Blogogetics

“All men by nature desire to know.” The curiosity of a child comes immediately to mind thus proving Aristotle’s statement. I would be quick to add, “Most men do not desire to know how they know.” We just “know”. We know a variety of things, both to our benefit and to our detriment. Some things we think we know but are merely a matter of opinion or preference. Other things we may think, are a matter of opinion, but may really be a matter of knowledge. How do we tell the difference? Is it even possible to tell the difference? If it is not possible to tell the difference then the only things that we truly can know are those things that experience tells us. And all other things that are not a matter of experience become opinion.

The study of how we know what we know is called epistemology. The study of epistemology asks questions like where do I get my knowledge, and how is it derived? Those who have bothered to ask the question, how do we obtain knowledge, have observed that knowledge is obtained through experience, reason, and revelation. Not all have agreed on the three modes of reception; while in our culture it is fashionable to reject anything can be known at all. Knowledge itself is difficult to define, books have been written through the ages on the subject. But for our purpose we shall define it as that which coheres with reality and corresponds with reality. The denial of knowledge therefore results in contradiction in some way. We may not know this contradiction but if we hold a belief that is against reality then that belief cannot be considered knowledge, although we may hold it to be so. For instance if I believe there is a parrot on a perch next to me, can that belief be considered knowledge? Only if in fact there is a parrot on a perch next to me. This belief corresponds with reality and does not contradict other circumstances; it has coherence. But what do you do with the belief, “Humans have value”, that intrinsic value which cannot be separated from the individual? That type of value that the framers of the American Constitution labeled “inalienable”? Is this knowledge or is it just a belief? Is this a moral claim or a preference claim? If all knowledge is gained from experience than this supposed moral claim is in fact a preference claim and nothing more.
[Read more →]

Tags: Science by Thomas Moller
No Comments »

1 Timothy 2:11-12 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

Should a woman be allowed to be a deacon(ess) or an elder in a church?
I would say that it goes against scripture to allow deaconesses or women elders (pastors). While many women out there could clearly teach me a thing or two about God and scripture, that would go against the model of federal headship. Man is the head of the family…

1 Corinthians 11:3 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Why would a woman be allowed to, say, lead a children’s ministry, but not be an administrative pastor of a church?
The key to whether women can teach a children’s ministry is in that they are not teaching men but rather children. These children should still be getting spiritual instruction from their fathers and mothers but are not ready to study on their own. A woman is capable of giving instruction but must submit to God’s authority and instructions.

Titus 2:3-5 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored

Would you let a woman be a guest speaker and give a sermon?
This is more difficult because a woman could be a very valuable guest speaker, but is that acceptable. I guess it depends on the context of the situation; is it topical or is it preaching? Does that even matter? I would be uncomfortable to have a woman as a guest speaker or giving a sermon during the service but a separate arena may be preferable - a special “class” or speaking opportunity for example. I have to admit that this is a very slippery slope.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

This section follows discussion about speaking in tongues and prophesy and so it may be limited to that concept but I suspect that it may be addressing the issue at Corinth where women may not have been turning to their husbands for spiritual leadership. They may have been trying to circumvent their roles and seeking instruction from other men (not elders) or were even trying to teach other men. I may have tried to cover too many ideas for one post but I hope it makes sense. I’ll respond to any clarifications you have or to expand on these ideas if needed.

When posting arguments for or against, please quote scripture. You can find online bible translations at Bible Gateway. Please understand that I have the utmost respect for Godly women and have no doubt they are very capable of teaching/preaching in the church. It’s just that I understand the scriptures to be God-breathed and true in their entirety. I also understand the scriptures to say that women are not to teach or preach in the church. It never says can’t or incapable of teaching.

Finally, what does this mean in regards to evangelism? Are women not to evangelize? Are they not to share the gospel? I don’t think this is the case. Maybe the instructions from God only applied to the church environment. This may allow for outside studies, books, seminars, children’s ministry, etc.

Tags: Our Roles by Luke Shiras
5 Comments »

A lot of people argue against Dogma and Orthodoxy on the grounds that the early church had neither. To answer that position, Darrell Bock points to four areas of activity in the earliest churches and their worship services. Those four areas are Scripture (i.e., the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Old Testament), Schooling (Doctrinal summaries), Singing (early Christian hymns), and Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Table).

Those of you familiar with my work known that I have discussed an alternative expression of Christianity I have called “Jesusanity.” (See Dethroning Jesus) It is a view that says Jesus’ teaching is an important religious guide, but his person and work are not central to Christian teaching. Such a view also argues that there was no such thing as orthodoxy in the earliest period of the movement Jesus started. Rather there were alternative views of Jesus that were not really compatible. Part of the argument goes that in the earliest period of the development of the movement, when theology was taught orally, there was room for a great deal of theological development because there was no functioning theological authority like the New Testament in place. Part of this argument is true, because the materials we have show that the New Testament, as we know it, did not really start to emerge and be used extensively until the late second century (ie, books that began to be read as a functioning unit like the four gospels and Paul’s letters). A community might have one gospel or two but predominantly operated with a variety of oral means of passing on the teaching of the community. So was there a way to pass on theology before there was a functioning New Testament? Can one speak of a core orthodoxy or proto-orthodoxy? I think one can. Let me explain…

- Read full article

Tags: By Others by Guest Author
No Comments »

This is a follow-up to the post Of Eggs and Embryos which you may want to read first.

Let’s say there is a world much like our world. This world has golden sunsets, this world has blue-green seas and luminous nights. This world has animals abundant with might and people pursuing prosperity. Due to technological advancement, food is abundant and the common cold has been cured. Poverty has been beaten back and charity is common. Welcome to Gaia. Gaia is paradise attained almost. In Gaia, as in our world, not all afflictions have been defeated; some infirmity and distress still remain. But, as Monty Python said, “cheer up old chap” things look promising. The potential promise of a fulfilled, and fulfilling, utopia, might be found in a culture dish no larger than 10cm in diameter. The elixir found in this reddish – orange liquid medium are known as stem cells and not just ordinary adult stem cells but embryonic stem cells (ESC’s). That certain type of stem cell that hasn’t yet “pipelined” down their developmental pathway. As in our world, ESC’s do come with a contentious price; they require the destruction of an embryo. The value of that embryo is currently in discussion on Gaia. Comprising the populace of our anguished paradise are two predominant ethno-cultural communities, the “progressives” and the “recalcitrants”. The progressives see nothing wrong with the destruction of the embryo because according to reason the resulting promise of fulfilled paradise outweigh any “moral” considerations the recalcitrants bring. The recalcitrants disagree over the cost of fulfillment and argue that the life (or potential life) of the embryo outweighs any “utility” considerations the progressive brings. The progressives are derisive in their condemnation of the moralists, and the recalcitrants are dismissive in their contempt of the utilitarianists. Now, if you have been following along so far, and you are familiar with our nation’s current debate on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) you may be asking, “How is this any different from our world, apart from Gaia’s common cold being cured? One fact changes the assumed analogous positions of the participants in the debate: The requisite embryos destined for destruction are Ailuropoda Melanoleuca; commonly known as the Chinese Giant Panda.
[Read more →]

Tags: Embryos, Science by Thomas Moller
1 Comment »

Introduction

If there is one subject that has caused division amongst Evangelicals today, it is the authority of Scripture. Although the word “Evangelical” usually meant that this particular person believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, this can no longer be assumed. But the “Bible debate” is not just a product of this century. In fact the authority and inspiration of Scripture has been challenged since the Enlightenment period. No longer was God’s Word seen without error or “inerrant.”

Today, inerrancy usually is associated with fundamentalism1, or close-mindedness, or even anti-intellectualism. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Inerrancy believes that our only standard of truth is the Word of God. In presupposing that God is perfect, the result of that perfection is the Word He gives. This definition has often led to much confusion and therefore, many misinterpretations of what evangelicals define as inerrancy.

The ultimate question is, “If the Bible says it, can I believe it, and can I base my life around it?” There is nothing more central to the Christian faith than the infallibility of Scripture. Millard Erickson writes:
[Read more →]

Tags: General Info by Sam Shin
No Comments »