SO SHOULD WE TEACH THE BIBLE

In my humble opinion, this lady is one of the best lady I know.

IF YOU SO DESIRE TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD, HERE ARE A FEW IDEA.

Be very strong and clear on what the Scripture says. Try to work out the applicability fairly and even-handedly within the context of your local church. But don't turn that into the new legal structure for all Christians such that this is where you draw your line of demarcation. In other words: get the center right and think center-bounded set. Don't fudge on what the Bible says!

. . . If you come to the conclusion that that best articulated and sophisticated, knowledgeable exegesis of Scripture, carefully thought-through, can be graced with the word "complementarian"; if you come to that conclusion--stop apologizing for it. In other words, at some point you have to say, "This is for your good, it is for my good, it is for the church's good, it is for the culture's good. . . ."God knows the design. He knows what he is doing. And so you cannot use your culturally-located questions to become a back-door way of saying that you're uncomfortable with exegesis. That it seems to me, leads to distortion in every domain.

Now this sounds rather bibical, yet you will discover that the point is rather hard to see in reality.

THE MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT MOST BAPTIST DO NOT HAVE. Well, maybe some. But when you look at Scripture, your desire is to see the scripture in light of the whole purpose of the bible.

Because it is one of the, if not the way that biblical authority is being undermined in our times: If you can get women’s ordination, room for homosexuality, women as pastors in the churches and no male headship in the home out of the Bible, you can get anything out of the Bible. If you can get Paul’s statement “I do not permit a woman to teach” to say “I do permit a woman to teach” you can make people believe anything. In this case there is nothing you cannot get out of the Bible or read into the Bible. We also undermine authority when we believe something from the Bible but refuse to teach it.

No matter how unpopular, it is the job of the pastor to teach what the Bible says to the eternal glory of God.

Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry

If you are a Baptist and you struggle with the role of a man and a woman you need to study this. If you believe its okay to have Paula White and Joyce Myers as preachers you need to read this.

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

HERE ARE A FEW STATEMENTS THAT ADDRESS THE APPROACH TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

• A brief analysis of the relationship of faith and understanding in evangelism, and a look a several ineffective approaches and seven aggressive steps to effective evangelism.
  
  
• A brief summary of factors determining whether the manuscript evidence for the Old and New Testament books is sound, or highly embellished and corrupted over time and transmission. How reliable are the texts of both Testaments we now have?
  
  
• Barrow and Tipler's attempt to stave off the inference to divine design by appealing to the Weak Anthropic Principle is demonstrably logically fallacious unless one conjoins to it the metaphysical hypothesis of a World Ensemble. But there is no reason for such a postulate. Their misgivings about the alternative of divine design are shown to be of little significance.
  
  Is there a man in human history who claimed to be God and backed up those claims? Has any man ever conquered death and risen from the dead? This article looks at the claims and life of Jesus Christ. Who was he? What did he do?
  
• It has been argued on the basis of Paul's testimony that Jesus's resurrection body was spiritual in the sense of being unextended, immaterial, intangible, and so forth. But neither the argument appealing to the nature of Paul's Damascus Road experience nor the argument from Paul's doctrine of the resurrection body supports such a conclusion

• On the contrary, Paul's information serves to confirm the gospels' narratives of Jesus's bodily resurrection. Not only is the gospels? physicalism well-founded, but it is also, like Paul's doctrine, a nuance physicalism.
  
• In order to effectively communicate the gospel, it is important to build bridges to lost people where they are, by seeking to understand them and share the gospel in a way that is meaningful to THEM rather than to US.
  
  If life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically.
  
  
  Quentin Smith has recently argued that (I) the universe began to exist and (II) its beginning was uncaused. In support of (II), he argues that (i) there is no reason to think that the beginning was caused by God and (ii) it is unreasonable to think so. I dispute both claims. His case for (i) misconstrues the causal principle, appeals to false analogies of ex nihilo creation, fails to show how the origin of the universe ex nihilo is naturally plausible, and reduces to triviality by construing causality as predictability in principle. His case for (ii) ignores important epistemological questions and fails to show either that vacuum fluctuation models are empirically plausible or that they support his second claim.
  
• For making sense of any of the modern ideologies, nothing works better than identifying its view of creation. One's view of ultimate origins shapes the rest of one's thinking, as Nancy Pearcey shows in this catalog of Worldviews, published in Boundless (December 1999 ) and based on her new book "How Now Shall We Live?" (coauthored by Chuck Colson).
  
  
  Recent discussions have raised the issue of the metaphysical implications of standard Big Bang cosmology. Grunbaum's argument that the causal principle cannot be applied to the origin of the universe rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the cause could act neither before nor after t=0, but at t=0. Levy-Leblond's advocacy of a remetrication of cosmic time to push the singularity to - involves various conceptual difficulties and is in any case unavailing, since the universe's beginning is not eliminated. Maddox's aversion to the possible metaphysical implications of the standard model evinces a narrow scientism. Standard Big Bang cosmogony does therefore seem to have those metaphysical implications which some have found so discomfiting.
  
  
  Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant and Proof Checked by Charity Whisnant, on Mother’s Day May 13th 2007
  
  
  
  
  /