Comments for Equality Press http://equalitypress.wordpress.com Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:21:57 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on A Correction to “The Logic of Equality” by Kay http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/a-correction-to-the-logic-of-equality/#comment-105 Kay Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:21:57 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=80#comment-105 I'm baffled that complementarians base the ‘role’ of wives in subordination to the ‘role’ of husbands on the fact that the husband possesses male reproductive organs, while at the same time claiming the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, when the only member of the Trinity we know for sure had male reproductive organs was Jesus, because the Scriptures say He was circumcised, but neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father are ever expressly said to possess them. So now, if authority lies in the possessing of male genitals, would not that put the Son in authority and the Father and the Holy Spirit in eternal subordination? I have yet to find a complementarian who will even attempt an answer. I’m baffled that complementarians base the ‘role’ of wives in subordination to the ‘role’ of husbands on the fact that the husband possesses male reproductive organs, while at the same time claiming the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, when the only member of the Trinity we know for sure had male reproductive organs was Jesus, because the Scriptures say He was circumcised, but neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father are ever expressly said to possess them.

So now, if authority lies in the possessing of male genitals, would not that put the Son in authority and the Father and the Holy Spirit in eternal subordination? I have yet to find a complementarian who will even attempt an answer.

]]> Comment on William Lane Craig on the “generation” of the Son by Mark S http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/william-lane-craig-on-the-generation-of-the-son/#comment-103 Mark S Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:13 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-103 Then why is 'Person' not included in the definition of 'Essence" ? Is it not already present ? And if the Son is necessarily generated, why did the Father stop there - why not many 'Sons' ? These questions cannot be easily answered or dismissed by the claim that one does not 'understand' - since the doctrine of the trinity is itself an attempt to explain the mystery of the inner workings of the Godhead. Then why is ‘Person’ not included in the definition of ‘Essence” ? Is it not already present ?
And if the Son is necessarily generated, why did the Father stop there – why not many ‘Sons’ ?
These questions cannot be easily answered or dismissed by the claim that one does not ‘understand’ – since the doctrine of the trinity is itself an attempt to explain the mystery of the inner workings of the Godhead.

]]> Comment on William Lane Craig on the “generation” of the Son by Perry Robinson http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/william-lane-craig-on-the-generation-of-the-son/#comment-99 Perry Robinson Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:40:25 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-99 Sure persons have essences, but Craig seems to be thinking that if the Son derives his person from the Father, then the Son must be essentially less than the Father. This could only be so if person = essence. Different person then would imply different essence and personal subjection and submission would imply inequality of essence. What Craig will be forced to say is that terms like "Father" are not eternally true of God. He already endorses some other heterodox views in Christology, such as that Jesus lacked a human soul or mind so I think this is just indicative of a wider problem. Don't get me wrong, I like Craig, but one of the things he is not is a historical theologian. Sure persons have essences, but Craig seems to be thinking that if the Son derives his person from the Father, then the Son must be essentially less than the Father. This could only be so if person = essence. Different person then would imply different essence and personal subjection and submission would imply inequality of essence.

What Craig will be forced to say is that terms like “Father” are not eternally true of God. He already endorses some other heterodox views in Christology, such as that Jesus lacked a human soul or mind so I think this is just indicative of a wider problem. Don’t get me wrong, I like Craig, but one of the things he is not is a historical theologian.

]]> Comment on William Lane Craig on the “generation” of the Son by Adam http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/william-lane-craig-on-the-generation-of-the-son/#comment-98 Adam Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:53:31 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-98 How are they confused? Don't persons have essences? How are they confused? Don’t persons have essences?

]]> Comment on William Lane Craig on the “generation” of the Son by Perry Robinson http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/william-lane-craig-on-the-generation-of-the-son/#comment-97 Perry Robinson Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:45:06 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-97 Why would hypostatic derivation imply essential inequality? The problem it seems with Craig's view here as in his Christology is that he confuses persons with essence. Why would hypostatic derivation imply essential inequality? The problem it seems with Craig’s view here as in his Christology is that he confuses persons with essence.

]]> Comment on Is Complementarianism at the very center of orthodoxy? by Larry S http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/is-complementarianism-at-the-very-center-of-orthodoxy/#comment-95 Larry S Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:04:30 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=84#comment-95 thanks for posting this and the links to McKnight. I got here from your comment on Denny's 'dancing at weddings' blog. I found McKnight's posts about the resurgance of Calvinism very useful. As an Anabaptist and a Canadian I've been noticing the whole Calvinism thing. It's actually had some impact in my own denominaion. anyway, thanks. and nice blog :) Larry thanks for posting this and the links to McKnight.

I got here from your comment on Denny’s ‘dancing at weddings’ blog. I found McKnight’s posts about the resurgance of Calvinism very useful.

As an Anabaptist and a Canadian I’ve been noticing the whole Calvinism thing. It’s actually had some impact in my own denominaion.

anyway, thanks. and nice blog :)

Larry

]]> Comment on One Faith: Is it hypocritical to think that a woman can lead a nation and not a congregation? by chaidrinkingfool http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/one-faith-is-it-hypocritical-to-think-that-a-woman-can-lead-a-nation-and-not-a-congregation/#comment-93 chaidrinkingfool Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:23:34 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=53#comment-93 I don't know whether it's hypocritical, but it's highly inconsistent. To state the obvious, if men were *created* to lead and women were *created* to follow, then this holds true in the entire *creation*. In which case, the quiverfull and other patriarchal Christian movements have it right, and the soft complementarian camp is confused, and is in fact accommodating the larger culture by relenting regarding spheres that are not under their immediate control. I don’t know whether it’s hypocritical, but it’s highly inconsistent. To state the obvious, if men were *created* to lead and women were *created* to follow, then this holds true in the entire *creation*. In which case, the quiverfull and other patriarchal Christian movements have it right, and the soft complementarian camp is confused, and is in fact accommodating the larger culture by relenting regarding spheres that are not under their immediate control.

]]> Comment on Resistance From Every Nation by Adam http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/resistance-from-every-nation/#comment-90 Adam Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:26:40 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=74#comment-90 Thanks, Marque. I look forward to dialoguing more. Thanks, Marque. I look forward to dialoguing more.

]]> Comment on Resistance From Every Nation by marQue http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/resistance-from-every-nation/#comment-89 marQue Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:41:42 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?p=74#comment-89 nice work - thanks for cranking this out ! I'll write some more to you later! nice work – thanks for cranking this out !

I’ll write some more to you later!

]]> Comment on The “Difference” Between “A and Not-A” by Juan Jeanniton http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/the-%e2%80%9cdifference%e2%80%9d-between-%e2%80%9ca-and-not-a%e2%80%9d-an-analyses-of-alleged-%e2%80%9cword-tricks%e2%80%9d-and-obfuscations/#comment-83 Juan Jeanniton Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:02:52 +0000 http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/?page_id=7#comment-83 You know what I think? All of these paradoxes could have been simply avoided if we had used the proof of George and Dora Winston George that the Bible bases authority, and therefore ALL gender role distinctions of headship and submission, on the inherent nature of a relation and its function, value, significance, and purpose, rather than on essential being. The proof of this can be found in Chapter 4 of their book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN, though I do not agree with many of their conclusions about the role of women in the church, particularly because they tend to overlook the Biblically proven fact that the church is God's household, and whatever role distinctions the family relation by virtue of its inherent nature as a family relation MUST therefore carry over into the church. If I have time, I shall send you a more information. You know what I think? All of these paradoxes could have been simply avoided if we had used the proof of George and Dora Winston George that the Bible bases authority, and therefore ALL gender role distinctions of headship and submission, on the inherent nature of a relation and its function, value, significance, and purpose, rather than on essential being.

The proof of this can be found in Chapter 4 of their book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN, though I do not agree with many of their conclusions about the role of women in the church, particularly because they tend to overlook the Biblically proven fact that the church is God’s household, and whatever role distinctions the family relation by virtue of its inherent nature as a family relation MUST therefore carry over into the church.

If I have time, I shall send you a more information.

]]>