious that Captain Sensible knows she is loosing this debate, since she has to silence everyone who disagrees with her.

I have been going around to various looking at posts about a recent Boundless article about Martin Luther. I was posting about it over on the Boundless Blog, and I was wondering what others were saying about it. Of course, Captain Sensible could not resist posting about it. In the course of the discussion, she even spoke of yours truly. Here, amazingly, is what she said:

And a regular comment poster, who seems to have far too much time on his hands for the devil to make work for, decides that marriage is like "medicine for a cold".

Ok, I would love to see Captain Sensible take Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian. I would also love to see her be able to even get half way through Dr. VanGemeren's class on the poetic and prophetic books. Trust me, I have more than enough material on my plate. It is amazing that these people seem to know every little detail of my life even though they have never met me.

And, not only that, Captain Sensible is misrepresenting me. I was not talking about the nature of marriage, but the relationship marriage has to sanctification. Does sanctifying grace come through marriage? If it does, then you are either going to have to believe that every married person ends up sanctified, or you are going to have to deny the fourth point of Calvinism, Irresistible Grace. Hence, my comments have to do with the role marriage plays in relation to our sanctification, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of marriage itself.

Of course, she also couldn't resist taking a cheap shot at Ted Slater for not trying to silence all opposition. I mean, I don't agree with Boundless on several issues, but they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they do not deserve the treatment that Captain Sensible is giving them, for no other reason than they don't run an entire blog on this issue. Want proof? Apparently, Captain Sensible said the following about Ted Slater on her blog:

Captain Sensible writes: When is Boundless going to get an editor that actually cares about the problem single Christian women face with regard to singleness?
Wouldn't Ted Slater be much happier, and better suited, to editing a blog on global warming?
Does he think it doesn't matter, or that no one will notice, that he really couldn't care less about singleness?
Does anyone have faith in the integrity of what is laughingly called their "comment moderation policy"?
Such a pity.

Notice, unless Ted Slater always addresses this issue, and turns the Boundless blog into a blog like hers, he doesn't care about the issue of singleness. Wow, I mean, how irrational can you get. Boundless has an entire section on their homepage of articles about singleness, and blog posts galore about them. Apparently, that is not enough for Captain Sensible. Unless you address it in almost every post, and censor yourself from criticism, you somehow don't care.

Of course, no one can hold this woman accountable, because she refuses to accept correction. She only displays comments favorable to her position on her blog so she doesn't have to answer for this stuff, and also, she is trying to get everyone she has to have the same mindset that she does, namely, that Debbie Maken must be right, and anyone who disagrees with her must be of the devil.

This is not the way Christians should behave. We should be willing to have a rational dialogue on the issues where we go back and forth and discuss these things. Expecially if we are so stupid, and Captain Semsible is so brilliant, you would think that she would be leaping for joy to show how silly we are in a dialogue. Of course, that is not going to happen any time soon.

2008-03-06T07:02:00.001-08:00

Whoever Controls the Schools

...rules the world. It is an old saying I once heard. One of the benifits of Presbyterianism is our belief in the covenant community, and the idea that children should be raised and educated in the covenant community. However, for California parents, this may be a right not guaranteed for much longer. Apparently, there were charges of abuse in one Christian household because they spanked their children, and, upon further investigation, they found that they were homeschooled, and they challanged whether or not homeschooling was consistent with the laws of the state of California. Apparently, children ages 6 to 18 to be enrolled in school, and so, the homeschooling parents started a private school which allowed parents to teach at home. Hence, the parents became the teachers for the school. Thus, it was fully complying with the laws of the state. However, for how long this will be true is unsure.

First of all, I am absolutely tired of hearing how spanking is child abuse. Now, we do need to clarify. Some forms of spanking are child abuse. For instance, spanking out of anger, or spanking every time there is a small little dispute. Such is not God-honoring correction at all. However, there is a legitimate usage of what is called the "rod of discipline:

Proverbs 13:24 He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

Notice that, in these passages, the Bible speaks of the "rod [jb,ve] of discipline," which all lexical sources agree is a form of remedial discipline [see Wilhelm VanGemeren New International dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, and Kohler Baumgartner Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament]. The standard lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs says that it is a "common article for smiting" [p.987]. While we need to be careful of the root fallacy, the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the root may have came from the Samaritan jmX meaning "to strike." In other words, what is being said here, is not that a striking rod is "abuse," but just the opposite, that it is remedial. Striking a child is something that will "rescue his soul from Sheol," "take away his foolishness," and "give him wisdom." In fact, one could say that refusing to spank your child, from a Biblical perspective, is a form of child abuse. As remember pastor Bill Shishko saying that the rod was a way of breaking the child's will so that he does not live for himself. So, actually, it is the people who are arguing against these parents that should be brought up for child abuse from a Biblical perspective.

However, even worse than that is the forced secularization of home-schooling children. Do you notice that the secularists and the humanists are the ones who are trying to remove this remedial discipline from children? Is it any suprise that the same groups that would want to indoctrinate our children with humanist ideology are the same groups that do not want our children to have the rod of correction? No, it is no coincidence. The humanists are people who do live for themselves, refusing to aknowledge God, and live in obedience to his law. If the will is broken, then there is no chance for indoctrination of humanistic ideology. Do you notice how this all gets down to foundational issues such as the sinfulness of the human will, and the lordship of Christ over one's life? You see, this is why education is not a small matter. However, you educate your children will determine what they value most in their life. This is why the rod needs to be used to train up children to be obedient to God's law, and not to follow their own desires.

In fact, there is a verse in Proverbs that speaks specifically to this point:

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child with in accordance with his [own] way, and even when he grows older, he will not turn from it.

Now, you might be asking, "But that is different than every translation!" Yes, because I reject every translation at this point. I have very good reason for so doing. To start off, I must point out that I am not alone in this. Consider the following works which also reject the common translation:

Clifford, Richard. Proverbs, a Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky. 1999 p.197

Stuart, Douglass. Old Testament Exegesis, a Handbook for Students and Pastors. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky. 2001 pgs. 42-43

Waltke, Bruce The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15-31. Eerdmans Publications. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2005 p.205

The reason why so many scholars reject the common interpretation is because there is simply no Hebrew equivalent of the English word "should." It simply reads, "Train up [%nOx]] a child [r[;N:l;] according to [yPi-l[;] his way [AKr>d:]." While Hugenberger rightly notes that the phrase AKr>d: could, in theory, mean "the way he should go," [Pratico, Gary. Van Pelt, Miles. The Basics of Biblical Hebrew Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2001. pgs.284-285], he is very quick to point out that there are no Biblical examples to support this interpretation, and it is expecially not used in this way in the book of Proverbs. The normal usage of the construct of %r,D, in Proverbs is to describe the way in which a person is currently going, or actually does go. For instance, we are all familiar with the phrase "the way of the fool," and "the way of the wicked." They are not saying that this is the way the wicked should go, or the way the fool should go. Quite the opposite. It is telling us the way they actually are going. In other words, this proverb is ironic in character, and, as Hugenberger rightly notes, is a "solemn warning." That is, if you train up a child in his own foolish way, then even when he is old, he will not depart from it.

That is why I believe that we should see this legal challange out in California as an attack upon our children. If we don't stand up and fight it, we will not be heeding the warning of Proverbs 22:6, because the atheists and the humanists will be more than happy to train up our children in their own way. We need to see this as an opportunity as parents to train up our children to think God's thoughts after him, and to think in such a way so as to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Christ.

Now, a few responses are in order to the arguments used in this article:

Specifically, the appeals court affirmed, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Of course, the way in which we answer that question is to point out that our children are part of the covenant community, and that provides them with interaction with people outside the family, and, given the discipline of the covenant community, would also provide them with help if something is amiss in the children's lives. They will also develop relationships with other christians, and thus, will be able to develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting.

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Of course, the whole point is that these children are enrolled in a private school. It is just that the teachers are the parents of the children. That is the whole point of setting up the organization.

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was one of a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

I want to know who is more credentialed than the children's own parents to teach their children? Why is it that the people who have been with the children their entire lives and know every intimate detail about them are not credentialed to teach them? The response might come back that they are not well trained in various fields. The simple answer to that is that anyone who has graduated from High School knows how to do research in a given area. What is to stop a parent from teaching their children after they have done complete research on the topic? And, what if materials such as books or video tapes could be given to the children from Christian organizations that are experts in the areas that parents are not? Would that not provide the credentials necessary to teach the children? Such seems obvious.

Again, there is no reason why Christian parents should not be able to raise their children, both remedially and educationally, in a Christian home. The atheists and the humanists simply have no leg to stand on in this case. We need to be praying for those that are fighting this attack in order to keep home schooling legal, and pray that our children would not be raised in their own ways, but in the training and admonition of the Lord. It is also a call for parents to exercise that right while they can. With the apostasy of the west, it is not to difficult to conceive of a time in which parents will be forced to send their children to these secular seminaries to have them indoctrinated with humanism.

2008-02-26T15:34:00.000-08:00

Education in our Schools

I was listening to the February 16 edition of the Gary DeMar show, and Gary was calling for a mass exodus from the public schools. During the show, his guest, Dr. Ron Gleason mentioned some videos that he had on his website of children being taught in public schools. I went to his website, and found that, in actuallity it was an offsite video. However, I was still curious, and clicked on the link. What I found in these videos was just shocking. Here they are, just so you are aware of what is happening with your taxpayer dollars.

The first thing that stuck out to me in the first video was this statement in the teacher's meeting:

We are asking kids to believe that this is right not as a matter of [inaudible]. We are educating them, and this is what we consider to be part of healthy education.

In other words, "healthy education" is educating children to be secular humanists, to deny the inerrancy of the Bible, and do adopt a worldview that cannot make sense out of morality, science, logic, induction, knowledge, etc. If this does not tell you that public schools who do this kind of a thing have an agenda, then I don't know what will.

Next, there was the reading of a book called Asha's Mums. It was about a girl named Asha told her class that her brother and her have two moms. A child in this book called out what seems natural to all of us who have not accepted this worldview, and said "You can't have to moms." The teacher retorts "Now, if you were Asha, how do you think you'd feel?" This theme runs throughout all the videos. We have to ask how it would make us "feel." Well, I just simply have to retort that murderers do not feel very good when they are arrested and put into prision. However, would anyone who holds this position seriously consider this to be a problem? What is right and what is wrong is not based on how it makes a person feel. If it were, we would have utter moral chaos.

Next, one of the little boys said that he didn't think that this girl was being very open minded. The teacher asked him to explain what he meant by "open minded." Now, of course, anyone who has ever dealt with these folks knows just how closed minded these people are. Just simply ask the question, "Are you willing to be open to the idea that the Bible is inerrant, and that, therefore, homosexuality is an abomination [Leviticus 18:22, 20:13]?" I guarantee that they are totally unwilling to be open minded to that idea.

Then, the teacher read aloud from this very ludicrious part of this book.

"You can't have two momies," Judy insisted. "Yes she can," Rita said turning around in her seat. "Just like you have two aunts, and to daddies, and two grandmas."

Well, first of all, no one can have two daddies. Second, would these people accept the idea that you can have two wives? Indeed, most people who are pushing for this kind of agenda do not, in any way shape or form, want to support polygamy. However, if it is acceptable to have two of everything, why not have two wives?

Then, one teacher asked, "Think about, if you personally, yourself, have ever heard anybody using a word that would make a gay person feel bad, or be really hurtful to a gay person, and think about how it made you feel." One of the kids said that they heard them using derogatory language. In other words, I guess what they are saying there is no way to address a situation in a God honoring fashion while still letting that person know that their behavior is wrong. In other words, if you dare say that homosexual behavior is wrong, all of the sudden you are just like the person who uses derogatory language, no matter how God honoring you are in your approach.

After this, there was a gay physical education teacher who gave the following mini speech:

Imagine if everytime I went to play soccer, I had to hide my right shin, and then, I try to play soccer. It wouldn't be easy, but I could do it. It would take a lot of energy to play soccer, and also hide my leg. Well, at CFS, I don't have to hide, so I can play soccer with two legs. At CFS, I can tell the truth that I am a gay man, and that gives me so much more energy to be a better teacher, to be a better coworker, and to be a better friend.

Let me present this little parody:

Imagine if everytime I went to play soccer, I had to hide my right shin, and then, I try to play soccer. It wouldn't be easy, but I could do it. It would take a lot of energy to play soccer, and also hide my leg. Well, at CFS, I don't have to hide, so I can play soccer with two legs. At CFS, I can tell the truth that I am a child molester, and that gives me so much more energy to be a better teacher, to be a better coworker, and to be a better friend.

Now, of course, most people would shreek in horror if someone stood up in an elementary school and said this. The problem is that this gentleman has it backwards. When he is really hiding one leg is when he is openly expressing his homosexuality. Why? Because he is not admitting that he is a creature that is created in the image of God, and as such, he owes his obedience to God. Hence, he is not functioning in the way God created him to be, and thus, he is trying to go through life knowing God, and yet refusing to honor him as such [Romans 1:21].

At one point, the teachers ask these children to judge whether or not gays should be able to marry. He presents two positions, and when he presents his position he says, "Others think it should just be up to two adults to decide what they want to do." Well, what happens if one of the two adults is a cannable, and he asks the other adult if he can eat his flesh after he dies, and the other adult agrees. Is this somehow morally acceptable?

Then, during the "judging," one young girl went on a rant. she said:

Now the majority is not gay or lesbian couples. I think they should think about what if the majority was gay or lesbian couples, and there was a law that said you had to be gay or lesbian, and you couldn't get married to the opposite sex. I think they otta think about that, and see how they would feel, and then they might know how these gay and lesbians feel...It is just like being prejudiced against blacks or Jews.

Where in the world has anyone ever suggested that something is right because it is the majority? This is simply not how ethics is done. You don't say majority rules. Also, notice again, you also don't say "How does it make you feel." As I pointed out above, both are equally fallacious when it comes to ethical reasoning.

Now, as far as the statement that it is just like being prejudiced against blacks or Jews, the question must come as to whether or not all discrimination is wrong. I believe it is not. We discriminate against murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, etc., and no one complains about that. Of course, what I am trying to say is that it is perfectly acceptable to be discriminate against those who practice immoral behavior. We do it all of the time by putting them in prisions, fining them, etc. Now, of course, we need to say right off the bat that we need to be obedient to God's law at this point, and not engage in name calling, and derogatory language. When it comes to how we deal with homosexuals in our modern society, we need to still be obedient to what God has said.

At the end of this second video one of the teachers said, "If we do not provide them with these experiences, then we will not be improving our civilization." Here is where the worldview issue really comes full circle. You see, these people believe that the way we improve our civilization is by telling kids to determine ethics based on their feelings, to be open minded to sin, and to reject God's law. However, Psalm 1 gives us the Christian worldview:

Psalm 1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers. 4 The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish.

You see, this type of lawlessness is the exact opposite of what the Christian believes we need in order to improve our civilization. What the Christian believes we need is to do to improve our civilization is to delight in the law of the Lord. Hence, the worldviews are laid out very clearly. What this teacher has said is simply a counterfiet version of salvation.

I could not help but notice the irony of the kids singing This Little Light of Mine at the end of the first video. If you read the lyrics, you will find that it is talking about Jesus' statement in Matthew 5 from the KJV:

Matthew 5:14-19 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

How ironic that the very same passage from which this song comes talks about Jesus not coming to abolish the law. Amazingly, it also talks about the light being the good works that we are to let people see, so that we glorify our father who is in heaven. However, the teachers in the video were promoting an ideology that is totally contrary to God's law. You see, that is what is most troubling. Without the law of God, there is nothing to convict of sin. Notice, the attack upon the "traditional interpretation" of the Bible given by young girl who won the essay contest in the second video. Indeed, if God's law is silenced, there is no conviction of sin. That is really the danger. Not only is homosexuality said to be wrong in the Bible, it is said to be wrong by the use of one of the strongest words available in the Hebrew language, hb'[eAT, meaning "abhorrance, abomination." Not only that, in Leviticus 20:13, God commands the civil magistrates to execute unrepentant homosexuals. Hence, according to the Bible, these actions are not just immoral, they are criminal. The problem is that even the Christian community has become desensitized to this. You may not believe that the penal sanctions of the Old Testament apply today, but even if you do not, you should not think that this is too severe a punishment. You should not think that God is being "barbaric" or "too harsh" for saying this.

This is why I am studying to be an Old Testament scholar, and why I want to do my concentration in Pentatuch. We need to place God's law back into the heart of our livelyhood, and back into the heart of our thinking. We need to be like the blessed man of Psalm 1 who delights in God's law. Then, we will able to show people the holiness of God over and against the sinfulness of homosexuality. Only then can the gospel be presented. I don't even agree with the argumentation presented at the end of the second film that homosexuality cannot produce children, therefore it is wrong. Such could be said about marriages to infertile women as well. Instead of using arguments like this, we have to challange these people to see the moral mess that they have made for themselves by rejecting God's law, and present his law as the only alternative to all opposing ethical systems. Only then can we show homosexuals that they are already under the judgment of God, and that they need to have their mind and their heart redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, because ethically, they are lost without Christ.

There is hope for homosexual. It comes through repentance of their homosexuality, and faith in Jesus Christ. However, your tax dollars are going towards the promotion of this message amongst our young people which utterly separates homosexuals from the gospel. It is for this reason that I, not only caution people about sending their children to public schools, but also to write to their senators, their represenatives, the president, and members of the supreme court, and tell them that you do not want your tax dollars supporting this unbiblical, anti-gospel message.

2008-02-26T14:15:00.000-08:00

Captain Sensible...Blinded by Tradition

I came across this post on monday, and found it very ironic:

"You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

Captain Sensible writes: Hmm, ignoring the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply, in favour of following our culture's pattern of extended singleness? Jesus' words here in Mark 7:9 seem particularly apt...

She says we are "ignoring the creation mandate." I have pointed out to this woman time and time again that all of these imperatives are right next to each other. Whatever the referent is for one imperative, you must take them for all imperatives. Thus if an individual is under the command to "be fruitful and multiply," then he is also under the command to father/give birth to seven billion children as an individual, and thus, "fill the earth." If the command is for an individual to "Be fruitful and multiply," then the command to "fill the earth" is also for an individual. [ Of course, there is also no dealing with the covenantal nature of this text. There is no mention that this text is repeated in the Noahic covenant, the several places in the covenant with Abraham's descendants, and no mention of the septuagintal vocabulary used by Luke in the book of Acts.]

The funny thing is that it is Captain Sensible that is blinded by her tradition. Let me ask: Why it is that Captain Sensible still refuses to read this text in context? Why is it that her interpretation makes nonsense out of this passage? Why is it she refuses to respond to anyone who disagrees with her, and, in fact, is trying to stop people from hearing what the other side has to say? Why is it she has this strange idea that Boundless should never publish comments in their blog contrary to her position? Why is it that she has comment moderation up on her blog, and I never see any comments of people who oppose her position? Why is it that she adds a sin that the Bible does not teach, namely, "protracted singleness," and thus denies the sufficiency of the scriptures? It sounds to me like this woman is the one who is blinded by tradition. She wants a spouse so bad that she feels free to misuse the text of the Bible, hide the fact that she cannot answer criticism, and try to prevent anyone else from hearing the other side.

Again, I ask the reader, who is really nullifying the commandments of God for the sake of their traditions?

2008-02-07T17:59:00.000-08:00

Along Those Same Lines

Relating to the topic of my last post, I recently read three articles here, here, and here by Dr. Eric Svendsen, who used to be a student here at Trinity. It will absolutely shock you that some of these things go on within Christian music. Given that I myself am a musician, and my other undergraduate degree was in music, I am really upset to see that the Christian music buisness promotes this stuff. Music should be used in the worship of God, not the glorification of self.