---------------------
The churlish and antagonistic Rev. Wade expends almost 1600 words (not including quotes), but is barely able to quote Scripture. He will often appeal to the Bible without quoting it, preferring to state his undocumented claims with bombastic alacrity.
The churlish and antagonistic Rev. Wade expends almost 1600 words (not including quotes), but is barely able to quote Scripture. He will often appeal to the Bible without quoting it, preferring to state his undocumented claims with bombastic alacrity.
And as is typical for him, he is unable to do anything more than contradict and dismiss.
We should note that we do not intend to defend Hyatt, but we do wish to examine Rev. Wade's faulty presentation.
----------------------
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)
Click Here
(...)
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)
Click Here
(...)
...let us turn to the above link from Eddie Hyatt who seemingly writes about two subjects, neither one correctly. One is his dominionist bent on insisting that this country is actually under covenant with God. Spoiler alert! It isn't. (Summary dismissal, presented as if it is self-evidently true.)
The other subject he routinely butchers is women in leadership within the church. He and his wife have written books on these subjects because of their obsession with disobedience. So, let us reason once more together.
"Lifeway Research recently released the results of a survey involving 1000 Protestant pastors concerning the level of their acceptance of women in leadership. They found that most would accept women leading Bible studies, but only 44% of evangelical pastors and 14% of Baptist pastors answered in the affirmative when asked if their church permitted women to serve as "senior pastors." "Senior pastor" is not a Biblical term, but for many Protestant pastors, it is the highest position of authority in the local church. Since "authority" is the central issue for them, they exclude women from that position. For other churches it may be the position of "elder" that is off limits to women, but the issue is the same""authority." One influential mega church, for example, allows women pastors, but only men can be elders. They explain that the governing body for their church is their board of elders, and since, in their opinion, women cannot exercise governing authority, all elders must be men." - Eddie Hyatt
As Eddie will soon be forced to admit, the reason why "authority" is the issue is that God said so in 1Timothy when he specifically stated that He does not permit women to teach of (sic) have authority over men. (Happily, Rev. Wade will actually quote this Scripture a bit later. But he dishonestly represents it here. The actual text reads "a woman" and "a man," not "women" and "men."
"The truth is that neither Paul nor any New Testament writer ever made "authority" the issue when it comes to women serving in leadership roles in the church. The Greek word for "authority" in the New Testament is exousia, and it is found 102 times in the Greek New Testament, and numerous other times in its verb and other cognate forms. Not once is a woman told she cannot exercise exousia. How then are we to understand 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul writes, I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man? To understand correctly what Paul meant in this passage, it is necessary to examine his word choice. It is of utmost importance to note that the Greek word translated "authority" here is not exousia. Instead of exousia, Paul uses the word authentein, and this is the only place it is found in the entire New Testament. This should immediately raise a red flag for the Bible exegete, for if he were addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church we would expect him to use the normal word for authority that he and all other Biblical writers use. That he uses a strange Greek word that neither he nor any New Testament writer ever uses, is a clear indication that he is addressing a unique situation that exists with Timothy and the church in Ephesus where Timothy is ministering. The historical context in which Paul writes this letter to Timothy must, therefore, be taken into serious consideration." - Eddie Hyatt
Let the word linguistic games begin! I want you to follow along here in the twisted logic of Eddie Hyatt. (:Twisted logic?" Now, Hyatt's logic might be faulty. It might be improperly reasoned. He may have jumped to a conclusion. Or even, his premises might be incorrect. None of these things justify the label "twisted.")
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. - 1Timothy 2:12-14 (ESV)
If this was just meant for the church at Ephesus why would God explain to the detail that He did? What would be the point of verses 13 and 14? (Why don't you explain the presence of verses 13 and 14 yourself, Rev. Wade? This is one of the things that is so frustrating about the Reverend. He pops off with comments, dismissals, and assertions, but doesn't bother telling us what he considers the proper view.
"Lifeway Research recently released the results of a survey involving 1000 Protestant pastors concerning the level of their acceptance of women in leadership. They found that most would accept women leading Bible studies, but only 44% of evangelical pastors and 14% of Baptist pastors answered in the affirmative when asked if their church permitted women to serve as "senior pastors." "Senior pastor" is not a Biblical term, but for many Protestant pastors, it is the highest position of authority in the local church. Since "authority" is the central issue for them, they exclude women from that position. For other churches it may be the position of "elder" that is off limits to women, but the issue is the same""authority." One influential mega church, for example, allows women pastors, but only men can be elders. They explain that the governing body for their church is their board of elders, and since, in their opinion, women cannot exercise governing authority, all elders must be men." - Eddie Hyatt
As Eddie will soon be forced to admit, the reason why "authority" is the issue is that God said so in 1Timothy when he specifically stated that He does not permit women to teach of (sic) have authority over men. (Happily, Rev. Wade will actually quote this Scripture a bit later. But he dishonestly represents it here. The actual text reads "a woman" and "a man," not "women" and "men."
This singular tense is important to correctly understand the Scripture. But we sort of doubt that Rev. Wade wants to correctly understand Scripture, if the understanding contradicts what he believes.)
As if this was not plain enough, God even goes as far as to tell us why He deems it so. This is because Adam was formed first and the women is who was deceived in the garden and became a sinner. I know this flies in the face of what a lot of feminist Christians think but it is truth. It does not matter what Lifeway Research discovers. It does not matter what Protestant churches do. It only matters what the word of God says and it says - I do not permit. Period, full stop. No matter what linguistic or historical hoops Eddie Hyatt wants to jump through, he cannot escape these clear, directive scriptures. ("linguistic or historical hoops?" The arrogance of this is matched only by its ignorance. Every Scripture ought to be thoroughly examined and researched, including context, grammar, culture, and the intended audience.
This sort of process is crucial for any serious Bible student.
And in fact, it would be a great mistake to divorce the Scriptures from their cultural and historical contexts. Rev. Wade himself has previously articulated this very principle:
All of the promises of God are yes but that does not change who the promises and curses contained in Deuteronomy 28 were meant for.
So in principle Rev. Wade disagrees with himself. Which means he thinks the letter to Timothy cannot be considered in the context of the Ephesian church, but yet the commands to Israel in Deuteronomy 28 were meant only for Israel. Hmmm.)
"The truth is that neither Paul nor any New Testament writer ever made "authority" the issue when it comes to women serving in leadership roles in the church. The Greek word for "authority" in the New Testament is exousia, and it is found 102 times in the Greek New Testament, and numerous other times in its verb and other cognate forms. Not once is a woman told she cannot exercise exousia. How then are we to understand 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul writes, I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man? To understand correctly what Paul meant in this passage, it is necessary to examine his word choice. It is of utmost importance to note that the Greek word translated "authority" here is not exousia. Instead of exousia, Paul uses the word authentein, and this is the only place it is found in the entire New Testament. This should immediately raise a red flag for the Bible exegete, for if he were addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church we would expect him to use the normal word for authority that he and all other Biblical writers use. That he uses a strange Greek word that neither he nor any New Testament writer ever uses, is a clear indication that he is addressing a unique situation that exists with Timothy and the church in Ephesus where Timothy is ministering. The historical context in which Paul writes this letter to Timothy must, therefore, be taken into serious consideration." - Eddie Hyatt
Let the word linguistic games begin! I want you to follow along here in the twisted logic of Eddie Hyatt. (:Twisted logic?" Now, Hyatt's logic might be faulty. It might be improperly reasoned. He may have jumped to a conclusion. Or even, his premises might be incorrect. None of these things justify the label "twisted.")
Let's stipulate that the choice of using authentein instead of exousia is correct as Eddie has laid out. (There's no reason to cast doubt on this point, since the claim is easily verifiable, Rev. Wade. Just look it up, since you're a Bible teacher and all.
Hyatt is correct, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the only place in the NT where authentein is found. A singular use of a word is certainly worthy of taking notice.
The fact that Rev. Wade would mock this is astonishing.)
It is because of this fact however that he leaves the world of logic. His assertion that the usage of the "strange word" indicates that he is talking specifically about a unique situation that exists at Ephesus. Why did Eddie jump to this absurd conclusion? (Why is it absurd? Maybe it is, but why does Rev. Wade think it's absurd?)
Because it fits the narrative he wants to support! There is nothing in the text that indicates this! Paul may have used a special word so that people would take heed of the importance of women not serving in authority in God's church over men! It is just a plausible. As an exegete, it (sic) always raises a red flag for me when someone adds personal bias to their conclusions. (Irony Alert.)
Let us never lose sight also of one of the primary arguments against this rationale from Hyatt and that is called divine inspiration. ("Divine inspiration" is an argument? Actually, it is a fundamental premise. And a lot of people agree with this premise. And a lot of them have come to different conclusions on a variety of Scriptural matters and doctrines, none of which are necessarily outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
So Rev. Wade appeals to the premise, divine inspiration, as if it was a trump card. But we are not talking about whether or not the Scriptures are inspired, since both he and Hyatt agree with this premise. We are examining the man's interpretation and conclusion regarding those Scriptures.)
We believe that God divinely inspired the writers of all the books of the bible. This means God wrote these verses, not Paul. All scripture is God breathed and useful for all things, not just in Ephesus at the time of this writing. (Perhaps this is why Rev. Wade doesn't quote Scripture: The Scripture does not say what he says it does. Rev. Wade paraphrased 2Ti. 3:16-17:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It does not say "useful for all things," does it? It may imply that in some fashion, but "all things" is not the same as "every good work." Yes, we're nit-picking, but only to illustrate a point. Rev. Wade's casual approach to the Scriptures is a weakness that manifests all over his writings.
But more to the point, this passage is specifically referring to how Scripture, being inspired, can be used for and by people for spiritual benefit. But this is all an unnecessary detour. No one is doubting the inspiration of Scripture.
That being said, we do not think Hyatt's cultural context argument is a persuasive one. Or rather, we don't think it's necessary argument. When Paul wrote about what he does not permit "a woman" to do regarding "a man," that pretty clearly suggests that Paul was not talking about church leadership, but rather one-to-one interpersonal relationships. Specifically, marriage.
We discuss this in detail here.)
There is another verse later that states that Paul's writings were already considered scripture! Even if all of this leaves you unconvinced, look at the context!
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. - 1Timothy 2:12-14 (ESV)
If this was just meant for the church at Ephesus why would God explain to the detail that He did? What would be the point of verses 13 and 14? (Why don't you explain the presence of verses 13 and 14 yourself, Rev. Wade? This is one of the things that is so frustrating about the Reverend. He pops off with comments, dismissals, and assertions, but doesn't bother telling us what he considers the proper view.
Is it not possible that certain parts of Scripture are simply descriptive and not prescriptive? Does Paul write about things that are for the specific church he wrote to? Or things that were specific to Timothy only? For example, Paul tells Timothy:
1Ti. 1:20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
Is this an activity we should implement regarding Hymenaeus and Alexander? In fact, should churches today hand blasphemers over to satan? Now, a person might study the matter and conclude that yes, this should happen, but we don't have Hymenaeus and Alexander among us today. That is very specific. It's still inspired Scripture, but it's not for us.
How about this one:
1Ti. 5:23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.
Should we implement a doctrine that forbids the drinking of water? Of course not. This is one of the many Scriptures that do not apply to us. The point is, Rev. Wade is given to making pronouncements that are what he considers "gotchas," but end up being nothing more than Bible-mangling.
So, we will explain the presence of these verses for him. It's not that they are for the Ephesian church only, as Hyatt seems to think, but rather, those verses make much more sense in the context of our explanation that Paul was dealing with marriage. So, citing the prototypical marriage relationship makes perfect sense and aligns with our theory.
We have little energy and no desire to chase Rev. Wade all over the rhetorical landscape, so we shall cease our commentary.)
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment