Tags: Christianity, God, Desperate Housewives

Tags: DaVinci Code, Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis

Tags: Apple, Running, Losing Weight

Tags: Christianity, music

Tags: Fire, Josh Carnes

Bruce Ware is a theologian who seems to have all of these problems.
I’ve read quite a few papers and several books by Ware and I have never been very impressed with much of what he has to say. Though highly revered amongst his Calvinist associates, his arguments usually fall short of being persuasive and often beg the question.
Recently Ware presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington, D.C. where he again defended his position of the “eternal subordination of the Son,” a Trinitarian model he has often used as basis for his complementarian view of women in the ministry (or out of ministry if Ware were to have his way). I intended to hop on this morning and criticize his position, but then I discovered a criticism written by Susan Arnold, a Denver Seminary student, on her blog.
Susan did such a spectacular job of tearing Ware’s premise apart (not difficult to do, but she did it succinctly) that I decided to post her article here (with permission, of course) instead. Thanks, Susan! Below is her criticism of Ware’s “academic” paper and I also encourage you to check out her website, The Philosophical Pastor.
The following is a special guest essay written by Susan Arnold. As always, the opinions expressed in our guest essays do not necessarily represent those of Josh Crain or the other essayists involved with this site. All of that aside, enjoy!

Trinity For Sale? by Susan Arnold

This proof of the relationship between Jesus and the Father has become a critical foundation for a “biblical” view of the eternal subordination of women to men.
Think about that.    The “logic” goes like this: 
Jesus eternally submits to the Father ergo women eternally submit to men.
It’s a curious syllogism. Philippians 2:3-8 does not apply only to women. Ephesians 5:21 tells us that submission is mutual. 1 John 2:6 says that anyone who abides in Christ walks in the same manner in which he walks, not just women…  I could go on.
Are we to say, then, that whatever we theologically determine the Father is or does in relationship to the Son, applies to men in relationship to women?  I again wonder, where does this leave the Holy Spirit in this apparently only binitarian back-door apologetic for the subordination of women? It’s hard to see how such front-and-center attention would be given to defending this “eternal relationship” Jesus has with the Father, were there no felt-need to defend a male’s eternal place at the top of the authority pile. It’s a rather self-serving theological effort, and one that does  seem to have paid off for Ware.
But Traditionalists are not the only ones tweaking “proofs” from Trinitarian doctrine. An Egalitarian defender’s mind-bending logical disputation of the subordination of women swings to the other side of the pendulum. Where does it end? Do we really grasp the Trinity so well that we can intellectually and systematically dissect the Holy being of God, and apply our conclusions about God’s nature toward the defeat of our theological enemies? Perhaps it is believed that while some might dare be “unbiblical,” no one would dare be “untrinitarian,” sort of like moving from dynamite to nuclear weapons.
As the CBMW and the CBE duke it out, I find myself becoming less and less interested in who “wins” this one. The whole matter is devastatingly beyond the papers exchanged in the halls of academia. Women and men today still need to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Holy Spirit is not left out of this picture, and is still at work in those who follow Jesus, advancing the Kingdom despite all the wrangling going on about who gets to be king.
And has it been forgotten….in that Kingdom, Jesus is King, eternally. Would anyone care to defend that eternal relationship as metaphorically applying to women?
Ha! I doubt it!
Anyway… what of this attention to trinitarian doctrine as of late. Does anyone really want to place the Trinity in our service this way? A comparatively meager creaturely understanding of this unique and Holy nature of Yahweh, placed in service of a ubiquitous need to figure everything out so we can do something with it, seems a little bit like a 5 year old who decides he is competent to drive the SUV to the corner store for a candy bar.
Stephen Seamands, author of Ministry in the Image of God, (IVP 2005) claims that we are experiencing a “Trinitarian Renaissance,” a “resurgence of interest among theologians in the doctrine of the Trinity.” (p.15) I wonder… why?

Tags: Josh Carnes

Recently joshcrain.com and Apple entered into a partnership whereby the site will occasionally provide links to music, movies and television shows on iTunes and possibly even computers and iPods from the Apple store in the future.

Tags: Apple

So I’m sitting in a systematic theology class today and my professor begins talking about Calvinism and Arminianism.

For those of you who don’t know where I stand on the issue, I don’t want to go into it a whole lot, but I basically believe in somewhat of a synthesis between the two but with a definite leaning toward Arminianism and human free will. I’ve done a lot of study on the issues, and I understand all of the positions very well. I believe being too extreme toward either way is unhealthy, and I have even written articles on this site saying as much.

My professor basically said that many people don’t realize the practical implications of being highly Calvinistic. Though there are certainly many Calvinists who still evangelize, he gave an example of what he meant.

A couple of years ago he attended a teaching session. In the small session were quite a few Reformed (Calvinistic) missionaries who had been out on the mission field for a number of years. They asked the Reformed professor who was teaching the session (not my professor, but a different one) whether they could really tell every person they met in the mission field that God loved them and had sent Christ to die for them.

Because Calvinists believe that Christ only died for those whom God predestined would come to faith in Him, the professor replied that you could not in fact tell everyone that God loved them and died for them. The reasoning is that we can’t possibly know whom God has elected, so we can’t speak for Him. The professor went on to add that you really couldn’t make the statement to a church full of people that God loved them and Christ had died for them because you can’t know who in the congregation is part of the elect.

So here’s my question, and I would love for someone who is a Calvinist to chip in at this point (not to argue but discuss; I really just want to know): how do you, a Calvinist, witness to someone? If I can’t tell Steve that God loves him and died for him, how do I share the “love of Christ” with Steve? As a person who leans toward Arminianism, I don’t believe that God loves Steve because Steve is incredibly lovable. There is nothing inside of Steve that makes God say, “Wow! I HAVE to get Steve for my kingdom!” Rather, God loves Steve and me and everyone simply because He is that kind of God. He loves me even though I’m unlovable.

But if I can’t share that kind of wide-eyed, loving, self-sacrificing God with Steve, what do I tell him? “Steve, you should put your faith in Christ on the off chance that He elected you to be a Christian”? Though this is obviously a caricature of a statement, it’s not that far off. Clearly there are more unbelievers than believers, so there is a greater chance that Steve isn’t chosen than that he is.

All kidding aside, what does a Calvinist say in the midst of sharing the Gospel? I truly am all ears.

Tags: Calvinism

Tags: Apple, iPhone

Tags: Steelers, Pittsburgh, Ben Roethlisberger, Willie Parker

Tags: Children of Men, Clive Owen, Jesus, Moses, symbolism