part nine of the podcast series on the family integrated church movement
Published August 4, 2012
Dotty and Jon Zens
This week I welcome author, Bible scholar, and my friend, Jon Zens, to the podcast as we look at a few of the questionable doctrines that are making their way through some churches in the Family Integrated Church movement. For more information on this subject, the book y Kevin Giles that Jon and I recommend is called Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity.
.
Click podcast icon below to play this podcast
71 Responses to part nine of the podcast series on the family integrated church movement
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
search this blog
Promote Relationship Homeschooling!
Be sure to visit Relationship Homeschooling on Facebook!
Family Integrated Church podcasts
The Family Integrated Church ~ Are you frustrated in your search for a church home? Are you considering a family integrated church? The podcast series on the FIC movement is just for you! This series includes Pastor Shawn Mathis who explains the "theological basis" for the movement, Pastor Steve Doyle, who was once an FIC pastor and left the movement, and Bible scholar and author, Jon Zens, who looks at the underlying doctrines that permeate many FIC churches. The series concludes with thatmom's encouragement to homeschooling families as they seek to be part of the entire body of Christ. You will also want to read the series of articles on the pros and cons of the FIC and my exhortation to homeschooling families who are looking for a church home!
thatmom’s podcasts on iTunes
thatmom’s thoughts on curriculum
And you can learn about my thoughts on developing your own philosophy of education as well as finding the methods of homeschooling that work best for you and your children by
looking for my presentations on Home Educating Family's media site.
The Grace Awakening Book Study
Join me on an adventure as we study through Chuck Swindoll’s book The Grace Awakening. Each Monday I will post some thoughts from a portion of the book and we will discuss them in the comment section, making special application for moms. (Dads and singles are welcome to join us, too!) You can purchase a copy of the book (there are lots of used copies available via Amazon) or it is also available on audio. I don’t want you to feel like you have to read along to join in the discussion; I want this to be as stress free as possible. But I know you will enjoy the book if you read it……understanding and embracing grace is life changing and many have found this book to be a great encouragement after coming through paradigm based ministries, including some homeschooling groups. Please invite your friends, I know you will be blessed!!! We will be starting on July 23rd!
readers’ all-time favorite articles
Pros and Cons of the Family Integrated Church
an open letter to my brothers and sister in Christ who serve in leadership to homeschooling families
Simple Thoughts for Building Your Marriage in the Midst of Homeschooling
A Little Perspective On What Matters
Being Pro-Life in the Grocery Store
Discerning True and False Teachers
The "Yes" Face
Nurturing Our Children for the Glory of God
Recent Posts
- side dishes for the holiday weekend
- I Am My Child’s Friend
- HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- some more thoughts on complementarianism
- the passing of my mom
- welcome to the world little Odette
- keeping those marriage sparks flying, part two
- keeping those marriage sparks flying, part one
- podcast interview with Seth Gruber, part three
- How do you find a church home?
- podcast interview with Seth Gruber, part two
- podcast interview with Seth Gruber, part one
- Church Shopping
- podcast with Meg Moseley and When Sparrows Fall, part two
- podcast with Meg Moseley and When Sparrows Fall, part one
recent comments
- Aly k on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Granddad on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Aly k on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Miriam W. on The Basic Tenets of Relationship Homeschooling
- Granddad on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- kh on I Am My Child’s Friend
- Thinking About This on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Granddad on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Thinking About This on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Laura (old OR vintage) on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
- Granddad on I Am My Child’s Friend
- thatmom on I Am My Child’s Friend
- thatmom on I Am My Child’s Friend
- heather on I Am My Child’s Friend
- Thinking About This on HSLDA accused of turning blind eye to child abuse: you decide
Subscribe to thatmom.com
truth from the Word
"Whom have I in heaven but You? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You. My flesh and my heart fail;
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever."
Psalm 73: 25-26
more truth from the Word
"Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." ~ Ephesians 4:32
Francis Chan says:
"Our greatest fear should not be of failure but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter."
Tim Keller says:
"God’s love and forgiveness can pardon and restore any and every kind of sin or wrongdoing. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you’ve done. It doesn’t matter if you’ve deliberately oppressed or even murdered people, or how much you’ve abused yourself… There is no evil that the Father’s love cannot pardon and cover, there is no sin that is a match for his grace." ~ Tim Keller
Tim Keller also says:
“The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. It undermines both swaggering and sniveling. I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone. I do not think more of myself nor less of myself. Instead, I think of myself less.” !
Tim Keller in The Reason for God.
Oswald Chambers says:
"If we simply preach the effects of redemption in the human life instead of the revealed, divine truth regarding Jesus Himself, the result is not new birth in those who listen. The result is a refined religious lifestyle, and the Spirit of God cannot witness to it because such preaching is in a realm other than His." ~ Oswald Chambers
Phillip E. Johnson says:
“When pressed in interviews to name my heroes, I have spontaneously responded that they are homeschooling mothers! To me, the heroic mothers who nurture the next generation of faithful Christians are among the leaders of the church.” ~ Phillip E. Johnson
John Stonestreet says:
“C.S. Lewis said that for every new book we read, we ought to read three old ones. But I think for every latest, greatest new homeschooling book you read, go find three old homeschooling moms and ask them what happened and what worked.” ~ John Stonestreet
Carolyn Custis James says:
“The power of our theology comes alive when we take the truth personally. Holding God at arm’s length—no matter how much theology we think we know—will never make us great theologians. We have to learn to write our own names into the plot. God will always be the subject of our theological sentences but our sentences are incomplete until we make ourselves the direct objects of his attributes…..Simply knowing a lot of theological ideas, no matter how orthodox and sound they are, will never turn us into great theologians. Theology isn’t really theology for us until we live it. Not until we learn to make explicit connections between what we know about God and the race we are running will we taste the transforming power of our theology. Fixing our eyes on Jesus means reminding ourselves of all that He is to us now. He brings meaning to our routines and energizes us to tackle the difficult tasks at hand. Fixing our eyes on Jesus gives us hope to offer disheartened husbands and hurting friends, and the wisdom we need to raise children who will fix their eyes on Him, too.” ~ from Carolyn Custis James in When Life and Beliefs Collide
Anne Ortlund says:
“So what do we do to encourage them to grow inwardly, to become resourceful and creative, to think, to meditate, to lay the foundation for growing up well? Don’t push, but affirm them! Give them the sense that all is well, that their rate of progress is acceptable to you, that you like them just the way they are…..Guide them but be delighted in them. Let them know that life is to be reached for and drunk of deeply…..Enthusiastic, that’s how you want them to grow up! The word comes from “en Theo,” or “in God.” Support them with words of faith, hope, and love, and in that framework “in God,” they’ll be ready to tackle everything. Fears and cautions are built in at an early age but so is courage! Tomorrow’s world will be different if your child has been released to experiment, to risk, to lead others, to pursue righteousness, to be an affecter for good in society, to go courageously after God.” ~ Anne Ortlund in Children Are Wet Cement
J.C Ryle says:
"Kindness, gentleness, long-suffering, forbearance, patience, sympathy, a willingness to enter into childish troubles, a readiness to take part in childish joys, these are the cords by which a child may be led most easily, these are the clues you must follow if you would find the way to his heart." ~ J. C. Ryle in The Upper Room
Clay Clarkson says:
“Many Christian parents, myself included, tend to speak to children as though they were Pharisees. We can speak harshly and with judgment, implying by our manner that their hearts are hard and resistant. But this attitude is not justified by Scripture. There is no record of Jesus ever speaking to a a child in a harsh tone. When the Gospels record Him speaking to a child, it is always with gentleness. Our children are not our adversaries. Though our children’s hearts are corrupted by sin, they are not hardened sinners who have made conscious choices to reject the Savior. Our children are simply immature and childish. That’s why children need love and compassion, not harshness and guilt.” ~ Clay Clarkson in Heartfelt Discipline
Tim Kimmel says:
“Grace can’t be some abstract concept that you talk about in your home. It has to be a real-time action that ultimately imprints itself in your children’s hearts. To talk about grace, sing about grace, and have our children memorize verses about grace – but not give them specific gifts of grace – is to undermine God’s words of grace in their hearts. Grace means that God not only loves them but that He loves them uniquely and specially. The primary way to give our children grace is to offer it in place of our selfish preferences.” ~ Tim Kimmel in Grace-Based Parenting
Chuck Swindoll says:
"You want to mess up the minds of your children? Here's how - guaranteed! Rear them in a legalistic, tight context of external religion, where performance is more important than reality. Fake your faith. Sneak around and pretend your spirituality. Train your children to do the same. Embrace a long list of do's and don'ts publicly but hypocritically practice them privately...yet never own up to the fact that its hypocrisy. Act one way but live another. And you can count on it - emotional and spiritual damage will occur. "
Kathy Thile says:
"I say this gently, as the parent of grown kids, knowing *insert parenting guru* is also the parent of grown kids: we have wonderful children — he does, I’m sure — and so do I. But without even knowing his children I can know this about them: they are not perfect. They hurt. They make mistakes. They struggle. They are prideful and overly simplistic at times; and crippled by shame and hesitancy at others. Yes — they are beautiful examples of human beings, his children (I assume), and mine (I know.) But they are not perfect. If they were, they would not be human. If it were possible to raise children to perfection, then God would have sent a parenting method, not Jesus. Our marching orders are not to raise our children by a method to be like *insert parenting guru* children. Our marching orders are to be Christians to and with our children." ~ Kathy Thile
Anna Quindlen says:
“The biggest mistake I made is the one that most of us make while doing this. I did not live in the moment enough. This is particularly clear now that the moment is gone, captured only in photographs. There is one picture of the three of them sitting in the grass on a quilt in the shadow of the swing set on a summer day, ages 6, 4 and 1. And I wish I could remember what we ate, and what we talked about, and how they sounded, and how they looked when they slept that night. I wish I had not been in such a hurry to get on to the next thing: dinner, bath, book, bed. I wish I had treasured the doing a little more and the getting it done a little less." ~ Anna Quindlen
Winston Churchill says:
“My education was interrupted only by my schooling." ~ Winston Churchill
John Taylor Gatto says:
"The shocking possibility that dumb people don’t exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the millions of careers devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you. Yet that is my central proposition: the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn’t real." ~ John Taylor Gatto
Fred Rogers say:
“Play is often talked about as if it were a relief from serious learning. But for children play is serious learning.
Play is really the work of childhood.” ~ Fred Rogers
thatmom says
"The truth is that the way a marriage becomes truly heavenly is for each husband and each wife to pursue, really pursue, a relationship with Jesus Christ, to commit to obey the Word of God, to set aside each of their own agendas and paradigms, and then as they walk in the Holy Spirit, as they are sanctified, a little at a time each day, they will grow closer to one another. Godly wisdom will manifest itself in purity, peace, gentleness, mercy, a willingness to submit to one another, the fruits of the spirit, and no role-playing (the true meaning of hypocrisy). (James 3:17)" ~ thatmom
thatmom says:
"We need to approach our children not as character projects, but rather, we must see them with hearts of sympathy, with compassion and understanding, and with ears that listen. You see, homeschooling is not about lesson plans and research papers and standardized tests. Homeschooling is about building a relationship with our children, friendships that will last our entire lives on earth and clear into eternity. Homeschooling is merely the tool whereby we build those relationships." ~ thatmom
thatmom knows:
As a homeschooling mom, I have realized that everything, ultimately, is outside of my own control. I have learned that the unique circumstances that happen in my family have occurred because God’s plan is so much bigger than my own. It is knowing this truth about God and in experiencing that truth with those in my home that has enabled us to face past challenges and that will prepare us for all those difficulties that still lie before us.
thatmom realizes:
If I think about 37 years of marriage, times the number of loads of laundry I have done for 2 parents, 6 children and 1 grandma, I am amazed to know that I have washed, dried, folded, (sometimes ironed) and put away roughly 27,526 loads of laundry. That is over 215,000 socks! Or, in that same amount of time, provided 38,324 meals for a family and sometimes guests. Or that I have overseen nearly 21,500 hours of education of one sort or another during that time. Just thinking of these numbers takes my breath away. ~ thatmom
thatmom says:
"Real books from the library, a tub of art supplies, being read stories rich in vocabulary, a variety of good music, the daily discussion of God’s Word and how it relates to the world around him, and the attention of a loving parent who includes him in all the activities of real life are the secrets to a great learning experience for children." ~ thatmom
thatmom says:
"Being a mom is sort of like being all the people who crowd into a basketball arena all at once. Sometimes we are the players, the ones who are responsible for everything that is going on and our presence is front and center. Sometimes we are the coaches, giving comfort and encouragement, instructing with a clipboard in hand. Other times we are the referees, no striped shirts required but whistles are a must to break up the disputes when the game isn’t played as per the rules. Still other times we are the fans, cheering wildly from the stands, shouting from a distance but not from the floor. And then there are the days when we are the cheerleaders, the ones who scream 'Yeah, you can do it.' " ~ thatmom
thatmom says:
“The beauty of homeschooling is building relationships within our families and inspiring our children to become lifelong learners, gently leading them into the truth of Scripture and trusting that the work we have begun will be brought to completion by a sovereign God who has a plan for building His heavenly kingdom.” ~ thatmom
thatmom says:
"A family that embraces a paradigm becomes lazy and doesn’t study the Word of God for themselves. They take what others state as gospel. They have to check in with the “expert” blogs to see how so and so is doing it. It requires little effort and, truthfully, little leadership on the part of the parents. Dads who think they are turning the hearts of their children to themselves are really turning the hearts of their children to the dad’s gurus!" ~ thatmom
thatmom also says:
“After parenting for 36 years, I have come to realize that all paradigms are basically a list of do’s and don’ts that someone has created. Instead of embracing a list, I have discovered that it is best for me to run all ideas, philosophies, and paradigms through my “one-anothering hopper.” I ask myself if the suggestions or ideas I am hearing will serve to build my relationships or will serve to tear them down; will they reflect the one-anothering commands of Scripture? I ask if they are a picture of Christ and His relationship with me as His needy daughter. If not, I am not interested, no matter how much appeal they might have for any number of reasons.” ~ thatmom
thatmom says this, too:
“The word wisdom is used in Exodus to describe the knowledge that the Lord gave to the skilled artisans so they could make Aaron’s garments for worship. We are told that these workers “were given wisdom and understanding in knowledge and all manner of workmanship.”
I have never had to sew any garments for a priest to wear for worship. I have not had to sew any draperies or build any walls or prepare any inner sanctuary as per the Lord’s instructions. But I have been called to give all I can toward the goal of building up children in the faith, preparing children for life outside my home, children whose bodies, we are told, are called the very temple of the Holy Spirit, children whose job it is to worship in spirit and in truth." ~ thatmom
what does thatmom believe?
" What is thy only comfort in life and death?
"That I, with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with His precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him." ~ Heidelberg Catechism
What does it mean to be a Christian?
1.We must acknowledge that we are all sinners. “For we are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment: and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6) and “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
2.We are all accountable for our own sins before God. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)
3.There is only one way to be forgiven of these sins and that is through the blood of Jesus Christ. “Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
4.If we confess our sin to the Lord and repent of it (not allow it to rule in our lives) we can be forgiven and be in right standing with God. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousenss.” (1 John 1:9)
5.Genuine salvation will result in living lives of good works but none of those works contribute in any way to our standing before God which is based solely and completely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:12) and “Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5) and “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)
6.We all, men and women, boys and girls, have direct access to the throne of grace because everyone who is a born-again believer in Jesus Christ is called a “priest and king” in God’s economy. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” (I Peter 2:9)
I believe that many of the false teachings within the patriocentric movement are in direct contrast to these Scriptures and I would encourage each of us to first examine what we believe about Jesus and His work on the cross, its implications and its marvelous power.
Secondly, I would challenge anyone reading here to examine your own heart and ask yourself whether you have been trusting in good works….baptism, homeschooling, church attendance, modest dress, the list goes on and on, or if you have placed ALL your faith and hope in Jesus’ blood and righteousness alone.
And finally, I would challenge you to examine the teachings within your own church system, whether it is Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc. Ask yourself what your church teaches about ecclesiastical authority and family authority. Does it line up with the Word of God? It is a top down system that requires certain works in exchange for a relationship with Jesus Christ or do you have the assurance that you are saved for eternity by His death on the cross in your stead? Does it teach that the fruits of the spirit and obedience to all the one anothers is what our lives will demonstrate or is there a list of man made rules?
If you desire to talk with me about this, please send me a note to shesthatmom@gmail.com. My desire is that no one who visits this website will leave without knowing the glorious truth that we can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and can enjoy a life filled with His goodness and grace!
archives
credits
Adoration of the Home was painted by regional artist, Grant Wood. The original hangs in the Cedar Rapids Museum of Art. Ben Campbell and Lon Eldridge deserve extra cookies for writing, performing, recording, and mixing Mom’s Prairie Song for the podcast intro and outro. Great job, guys. Garrison Keillor would be proud.
Astounding! I’ve wondered a million times where this all started.
I find it impossible to believe that many of these reformed people on the patriarchy bandwagon actually know of this obscure and confusing link to the heresy concerning the deity/divinity of Christ! Because there is the question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
How many persons are in the one God? Three persons are in the one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one God, the same in substance, and equal in power and glory.
Exactly! Quite amazing!
The observation about the lack of the ESS in the Danvers Statement…
BRILLIANT!
I’m learning so much, thank you for doing this series
Amy, what a great insight! I know that the first time I heard this teaching I had just read and studied through Colossians and was in awe that anyone could actually come up with this line of thinking when considering what Scripture actually teaches!
Sallie, that was quite the discovery….wonder how many more pieces to the puzzle we will find as we pull back the layers to this stuff.
So much of this fits with the transition from Christians being truth seekers to being relationship and community oriented. There is a huge shift in the church from seeking truth to caring about people. Don’t get me wrong. Both are important and both are expected for believers. But the younger generations are so community and relationship focused that it trumps everything, especially doctrine. Doctrine and truth are almost dirty words in many circles.
How many people have never even read the confessions for their church?
It is only going to get worse. When love and compassion trump everything at the expense of truth… Look no further than what has happened to the liberal, mainline denominations that are really not even Christian any longer.
And, Sallie, the ultimate irony is that once you forsake sound doctrine, thinking you are going to have more “community” and better ‘relationships” you end up with the very opposite…all the lovely, organic nature of true relationships built on God’s plan as revealed in Scripture are no longer available to you. Instead, you are plugged into some role that reflect neither community nor truth!
I also should have said that we’re going to see the opposite happen on the other end of the spectrum. The Christians who are reacting against the lack of doctrine and excessive focus on love and acceptance are going to come up with whatever they have to doctrinally to keep people in line.
LOL! We were typing at the same time!
And what keeps coming back to me is that it only takes a few “celebrities” to perform linguistical gymnastics for the crowds to cheer and follow. Unbelievable.
“join us next time” – ah, I was so engaged in the discussion and it ends! Such is life! Looking forward to more of this discussion.
I have been thinking about how this is not just a doctrinal debate. It is not just that “other” people get something wrong, but that there is a real concept in this discussion which is relevant in my life today… Jesus, fully God and so able to heal and raise the dead, was also fully human. In his human state, he submitted to God the Father. He was hungry, tired, had human limitations, etc., but he is not eternally hungry or eternally in submission.
I think it is a beautiful thing to conisider, that Jesus my saviour knew what it was to submit himself to God. And that when we are told to submit to one another and to God, it is not something that our God knows nothing about. That is so encouraging when I think about submitting myself to the needs of my family, to my friends, to God’s will for my life. The Spirit is at work in us and knows what he is talking about!
I know that many equate being reformed with being patriarchal, but the two are not intrinsically connected. Arminians have also promoted patriarchy. William Wilberforce was reformed and because of his passion for the Gospel, he was used by God to legally end slavery in Great Britain. I know that Doug Wilson and others of his ilk are causing a lot of problems due to bad theology, but it isn’t their being reformed that is bearing the bad fruit. I became egalitarian after becoming reformed. I also believe in believer’s baptism. These are separate issues. If we get the Gospel right, no one can boast. It levels humanity. All have sinned, and all who are saved are saved by Christ alone through Grace alone. The Gospel produces humility towards God and towards one another.
Christy, I am so glad you shared this. I, too, consider myself a “reformed Baptist” if I must wear a label. Oh, how I hate to wear them when there is so much confusion and mistrust surrounding them, though!
The doctrines of grace are just as you said…..they place us at the foot of the cross, all of us together, where we are all prostrate before the face of the Lord. None of us have any bragging rights save the grace of the Lord Jesus! I am loving the quote from today’s book study update:
“The Law was never meant to be a ziggurat of moral steps to climb our way to heaven. It was meant to be a light to reveal the sin that cowered in the dusty corners and dark closets of our lives. But the Law could only reveal. It couldn’t rescue. No matter how formidable the stone walls of sin that surround us, God’s grace is more formidable. No matter how stalwart the iron cells that imprison us, God’s grace is more stalwart. No matter how sure the shackles that bind us, God’s grace is surer still.” ~ The Grace Awakening
Heather, after the fact, I was wishing we could have gone into more detail about each of the doctrinal issues we talk about. Trying to strike the right balance time wise for moms for listening is a bit tricky!
Highly recommend this book by Kevin Giles for further study on this subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Father-Evangelicals-Reinvent-Doctrine/dp/0310266645/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344268651&sr=1-4&keywords=kevin+giles
Christy – I agree! I have winced soooo many times in recent months as I’ve seen people make sweeping negative comments about Reformed doctrines online. Many of them do not realize that there are lots of Reformed folks who know NOTHING about what is going on with Wilson, Driscoll, etc. I am in a Reformed denomination (CRC) and the average person in my congregation would not even have any of this stuff on their radar. My pastor didn’t even know any of this stuff was going on from the past few months when I talked with him last week.
I’m sorry if I offended. I tried to specify by saying “reformed people on the patriarchy bandwagon,” meaning to exclude “reformed people not on the patriarchy bandwagon.”
I personally do know more Arminians following these teachings, but the Arminians I know who do, don’t even have confessions and creeds to have memorized that might have protected them from following some of these heresies. They tend to belong to denominations that eschew confessions.
Again, I’m sorry if I seemed to sweep all of the reformed church into the bandwagon. I didn’t mean to; I know better, because all of the women who have taught me so much about what is *wrong* with these doctrines have been Reformed. I apologize.
Amy – I didn’t take your comment that way at all. I totally agree with what you wrote. It’s hard to believe that people who take the Westminster seriously don’t see how ESS is in conflict with their primary confession.
Amy, I do appreciate your response, thank you. I have noticed a tendency among too many to rail against “neo Calvinists” as though they are the source of all that’s evil in the world, including patriarchy. I guess one could label me as a neo Calvinist as well, because I am part of the movement that has once again embraced the 5 Solas and TULIP. Understanding these doctrines has opened up the Gospel to me in a powerful and life transforming way. I don’t use the label, Calvinist, because what I hope I am is a faithful Christian.
It’s hard being an egalitarian and theologically reformed baptist because there are no churches where I naturally fit. But I believe that the egalitarian position is more in harmony with the Gospel message than either infant baptism or Arminianism. I find it ironic when other reformed baptists will still acknowledge paedobaptists as fellow Christians (with a difference of opinion) but egalitarians are held in great suspect as liberal, potential heretics. They point to how many egalitarians are joining more liberal churches. I think some egalitarians do so because of persecution.
However, the Gospel is of first importance, and we cannot compromise it for any reason. Perhaps God is now raising up voices to correct the errors of patriarchy in the churches as He did in the 1800s over slavery. Being reformed, baptist, and egalitarian are natural fruits of the Gospel.
Christy –
I would say that reformed, baptist and (almost) egalitarian describes David and I as well (but not Neo-Calvinist.)
We dedicated Caroline in a Baptist church and then had her baptized (sprinkling) in a CRC church. We will encourage her to be baptized by immersion when she confesses faith in Christ (even if we are still in a CRC church).
In the end, it was more important to us to raise Caroline in a church where women were highly valued and fully active participants than to be in a church with a particular view on baptism. That was a huge switch for me as a life-long Baptist. We also had to be in a church that was preaching the truth of the Gospel and hadn’t gone off the deep end theologically. Baptism was where we had to make the compromise. It took us YEARS and many churches before we finally came to this conclusion.
But you are right. The combination of reformed, baptist and egalitarian exists almost nowhere in America.
Hello Amy
You wrote:
“I personally do know more Arminians following these teachings, but the Arminians I know who do, don’t even have confessions and creeds to have memorized that might have protected them from following some of these heresies. They tend to belong to denominations that eschew confessions.”
Don’t worry about other sorts of Christians. We have the Bible. There’s a creed right there in I Corinthians.
P.S. It is true that the Pearls are not from the Calvinist camp. And, thanks to this blog, I’ve learned about some other ST-RANGE ideas floating around in a whole lot of churches.
P.P.S.People who are not Calvinists are not Arminians. I’d never heard of such a thing as a Calvinist until about two years ago. It’s very wrong to present Christians with artificial choices, namely “You’re not a Calvinist? Oh, you must be X or Y, then.” It reminds me of growing up in NE London, and being asked, “Do you support Spurs, or Arsenal?” or “Do you like The Osmonds or The Bay City Rollers?” What was I supposed to say? I liked the Jackson Five!
The Osmonds! LOL!
Hello Karen
It seems, from what you’ve revealed, that patriocentric types think that Jesus was sort of “god-lite” and so women are to be like Jesus. I also read on the Under Much Grace site this quotation from a prominent writer and speaker:
“While the Father embraces and revels in this position of being supreme in the Trinity, so too do the Son and Spirit embrace and revel in their positions as second and third, respectively.”
It’s 12 noon here. The children are playing, then we are going to make a magnifying glass out of lime-flavoured jelly (Jello).
We have just sat down with crackers and cream cheese, and we read about Jesus being arrested in the Garden. And He says, “I am,(he),” and the soldiers all fall down. And He tells them to let the disciples go, and they just do what He says. And I showed them the KJV with the “he” in italics, and I said,”Jesus said, ‘I AM’, and those big men just fell down. How did He do that?” And my son remembered, and jumped out of his chair. DS is not a genius, as you would know if you saw his spelling.
So, if a small boy — whose head is full of Nerf guns, and Star Wars, and chocolate, and the American Civil War — can work it out, I have to ask … are there really some fll-time pastors and thinkers denying that the Son is the Father is the Spirit?
Am I mistaken, Karen, is this what’s going on? Are we to add to the spiritual abuse,he beliitling of ladies,the child abuse the formulaic discipleship — a new element to this mess?
“While the Father embraces and revels in this position of being supreme in the Trinity, so too do the Son and Spirit embrace and revel in their positions as second and third, respectively.”
Anthea, who is the author of that quote?
“I find it ironic when other reformed baptists will still acknowledge paedobaptists as fellow Christians (with a difference of opinion) but egalitarians are held in great suspect as liberal, potential heretics. ”
I have thought the same thing myself, Christy. I think it reveals the true agenda…”sound doctrine” means having no discussion whatsoever about gender unless it is teaching ONLY a top-down paradigm.
Anthea, you said, “Hello Amy
You wrote:
“I personally do know more Arminians following these teachings, but the Arminians I know who do, don’t even have confessions and creeds to have memorized that might have protected them from following some of these heresies. They tend to belong to denominations that eschew confessions.”
Don’t worry about other sorts of Christians. We have the Bible. There’s a creed right there in I Corinthians.
P.S. It is true that the Pearls are not from the Calvinist camp. And, thanks to this blog, I’ve learned about some other ST-RANGE ideas floating around in a whole lot of churches.
P.P.S.People who are not Calvinists are not Arminians. I’d never heard of such a thing as a Calvinist until about two years ago. It’s very wrong to present Christians with artificial choices, namely “You’re not a Calvinist? Oh, you must be X or Y, then.” It reminds me of growing up in NE London, and being asked, “Do you support Spurs, or Arsenal?” or “Do you like The Osmonds or The Bay City Rollers?” What was I supposed to say? I liked the Jackson Five!”
I can’t explain how you never heard of Calvinism before. It’s the type of thing that should have come up either in religious education or in secular studies in school. I do know that non-Calvinists have Bibles because I, myself, am not a Calvinist. Now, having unintentionally offended twice, I will bow out of this thread before I develop a pattern.
Amy, you are just fine! Calvinism per se isn’t a hill we are going to die on!
Please keep commenting!!!!!
Sallie, your thoughts about the confessions are interesting. You know there is nothing in them about women serving in various capacities in the church as well.
I have been in the Calvinist camp since I was nine. I have NEVER liked the word Calivinism because I am a JESUS follower, not a Calvin follower. Also, I have never liked having documents like the WCC and such, because, in my not so humble opinion, we already have the Bible, we don’t need to make something else.
However, I need some help here. Perhaps it is because I am from a reformed background, but I just can’t wrap my mind around the fact that there is no such thing as ESS. I am starting to doubt it but my presuppositions won’t let me get around the fact that God did all the speaking in creation and that He was the one who told Jesus to get down to earth, to be made man and to die for our sins. Then, Jesus sits on the right hand of God, yes? Isn’t the right-hand place always seen as 2nd in command? I really would love to hear thoughts from those who don’t have the baggage of calvinism like I do.
All this to say, though I am struggling with NOT seeing Jesus as eternally subordinate, I never saw it as a sufficient reason for women to always be subordinate to men, even when I did believe in complementarianism.
Thanks for being patient with me! It is amazing how, when you are so entrenched in one theology, it seems next to impossible to even begin to see it any other way!
*WCF not WCC
Simply because someone misuses or misapplies a theological proposition does not automatically make that proposition incorrect. I would certainly argue against the notion that the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) has bearing on the husband-wife relationship. But to conclude that ESS is wrong (or even heresy) because of this erroneous theological leap is unwarranted.
While the catch-phrase, eternal subordination of the Son, appears to be fairly recent the doctrines of the Economic Trinity and the Ontological Trinity are not. I have not yet completed my study, but I am not convinced that Kevin Giles is correct, and in some cases think he has engaged in sloppy scholarship.
I’ve wondered how Jesus could be eternally subordinate to the Father when the Trinity always think in complete harmony with one another. What’s there to submit to?
It’s not a question of incomplete harmony or of submission, but function. The Son always does the will of the Father; the Spirit only bears witness to the Son and never to himself. If we think of it in terms of an earthly father and is son — “you will clean up your room because I told you to do it” — we will always be wrong.
Trying to fully understand this difficult issue on a blog — even as good as yours, Karen — is likely to be frustrating. Perhaps a list of books and articles that present both sides of the issue (but none from the extremists) would be helpful.
Hello Karen
The quotation from the Under Much Grace site was taken from her review of a book by Bruce Ware called ‘Father Son and Holy Spirit’.
http://undermoregrace.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/against-subordinationism-section-c.html
I found this page after a search on Google,because I did not know what ESS was or how it related to patriarchy. The review certainly implied that speculation about the specific organistion of the heavenly throne room has an agenda behind it.
Hello Amy
I hope you are still here. You did not offend me; sometimes I find the church scene mystifiying, but not offensive.
I come from a v different background, and in our country people often describe themselves simply as “committed Christians”, or they’ll just mention the name of the church they attend. If you get any deeper than that with most Christians, our brains hurt. I first heard about Calvinism during a Bible study at church. The pastor dropped the term into the discussion, but did not elaborate, cos we all looked at him with bovine incomprehension.
I am constantly asking dumb questions on this blog about what is clearly common knowledge Stateside.
Granddad, you are welcome to add your list in a comment section. Might need to define “extremists” though!
Curious, could each of you comment and share when you first heard/were taught this doctrine?
“Extremists” are those folks who get their underwear in a knot when anyone disagrees with them.
I said in an earlier comment that I thought Dr. Kevin Giles was sloppy in his scholarship; I want to explain that further.
First, we need to understand that there are actually two issues that are being conflated into one.
1. Has the eternal subordination of the Son been a teaching of the orthodox (that’s a lower case ‘o’) church longer than Dr. Giles seems to understand?
2. Can ESS properly be connected to the complementarian/egalitarian debate?
Dr. Giles maintains that the current view of ESS, that the son is eternally subordinate to the Father in some functional capacity but not in being,is a completely novel formulation of the Trinity that emerged first in 1977 with the publication of a book by G. Knight III. It was during this time that the debate about gender roles in the church and family re-emerged. It was Wayne Grudem’s 1994 Systematic Theology text that really brought the entire issue to the forefront of evangelical discussions of the Trinity and how it relates to gender.
Here Dr. Giles is only partially correct. He is quite correct, as far as I can determine, that prior to the publication of Knight’s book in 1977 and Grudem’s later, no one was relating the ESS and gender issues. But he seems to be inferring that prior to 1977 you would have a difficult time find anyone suggesting that the Son was eternally subordinate to the Father. And that is not the case.
Volume 1 of Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology written in the late 1800′s affirms the doctrine (page 460-465)
In his 1907 Systematic Theology, A. H. Strong very clearly wrote about the topic. (see page 342)
Louis Berkof wrote his Systematic Theology in 1941. See pages 89-90.
More recently (1998),see Robert Reymond,in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, page 336-338.
I hasten to add that none of these men say anything about ESS and gender.
Failure to mention Hodge, Strong, and Berkhof is sloppy at best.
I do not believe that a good case can be made for relating the eternal subordination of the Son to the relationship between a man and women in marriage. In fact, relating the Trinity to any aspect of our humanity is dangerous. I would strongly recommend reading Brian Onken’s paper, “The Dangers of the Trinity in Man” (http://faculty.tfc.edu/juncker/Trinity%20in%20Man.htm). If we are going to discuss ESS then it must be done so apart from the complementarian/egalitarian debate – they are two separate issues.
Granddad, what do you believe, from your study of church history, has been the most common thought on the ESS, apart from the gender implications? Do you see it in conflict with the confessions?
Also wondering what your response is to the Scriptures Jon and I presented in this podcast.
Regarding the confessions, I need to read them again much more slowly. I will gather my thoughts on the other question.
As for the podcast, I will listen again tomorrow as I take my morning cardiac walk.
Hello Karen
What are “the confessions”? Are they the same as the creeds which are said in Anglican churches?
To thatmom:
Regarding the podcast, Jon frequently used the term subordinationism instead of subordination; they are not the same (as I’m sure he knows). He could cause some confusion here since the first is heresy (the precursor to Arianism).
Phil 2 and Col 2, at least as I understand it, refer to the ontological Trinity, which all orthodox Christians must affirm, and not the economic Trinity.
This article may be helpful for the discussion:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/42/42-3/42-3-pp461-476_JETS.pdf
Anthea:
The confessions and creeds include the following: (there are a few more)
The Westminster Confession of Faith
The Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms
The London Confession of 1689 (basically the WCF for Baptists)
The Belgic Confession
The Second Helvetic Confession
The 39 Articles of Religion
The Heidelberg Catechism
The Apostles Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Athanasian Creed
Granddad, could you explain what you believe are the differences between those two words and their application and relevancy for us? Thanks.
Anthea, the point Amy made about the confessions is a good one…many who hold to those confessions also hold to this doctrine. The Westminister “Divines” as they are known, however, never claimed that their conclusions were/are inerrant. Rather, they were adamant that all things must be held up to light of Scripture. I have always found it interesting as you read through them that often the passage of Bible text they chose to support their doctrinal views are taken out of context incorrectly. Scholars agree but don’t usually attempt to fix that. Don’t know why. I am not saying the doctrines aren’t accurate, only that the prooftexting sometimes is.
To thatmom: Part 1: Definitions
Before I explain the difference between subordinationism and subordination I need to define ‘ontological’.
When we talk about ontology we mean the nature of being or about real existence. So then ontological means relating to being or existence. Therefore the ontological Trinity is describing the real being or existence of the Trinity. It is also referred to as the essential Trinity. It is who God is.
Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox all agree on the absolute unity of being in the Trinty. They each are of the same essence (homoousios). Denying that the Son is of the same essence (not just similiar) is what Arius asserted and what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. Arius was condemend as a heretic in 325. The Athanasius Creed was named for him.
Subordinationism is the outgrowth of the Arian heresy and teaches that the Son is not eternal and not equal to the Father in either his being or attributes. Subordinationism posits a difference in the ontology of the Father and the Son. Once again, this view is heretical. I would prefer to write this word with a capital ‘S’ showing tht it is a proper noun.
Subordination refers only to function – it says nothing about essence. This is the heart of the discussion. Suggesting that those who believe in ESS are in some manner denying the homoousios of the Trinty is simply wrong.
Part 2 application and relevance will be forthcoming (requires more thought)
Granddad, I guess I am wondering, then, when do you see this teaching becoming, historically, central to the Gospel, and what are the implications and relevance if you dismiss the gender subordination issue? What is the difference between hierarchy and subordination?
Here are a few more links if anyone wants something else to read about this subject. Note that there is some good discussion in the comment section of these as well. There is a ton more out there, too. I am not approving/disapproving of these. I do believe, however, that it is absolutely true that the doctrine of the eternal subordination of Jesus can be proven to have been crafted and spun so as to have a big stick for keeping women in some place because Jesus is supposedly in that same place. This is a pretty general consensus, by the way, and certainly I am seeing more evidence all the time to the fact that this has only been the case in recent years. I would like to see evidence to the contrary.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/05/kevin-giles-and-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son/
http://www.theruthlessmonk.com/why-the-trinity-is-not-the-complementarian-trump-card-part-1/
http://www.theruthlessmonk.com/why-the-trinity-is-not-the-complementarian-trump-card-part-2/
http://www.theruthlessmonk.com/why-the-trinity-is-not-the-complementarian-trump-card-part-3/
Just jumping in here after reading most of the comments. I am not a “Calvinist” or “reformed”. But I am not an Armenian either.
In a counseling session, because my husband and I consider ourselves Baptist, the counselor assumed we were Calvinist.
I think most people assume we (my husband and I) are reformed because we believe in the doctrine of eternal security.
What doesn’t make us reformed, is that we believe that Jesus died for everyone… (1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.)
though we do not believe that everyone is saved.(Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.)
We believe that faith is *not* an extra gift that God gives out of predestination.
(Grammatically Eph 2:8 is talking about Grace, not faith, in my opinion), We believe that faith comes by hearing the word of God(Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.)
We believe that one can conscientiously reject that truth after they have heard it. (2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.)
What doesn’t make us Armenian, is that we believe once one has put their faith in the finished work of Jesus, that there is no way a person can loose it.(Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.)
I think this is where Anthea might be coming from with saying that there are those who are not Armenian, but not Calvinists.
I too, never heard of Calvinism, until I went to a Summer Music camp, and one of my roommates was one. I asked her to explain what it was to me, and she said it was too complicated and caused too many arguments so she didn’t! LOL!
Slowly over the years, I have come to a better understanding of it. I have personally wrestled with it, and know all the arguments against what I posted above. The argument for or against it goes in circles, and I agree, it’s not a hill worth dying on.
I will also say, that a lot of my best friends…the one who are the most genuine and most “real” are of a reformed beliefs. They are probably in line with what Karen believes about Calvinism.
Some of my favorite theologians are “refored”. I think Lewis Sperry Chafer was reformed.
However, I do know a lot of “reformed” people that are the most legalistic out of all my “fundie” friends.
I also think, that those, my friends that believe in the “reformed faith” are at more danger for falling prey to dominionism, because most of the prominent proponents of dominionism *are* reformed.
A lot of my my reformed friends are slowly walking towards the dominionist camps through homeschooling conferences.
As for a former “fundie”, I can give the perspective of how they fall prey to dominionism, without actually knowing what they are falling for.
As a general rule, the IFB movement believes in Dispensations. However, they somehow drag the law into their interpretation of the dispensations. One example I can give is the rule of dresses only.
They cite all the OT passages about dressing like a man being an abomination. And then take the NT passage about being modest and say that pants are men’s wear. Well, in American culture, pants were men’s wear about 80 years ago.
They fall very heavy into “old fashioned values” They mesh and syncretize it all together, somehow in a new bazzar belief.
The IFB culture is very much about “standards” and “separation”. Then as the mothers begin to home school their children, and go to HS conferences and find companies that have the same moral standards and separation values, they buy their books and get involved in the movement without actually knowing what is fueling the movement.
For instance, I was once quiverfull. I read the book Quiverfull, embraced it’s teaching wholeheartedly without knowing what “fuels” the doctrine.
Or politics. We *must* fight the government when it goes against our beliefs, so we can *keep* our constitutional freedoms.
Then we come into contact with Dominionists who fight the government because they believe they are going to overtake the world and make the whole world Christian.
We “fundies” do not know that Dominionists have this core belief…but we think we are fighting for the same cause, so we join up with them, not knowing what is fueling their beliefs.
A prime example is Kirk Cameron’s new movie. I believe that it is based on Dominionism. I haven’t seen it, and I need to. But my extended family members went with their whole IFB church to watch it.
Other extended family members, staunch IFB’s viewed Vision Forums movie “Divided”…again agreeing with the “moral premise” but not knowing the fuel behind the morals.
Then they band together. My belief is that those who are “Armenians” (ie, *not* reformed in doctrine) go for Dominism because they have the same type morality and standards. Their doctrinal statement *looks* the same on the surface, and so they band together, not knowing they are aligning themselves to a very sinister and unbilical doctrine.
Honestly, I think this is what happened with the Duggars and Vision Forum. I really do not think the Duggar’s first started out as Dominionist. Maybe they are *now*….but I think because Vision Forum held the same moral standards as the the Duggars, they hooked up together.
Also, I have noticed that Micheal Pearl seems to be aligning himself next to Bill Gothard.
I find this extremely strange, because Michael Pearl actually spoke against Bill Gothard in one of his issues of No Greater Joy. But I went onto their website recently and they are having a family camp, at the Alert facilities in Big Sandy Texas!
http://nogreaterjoy.org/seminars/texas/?utm_source=nogreaterjoy.org&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=slides-home
And I know *FOR SURE* that MP is *not* a Dominionist. But they are all getting together over common morality issues it seems.
So, that’s why I think the those that are not reformed get involved with Dominionism.
But I do think, those who *are* reformed, are more easily swept into the tide of Dominionism, because the “normal”
reformed people hold to almost the same confessions of faith as the Dominionist.
And I do agree that most people have no clue as to what it is. I just brought it up to my pastor this past Wednesday night. He is about to have his eighth child, home-schools, and is not reformed, and has never heard of the doctrine. Though he was not surprised that it existed. And no, he isn’t IFB.
Also, just want to say, I always joke with my reformed friends and tell them, that while I am not Calvinist *before* salvation…I am one *after* salvation.
(Phl 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:
and
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. )
In other words, I believe that sanctification happens through God’s sovereignty, and his fore-ordination.
Also, by posting these beliefs, I am sure that this might spark those who believe differently about than I do, a conversation about it. Again, it’s something, I would rather not climb and die on right now. It’s a conversation that goes around in circles. I have studied the reformed faith thoroughly enough to know what is taught on each point, and it’s something, from my own Bible study, I am not convinced of.
♥
Thought you all might appreciate this story!
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, “Baptist!” I said, “Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.
I must make a correction in one of my comments.
After rereading Dr. Robert Reymond (A New Systematic Theology…) I realize he does not advocate the eternal subordination of the Son.
Sorry for the mistake.
Granddad, you aren’t going to push him off the bridge now, are you?
I am greatly disappointed in Kirk Cameron. That’s all.
“A lot of my my reformed friends are slowly walking towards the dominionist camps through homeschooling conferences. ”
Topic of the next podcast, now on deck.
To Thinking About This:
I suspect if you asked folks who did not grow up in a Reformed or Calvinistic church to describe their own personal trip from Arminianism to Calvinism many would report a common thread; they went kicking and screaming. One of my favorite Reformed writers/speakers is Michael Horton. He said he actually threw his Bible across the room at one point.
Dominionism/Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction, whatever you wish to call it, concerns me greatly. I can tell you most assuredly, that although they are vocal, they are a minority. They have a skewed hermeneutic and display faulty logic, frequently begging the question with their unproven premises.
Oh, I must correct myself. My extended family watched Indoctrination. Have you heard of that movie? I am not sure who produces it???
Also, I am disappointed in Kirk Cameron too. He’s such a likeable guy personally. My sister had a major crush on him when he played Mike in Growing Pains. She had posters of him *ALL* over her room, LOL!
Loved Michael Horton’s In the Face of God. Highly recommend.
http://www.amazon.com/Face-God-Michael-Scott-Horton/dp/0849913020
Kirk Cameron is hugely responsible for bringing recon thought into the mainstream. While it is still a minority view, it is mainstream whether it is labeled as such or not…and his all American boy image is perfect for marketing it. So sad.
Indoctrination is on my to watch list.
PS. I just watched the movie trailer for Indoctrination, and Kevin Swanson is either intervied or playing a big part in the movie.
Hello Karen
Thanks for all the info, it really helps.
I can see what “thinking about this” means when she (?) write about how “We “fundies” do not know that Dominionists have this core belief…but we think we are fighting for the same cause, so we join up with them, not knowing what is fueling their beliefs. ”
When we begin to home ed, we want to know how to do it, especially if we feel beholden to God to take good care of our children. So we lap up advice, and if it supports holiness and the Bible, we forget to read the small print, as it were.
When Douglas Wilson came to the UK, I almost went for some of his ideas. But the long ride home on the Tube gave me time to think. I realised he was squeezing stuff out of the Bible to make us feel good as home educating parents, so we were lapping it up. But it did not sound quite right.
Is Xian Reconstruction the idea that we could have a Christ-serving government and society, where everything is done in line with the Scriptures?
In the Face of God rocked my world. Its my favorite of all of Horton’s books. He is a first-rate scholar when it comes to Reformed theology (although I will say that he needs to seriously brush up on his patristics and pre-Reformation Church history). I’m no longer Reformed (and not even Protestant!) And I would still recommend In the Face of God to anyone. Just my two cents…
Kevin Swanson. Of course.
To thatmom:
You asked me the following questions:
1. Granddad, what do you believe, from your study of church history, has been the most common thought on the ESS, apart from the gender implications? Do you see it in conflict with the confessions?
Ans 1: It would appear that, at least in the early post-nicene period, the economic Trinity was accepted doctrine. I have not yet (still working on it) found a clear and unambiguous denial in the confessions. Some have suggested that this lack of an explicit denial is a problem with these early statements.
2.Granddad, could you explain what you believe are the differences between those two words and their application and relevancy for us? Thanks.
Ans 2: I explained the differences earlier but did not answer the second half of the question. I wonder if there are not some things that we must simply accept as truth without looking for “what does that mean to me?” Must we always insist upon a full explanation of every difficult doctrine or concept within the Scriptures and that it is explained to our full satisfaction?
I have not yet fully made up mind on the topic. I am listening to a 2 hour debate on the very subject; I will likely have to listen to it several times.
2.Granddad, I guess I am wondering, then, when do you see this teaching becoming, historically, central to the Gospel, and what are the implications and relevance if you dismiss the gender subordination issue?
Ans: I certainly do not believe that ESS is an essential part of the gospel. It may well fall into the same category as eschatology. I am basically amillennial — those who are premillennial may be wrong
, but that does not affect their salvation. Whether of not the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father functionally may have some implications for other doctrines, but I certainly will not assert that one position is heretical.
Thanks, Granddad, for your sincere and transparent thoughts. Looking forward to hearing more after you listen again to the debate/ Who are you listening to, btw?
also look forward to your input on the recon podcast just up!
The debate was held 11/5/2008 at Trinity Evangelical Divinty School. The question was: Do relations of authority exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?
Affirming the question were Bruce Ware & Wayne Grudem.
Denying the question were Tom McCall & Keith Yandell.
The debate is over 2 hours and you must concentrate as you listen. Here’s where to download it, along with many other excellent lectures.
http://www.henrycenter.org/media/view-all/
After listening and reading I do remain of the conviction that relationally and functionally, but not ontologically, the eternal Son is subordinate to the eternal Father. I wish that a term other than ‘subordinate’ could be used since it often becomes ‘Subordinationism’ during conversations; Subordinationism is a heresy.
Again I affirm that I do not accept the premise that the subordination of the Son equates in any fashion to the issue of egalitarianism vrs. complementarianism within the husband and wife arena. I remain complementarian, especially as regards the role of women in the church (i.e., pastors and elders). I derive none of my conviction from anything other than the NT.
So while I agree with Drs. Grudem and Ware as regards Father/Son/Holy Spirit functionality, I disagree with their application of it.
“So while I agree with Drs. Grudem and Ware as regards Father/Son/Holy Spirit functionality, I disagree with their application of it.”
Ok, so I guess I won’t push you off the bridge!