Category Archives: comparative religions

Rachel Held Evans & Patriarchy

Over the years we have analyzed many of Ms. Evans’ posts. Jim West likes to bash her because she only has a journalism degree and not a theological one. We analyze her words simply because she is wrong. While one does not need theological degrees to understand the Bible, they should be following the Holy Spirit to the truth. But most of the time, they ignore that instruction and use their own understanding, their own preferences, their own desires when attacking Biblical teaching.

This is the case with Ms. Evans. For some reason her year’s experiment in being a biblical woman has led her to believe that she can pontificate on any topic concerning the church. That is the understanding we get when we read her words on patriarchy. Those words are actually addressing John Piper’s but we are merely looking at her response not his interview. You can read his interview at the following link:

We have our own issues with some of Mr.Piper’s words but those will have to come at another time.

Her words in full at the next link:

#1. In this interview, Piper’s response to the sexual harassment and abuse highlighted by the #MeToo movement is to call for a return to patriarchy, wherein men rule over and “protect” women who in turn “submit” to men. This is a dangerously misguided response for a few reasons.

So we see that Ms. Evan’s has her hackles raised because she does not like to be considered one of those women who needs protection by a man. She should be careful as if we appeal to Jesus, we would note that he did not alter patriarchy. Plus, while on the cross, he committed his mother to the care of one of his disciples. So what is really dangerous is this attack on patriarchy itself by Ms. Evans.

It is often misunderstood by both men and women and it is the result of this misunderstanding that causes many women like Ms. Evans to over-react.

#2.The #MeToo movement does not reflect some sudden increase in the abuse of women; rather, it reflects a growing awareness of those abuses, and a mounting, collective fervor to confront them. It’s a movement led by and for women, women who aren’t asking for some sort of paternalistic “protection” because they are fragile females, but rather to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve simply because they are human being

What we are going to address here is the topic of abuse of women. We have spoken much on this issue recently and probably have made the same point but the issue is not really about patriarchy. It is about sin. Patriarchy is merely the fall guy. Men sin so the system must be broken and needs to be changed. If we want to be blunt and bold, we would say ‘women think they can do a better job than men.’

In those words, the message given by Ms. Evans is that men need to treat women with dignity simply because they are women. Men do need to  treat women in a biblical way, that goes without saying but women also need to be dignified if they want to receive dignity. Christianity is not a one-way street. Women have to be biblical, this includes being submissive, if they want their men to be biblical. The sad news is, it is not always going to happen and women and men get abused.

Women should not hold their men to unrealistic expectations. Especially if the woman does not want to meet the teachings of Proverbs 31. The call for both men and women to be biblical and spiritual starts BEFORE they are married. This is a fact that is often overlooked by both genders. Living a holy life begins at an early age. Women need to be submissive to God’s teaching before they can become submissive to their husbands.

#3. That’s because contrary to Piper’s argument, patriarchy isn’t about protecting women; it’s about protecting men. It’s about preserving male rule over the home, church, and society, often at the expense of women.

When people like Ms. Evans start to attack God and biblical instruction, they tend to make a lot of wild excuses and claims. This is one example of those. Patriarchy is not about protecting men’s leadership roles. They are god-given and it is women who are trying to usurp authority from the man and take over those institutions. Patriarchy is about protecting women in one sense and it is about protecting them from sinning.

Another on e of its duties, as seen in 1 Cor. 7, is to make sure the woman is marrying the right man. Submitting to patriarchy can save a woman from her own misguided thinking and from abuse. Why women are upset about this extra layer of protection is a little mystifying. Given that women complain about how much men lie to them. God’s love for women established patriarchy to help protect women from those men and women who ignore biblical teaching. He didn’t do it to insult them or make them second class citizens.

Having the right perspective on God’s actions is helpful here. Patriarchy was never a license to men to do as they please to women. Women seem to forget that God placed instructions for the men in the Bible as well. He did not target women only.

#4. Ironically, in Genesis, the woman is literally the “strong protector” of the man!

There is always a problem when those who attack the Bible start turning their attention to the meaning of biblical words. They are not using the Spirit of Truth to get to the truth. Instead, they are using their own desires to guide them, plus they get a little help from the influence of evil. Not only do they find like-minded scholars to support their acceptance of certain definitions, they ignore context.

The context of the passage does not indicate that God made the woman to be man’s protector. These people also ignore other passages of scripture, like Paul’s, which state that women were made for the man and not man for the woman. They also ignore the passage that states that women are the weaker gender which shoots down the above revision of the definition of the word ezer.Then they ignore credible tradition and practice in order to get people to change their views on women’s roles.

The first word in the phrase, עזר (ezer, Strong’s #5828), is simple and means “helper.” The second word, כנגדו (kenegedo) is a little more complex. The base word is the word נגד (neged, Strong’s #5048), which will be discussed shortly, with the prefix כ (k) meaning “like,” and the suffix ו (o) meaning “of him” of “his.” {}

Which definition is right? From our brief use of scripture the facts point to the definition directly above. To use one of the favorite examples of the advocates for women as preachers, we point to Deborah. When the word of the Lord came to her about overthrowing the Israelite overlords God told her to get a man to do it. He di d not tell her to get a woman to lead the army of Israel. Then when the man would only go if Deborah came with him, it was at that reluctance that a woman was given the victory. The woman was not being a strong protector of the man.

#5. What makes the household codes of the New Testament different is not that they reinforce the patriarchal ordering of a household, but that they point to the humility of Jesus as the model for every relationship, inviting the first Christians

We appealed to Jesus first and now we get to rebut her appeal. Unfortunately for her, Jesus did not overthrow patriarchy, who is to lead the temple or the family. Nor did he change who is to lead civilization. Ms.  Evans ignores the scripture we alluded to earlier and goes on to quote Paul not Jesus when it comes to patriarchy and its legitimacy. Her appeal to Jesus fails because she does not show that Jesus altered patriarchy in any way, shape or form. her quote:

a strange mix of Jews and gentiles, masters and slaves, husbands and wives and widows and orphans—to look beyond cultural status to a better Kingdom in which “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)

It is another favored verse used by those who hate patriarchy and who want to see women as ministers in the church. Their use of the passage is erroneous, misguided and very dangerous. This bad use of that passage helps destroy the church not protect it from evil. There is nothing in Paul’s words in that passage that over-rule God’s patriarchal design for the home or the church. There is nothing in that passage that says God’s rules for the family and the church do  not apply anymore. They do not even address the issue of patriarchy and leadership.

We see that Ms. Evans and people like her like to cherry pick passages and use the ones they think fit their agenda. But Jesus said Satan cannot overthrow Satan. so how can Ms. Evans think that Paul can overthrow Paul? What Ms. Evans also does not understand is that the situation described by Paul existed even when God gave his instructions on who is to lead the family and the church.

The other error in those quoted words is Ms. Evans states that we are to look beyond cultural status when addressing the biblical instruction.  Yet she is appealing to the exact same culture to make her point. She cannot have it both ways. Since the Bible was written in God’s culture, secular human culture does not apply and does not shed light on biblical instructions.

#6.In conclusion—

Banning women from the pulpit and silencing their voices in the church doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Instructing women to submit to their husbands by “enduring abuse” doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Handling abuse and assault allegations “in house” by reporting them to the male elders of a church instead of to the police doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Misusing Scripture to reinforce gender stereotypes based more on white, American, post-World War II cultural ideals than biblical truth doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Calling for a return to patriarchy doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Letting women disobey God and sin is far more harmful to women than any of those charges bring. The church and its elders must follow God first, not Ms. Evans. But notice, she puts being banned from the pulpit first giving it more importance than the issue of abuse. At least we could make that point if we wanted to.

The people misusing scripture is actually her and people like her. They are using it to get their own personal desires into the church and remove God’s instruction. That is more harmful to both men and women, not to mention children.

#7. Patriarchy is not counter-cultural. It has for centuries been the norm. What’s truly counter-cultural is imitating Jesus, who, “being in very nature God,” surrendered his power and privilege to become a human—one birthed, nursed, protected, befriended, and BELIEVED by women.

When did being counter-cultural become criteria for being biblical? Does not MS. Evans understand that most cultures use the biblical model when they use patriarchy? Does she not know God’s influence on culture came first then evil started to lead it away from the truth? Just because secular cultures practice patriarchy does not mean that patriarchy is sin and wrong. It means that it has been co-opted by unbelievers, under the influence of evil, and distorted to make the system look bad.

How can she realize this? She does not listen to God and is under evil’s influence. Patriarchy is not the problem, it is God ordained. The problem comes in when men and women love darkness rather than light. They sin, which corrupts patriarchy. Just like the sin corrupted this world, patriarchy is not immune to its effects. When you attack patriarchy you are attacking God’s order of things and God himself.



Benjamin Corey & Women Preachers

To continue to  address the writings of those who claim to be Bible scholars etc., we turn to the following website

and the title of the article is

10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women as Pastors & Preachers

This topic has been discussed when we were in undergraduate school. We remember participating in such discussions though our arguments were not as good then as they may be now. But it isn’t a new discussion. Most likely it started after the original last disciples died out and when people thought it was safe to question biblical writers like Paul.

We doubt it will ever go away. Mr. Corey starts off with the following words

I’ve heard a lot of arguments as to why women are prohibited from teaching and preaching.

Just kidding.

There aren’t a lot of arguments– there’s just a lot of people quoting a couple of passages from Paul’s epistles in a way they believe “proves” that ministry positions which involve leading men, or teaching or preaching to men, is a boys-only job.

If you are going to have a credible discussion and want to be taken seriously n these issues. It is best that you do not insult the other side of the debate. Saying that the side you opposed doesn’t have serious arguments only shows that you do not consider them arguments. It makes you look foolish as well. Especially when you demand that others take you seriously and do not insult you.

Anyways, it doesn’t get better. Here are his points addressed in the order he gives them:

#10. The testimony of Scripture bears witness to female leadership in both the Old Testament and the early Church

Uhm there was one female leader attested to in the OT and that was Deborah. But as we pointed out she did not lead the temple or sought to be included as a priest. We also know that Anna served in the temple but she was not a priest and she never tried to become one or encouraged other women to be one. Anna was not formerly of the NT church as Jesus was just born when she was old.

Then when we encounter women in the NT church there is not one passage of scripture that describes them as disobeying Paul’s instructions. Sure one was called an apostle but being an apostle does not mean that one breaks God’s rules and occupies leadership roles he has banned them from holding. An apostle obeys both Jesus and God.

It is more likely that the women attested to stuck to their roles in the church and taught women, nurtured new believing women, and so on. There is no indication that they violated scripture and taught men. In the case of Apollos we are not sure what role Priscilla played in his teaching. We have little information on these women and it is not right to read anything into their situations.

What we do know is that Paul laid out certain instructions from God so all could read what God wanted for his church.

#9. Jesus trained female disciples– and they were the most loyal ones

There is no evidence of that latter part. We know that women were part of the group surrounding Jesus and his disciples but the only time the word disciples was used (and you can correct us if we are wrong here) in the gospels referred to the original 12 men. Mr. Corey goes a little astray here as he mentiones that the women were at the crucifixion and the men were not. He ignores the fact that John was there as Jesus gave his mother over to John to care for.

Making distorted points does not help anyone’s arguments. Then just because the men were not mentioned does not mean they were not there.

#8. God chose two women to become the first evangelists who proclaimed the Gospel– and they proclaimed it to men.

Uhm…no. Proof please. That is one of the bad things that comes when discussing this or any topic with people who do not follow scripture. They do not provide specific examples to support their point. When did Jesus appoint these women? What are the chapters and verses? We know Jesus told Mary M to tell his disciples that he had risen BUT she was not made an evangelist, she was given instructions to let his disciples know what had happened. They were already followers of Jesus so she was not evangelizing anyone. Mt. 28 does not provide any appointment either.

#7. Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time, but wrote to specific churches facing specific issues that are not completely known to us

This is the most common point made by those who want to see women elevated to th eposition of pastor. it is wrong and misguided but they all make it. One, there is no proof that Paul’s instructions was for the 1st century only. Two, if it were, then where are the divinely inspired words of God to direct the modern church? or the medieval church? or the church during the Dark Ages?

This argument cannot be substantiated and is absurd. There is no instruction from Jesus or any of the disciples limiting the words of any biblical writer to the first century or prior to that time. people who use this argument can also say that John 3:16 does not apply to today but they won’t because they benefit from that verse. Mr. Corey’s words of explanation fall short as well

Since we are not the people Paul was writing to, and our church context is not the same as theirs, it would be dangerous at best to approach his letters as being blanket prescriptions for all times and circumstances.

This is just as absurd a point as the above point. God did not write different instructions to different centuries. One reason is that it wouldn’t be fair to anyone to have a different set of rules for the same church. Another argument against those quoted words comes from the example of the OT temple. God gave his instructions to Moses roughly 2,000 years before Christ and in Christ’s day we see the temple operating according to those original instructions.

Why would God do something different for the NT church? Mr. Corey is very wrong here.

#6. If Paul was issuing a decree for all churches in all times, he completely contradicts himself in the same letter and elsewhere.

Paul does not contradict himself. It is more likely that Mr. Corey misunderstands Paul’s words.It is hard to say as he fails to provide exact scripture to support his point. If you are going to make a biblical point and claim the Bible is wrong, then you should be giving precise references to show that error. Being general does not cut it.

#5. The cultural context of Paul’s letters must be considered—some instructions were clearly meant to be applied within a specific cultural context.

His point here demonstrates Mr. Corey’s ignorance of culture and which one applies. He thinks that secular culture determined the content of the Bible. He is off the mark because Paul was not writing from a secular culture’s point of view. He was writing from God’s culture and God’s culture does not follow secular culture nor is the latter greater than the former.

The Bible is written by members of God’s kingdom who lived and wrote God’s culture to his followers. God doe snot tell anyone to follow the blind deceived, lost secular cultures of the world.

#4. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is free to go where it wills.

Yes it does BUT the Holy Spirit does not lead people to sin or disobey God.  Then his following words

Who are we to limit the authority of the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Spirit is only allowed to gift men to preach and lead the Church?

We are not saying it. God is saying it. We are not limiting it but God is limiting it. There is a difference here.

#3. The Bible never commands us to abandon evidence and reason, but commands us to consider them.

It also doesn’t tell us to use evidence and reason to say that God is wrong. Mr. Corey seems to forget the myriad of passages that warn us about false teachers. We can use evidence and reason, but if we say that God is wrong or the Bible is in error thenthe problem is not with God or the Bible but how we used evidence and reason. The Bible also says not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly where a lot of evidence and reason is distorted and made absurd.

#2. God gives people gifts with the intent they be used– not squelched.

Yet God did not teach us to use those gifts to disobey Him and his instructions. Those gifts can be used but Mr. Corey forgets that God gave rules for his followers to follow. We cannot use gifts as an excuse to break God’s rules.

#1. Our mission is far too critical to exclude gifted teachers and leaders.

So Mr. orey goes to the ‘ends justify the means’ argument. No, the mision is not so critical that it i smarred by sin. The first battle of Ai, the mission was lost because of one man’s sin. How much more is the mission defeated because more people claiming ot be of God sin? No one is stopping women from teaching women and children a fact lost on Mr. Corey.

No on e is stopping women fromusing their gifts. What is being done by enforcing God’s rules is that women are being stopped from sinning. Jesus sid if you love me keep my commandments. Since all of the NT are Jesus’ words, then the commands for women to be silent in the church not to teach men etc come from Jesus not Paul.

As you can see Mr. Corey did not make one credible argument. Like Mr. Enns, he does not use one bible verse to support his opposition to the bible. He also did not use any alternative divinely inspired book to counter Paul’s words. His arguments are not from God but from evil.

This is the issue. Those who seek to change the instructions to the church are not working from marching orders from God. They are leading people to destruction, sin and disobedience. They need prayer and hopefully they can be restored to true faith but until then their words are not to be considered.





Peter Enns & Creation

We do run out of topics to write about. News stories are not varied enough to continually use as sources for biblical points. In our early blogging days we used to go to supposed Bible scholars as our source. But if you have read those people, you would see that writing about their points is difficult. That is because they go on and on and on and on and on… you get the point. James Tabor is notorious with that skill.

But in spite of that we have decided to use Bible scholars as sources again. We will just be more selective in the articles we address.Our problem is that there are an overwhelming amount of material we can choose from. To get away from the abuse issue for a bit, we decided to address Peter Enns and his view on creation:

11 Recurring Mistakes Evangelicals Make in the Evolution Debate

You can read about it at the following link:

If we can we will only take about 1 point from each of those 11. The topic of evolution is another subect that will not go away. The reasons for that are for another post.

#1. It’s all about the authority of the Bible

The Bible is not just “there.” It has to be interpreted.

He is wrong. Why? because there is no biblical instruction or command to interpret the Bible. That idea is sinful and leads people away from the truth. There is not one verse in the Bible where God tells Moses or any of his biblical authors his words, then turns around and says, now have my people interpret what I said. The list of reasons for why that point is wrong is long and detailed. Suffice it to say that if God’s word is to be interpreted, then how could God judge disobedient people?

We see example after example of people, start with Eve, who ‘interpreted’ God’s instructions, did sinful acts and then got punished for them. If God’s words were meant to be interpreted they could not be punished. Also, there is also no command or instruction given by either God or Jesus to use the secular world and secular science as a light on God’s word. The reverse is true but the church cannot be the light unto a dark world if it let’s darkness influence its vision.

No legal system could function if interpretation was to be the guiding teaching.

#2. You’re giving science more authority than the Bible.-

To say that science gives us a more accurate understanding of human origins than the Bible is not putting science “over” the Bible—unless we assume that the Bible is prepared to give us scientific information.

Again Mr. Enns demonstrates his error filled thinking.  He also demonstrates his lack in understanding God and the Bible. Science cannot give us a more accurate understanding of human origins because human origins was not done in a scientific way. It was done in a way that God demonstrated his power over everything in this world. His creative act gives us confidence that God is stronger than anything life throws our way, even when unbelieving Bible scholars try to usurp the biblical record.

The Bible doesn’t have to give us scientific information about human origins. It only has to record the truth and what God actually did. It has to give us biblical facts and the truth.  Science had nothing to do with creation. Creation was a one-time supernatural act done by a supernatural God who has more power than any human can image. The Bible tells us the truth about God and our origins.

#3. But the church has never questioned the historicity of Adam-

Knowing what the history of the church has thought about Adam is not an argument for Adam’s historicity, as some seem to think/, since the history of the church did not have evolution or any scientific discoveries to deal with until recently.

We put a / in that quote to divide what we are talking about. Before that line Mr. Enns errs. It is an argument for Adam’s historicity. If Adam was not historical, the biblical authors would have corrected the error and if they didn’t, Jesus would have during his time here on earth. Since neither have done so and there are no credible manuscripts recording that they did, the fact that the church throughout history has accepted Adam’s historicity is an argument for it and that tradition has been substantiated by the evidence.

People like Marcion and Thomas Jefferson have tried to cut Adam out of the Bible, you know where their thoughts lie in history and in the church.

After the /, Mr. Enns demonstrates his lack of knowledge of history. It is well recorded that the first recorded discovery we have of evolution being discussed was found in the 6th century BC in China. The book After the Flood by Bill Cooper has that remark recorded. Then Solomon’s words that there is nothing new under the sun does not exclude evolution.

The idea that something came from nothing has been around for a very long time. A lot longer than Mr. Enns envisions. Mr. Enns also forgets that supposed scientific discoveries were made by unbelievers. These are people who do not have the spirit of truth guiding them to the truth. Their supposed discoveries come with the help of evil, who deceives and lies to people. Those supposed scientific discoveries should not be accepted by the believing world.

#4. Both Paul and the writer of Genesis thought Adam was a real person, the first man. Denying the historicity of Adam means you think you know better than the biblical writers-

All biblical writers were limited by their culture and time in how they viewed the physical world around them.

This is a lie. One that Mr. Enns has repeated on a number of occasions. So have other supposed bible scholars, scientists and evolutionists. Like Hitler said, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it as true… (paraphrased a bit).  That is what Mr. Enns and others are doing. They lie about the biblical writers, deny their supernatural help and make claims about them that they cannot verify. Peter told us that early biblical prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote so why would God leave that out of the equation when his authors wrote his words?

Where does Mr. Enns get this tidbit about biblical authors? It certain wasn’t from the Bible nor was it from Jesus. In fact, in John 5 Jesus validates Moses’ words when he said, how can you believe my words when you do not believe Moses’ words? So if it isn’t from the Bible and it isn’t from Jesus or his disciples, where is the origin of this so-called fact about biblical authors?

It comes from evil. Why? So that people’s faith can be destroyed. The biblical authors had divine help and knowledge and what they recorded was the truth. Secular science does not even attempt to find the truth so their ideas need to be ignored.

#5. Genesis as whole, including the Adam story, is a historical narrative and therefore demands to be taken as an historical account-

It is a common, but nevertheless erroneous, assumption that Genesis, as a “historical narrative,” narrates history

We forget the name of the archaeologist or historian who once said- if the OT is not true, then Israel becomes the only nation incapable of writing its own history. The idea that the people of Israel cannot write their own history and need the help from outsiders is preposterous. It is ridiculous as well. How can people working with limited amounts of sources, evidence, and 2 to 5,000 years away from the events be more correct than the people who lived the history?

No it is erroneous to think that Genesis is not history. One glaring fact that undermines Mr. Enns’ point is, where is the true history of Israel if the OT is not true? We do not get any credible, or divinely inspired alternative history from anyone including believing archaeologists, bible scholars and historians. There is none. Genesis is actual history

#6. Evolution is a different “religion” (i.e., “naturalism” or “Darwinism”) and therefore hostile to Christianity.

Christian evolutionists do not see their work in evolutionary science as spiritual adultery.

Of course they don’t. They are deceived people who have ceased or failed to believe God. 1 Cor. 13 tells us that love believes all things. You can’t claim to love God when you do not believe him when you disagree with parts of the Bible.

We also disagree with calling evolution a religion. It is merely false teaching, a lie, heretical and those who opt for it over God’s words in Genesis are sinning.

#7. Since Adam is necessary for the Christian faith, we know evolution can’t be true-

Evolution causes theological problems for Christianity.

No it doesn’t. For years we have asked the question, Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus teach that we are to take science over their words?’  So far we have not received one answer. That is because they don’t. Both God and Jesus tell us to believe them and believing Genesis, the creation account as stated in that book and other biblical books is part of believing and loving them.

When you start believing evolutionists, Christian theistic evolutionists, Progressive Creationists and others who tell a variation of the creation story, you have stopped believing God on that issue.

#8. Science is changing, therefore it’s all up for grabs-

Science is a self-critical entity, and so it should not surprise us to see developments, even paradigm shifts, in the near and distant future.

The Bible does not teach that the truth changes. Being self-critical does not mean that science has a hold on the truth or that it is even bringing the truth to the people. In fact, science and its supporter publicly state that science is not about answers or the truth. It is about the best explanation. But neither God nor Jesus said to go for the best explanation. Again, John 5 tells us that we are to follow the spirit of truth to the truth.

Science does not hold the truth and refuses to accept it.

#9. There are scientists who question evolution, and this establishes the credibility of the biblical view of human origins-

However, the presence of minority voices in and of itself does not constitute a counterargument to evolution.

Yes it does. The majority is not always right. Remember the Bible tells us that people are like sheep. This means that we cannot trust the majority view to be the truth because many people will follow lies. This is underscored by the verse, men love darkness rather than light and other similar verses which tell us the evil men will get worse and so on.

You should have noticed by now that Mr. Enns does not use one scriptural passage to support his views. That failure is important and lets believers know that the arguments against the Bible are not true, from evil and have nothing to do with God. Neither does the teacher, speaker or the writer. Mr. Enns may claim to be a Christian, love the Bible, Jesus and so on but his words demonstrate otherwise.

#10.Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone-

Since evolutionary theory is the product of scientific investigation, it follows that those best suited to evaluate the scientific data and arguments are those trained in the relevant sciences—or better those who are practicing scientists and therefore are keeping up with developments.

Again the answer to this is a solid ‘no’. It ignores the fact that there are false teachers in the world and the fact that science, any variety of it, is permeated with false teachers. The best people to assess scientific thinking is not fellow scientists but those who know the truth and can spot false teaching.  Being scientific is not criteria for knowing the truth. This applies to any field of study.

#11. Believing in evolution means giving up your evangelical identity-

Many arguments I have heard against evolution come down to this: my evangelical ecclesiastical group has never accepted it, and so, to remain in this group, I am bound to reject it too.

Since we do not care about ‘evangelical identity’ we are sure you would not be giving that up if you decide to believe the evolutionary false teaching. YOUR CHRISTIAN identity is another matter. The word Christian is defined as Çhrist-like’. Jesus never claimed that Moses and the first 2 chapters of Genesis were wrong. To be Christ-like, then means you follow suit and reject false teaching and accept the book of Genesis like Jesus did.

As we stated earlier, to love God means you believe all  things. Those ‘all things’ include the first 2 chapters of  Genesis, the flood account and more.

False teaching comes in many varieties. They are not found just in secular academic institutions. They can be the nicest of people, claim to be Christian, go to church and Sunday School. The Christian has to be discerning, not desperate. The Christian has to go for the truth and let the spirit of truth guide them to it. The spirit of truth will not lead anyone to disagree with God’s word.


An Issue That Won’t Go Away 5

There are a series of articles relating to this topic and we wil provide a few comments to as many as we can


The MeToo movement is a “wake-up call” for Southern Baptist pastors, said James Merritt, lead pastor of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth, Georgia, ahead of the denomination’s annual meeting on Tuesday.

“The safest place an abused woman should feel she can go is her church. And the safest person she should feel like she should be able to go to is her pastor,” said Merritt during a panel discussion hosted by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, titled “Conversation on Gospel Sexuality in a #MeToo Culture.”

This is ony partially true. The pastor also has to be the safest place  for the abuser to go to as well. The pastor and the church cannot take human sides. If they do, then the story, emotion, and the facts are influenced and sway the church to act outside of the biblical call to do justice. The church must stand with God and take his side.

When the church starts playing favorites or lets its sympathy or hatred get in the way, then God’s ways are lost and humans suffer because of it. God does not get the glory for solving the issue. Justice does not favor one side over the other. Women are not always sinless when they are subject to abuse.


Notable women in Christian leadership positions, such as Beth Moore and Kay Warren, have joined the chorus of thousands of people revealing their stories of sexual assault and harassment under the #MeToo hashtag.

The online movement has been flooded with accounts of abusive pastors and church members.

But are they actual acts of abuse or sexual mistreatment accordng to God’s definition or theirs? Secular culture is not the determining force in what is or isn’t abuse. The church also acts under God’s rules not the secular world’s (for the most part). But what they are all talking about is sin. Sin comes in a variety of forms and from both sides of any issue.

Lying about being abused is as much a sin as actual abuse is. We know how to handle sin and we know what needs to be done. When we start being line item specific sometimes we forget that sin is sin and there is only one answer to solving it. Abuse and other sins all come from our human frailty, the sin nature. If we take bibliclal teaching seriously, we can reduce the amount of sin conducted in the church, including abuse.

BUT it must really be sin and not someone’s idea it is sin. The accusation has to be honest, have more than one witness, have real evidence and not someone’s word only and so on.

#WeToo have a voice. For all the times we were bullied into silence, we get to speak up and call wrong WRONG. #WeToo for fewer future,” she wrote.

#metoo, #churchtoo and now #wetoo are not biblical strategies to solve any sin problem. Sadly, they incur more sin by their acts of injustice, lack of mercy, discrimination against men and bully people in order to ruin the lives of supposed offenders. Ms.Moore is not doing any one any good by advocating sinful methods to solve this issue.


Southern Baptist Convention President Steve Gaines implored those gathered for the annual meeting of the United States’ largest Protestant denomination to “believe in a supernatural God.”

That is the question that many involved in this issue need to ask themselves. From Beth Moore and Kay Warren on down to the lowliest woman involved. If you do, then you need to humble yourselves and correctly follow his instructions. You cannot follow secular culture or the ungodly and their definitions of what abuse are. You say you believe in and follow Jesus, then you must do it even in this abuse issue. The bible tells us in Proverbs 3 not to follow our own thinking but to trust God and that verse applies to this issue.

We do not penalize men for doing  nothing wrong nor do we punish innocent men and treat them in ungodly ways just to look like we are doing osmething or to gain favor with a specific group of people. Those groups of people do not offer salvation or eternal life to anyone, they are not the ones to be obey or pleased.


Notable evangelical Bible teacher Beth Moore has stated that when a woman goes through the process of reporting abuse within a church, she should have a “female advocate” with her during the whole process.

The founder of Living Proof Ministries was part of a Monday panel on issues with the church and sexual misconduct, which was hosted by the SBC this Week podcast by Amy Whitfield and Jonathan Howe.

Moore said that “in every case of abuse or assault there has been the misuse of power,” and warned that the victim is “already intimidated by feeling overpowered” and warned that “if there are not many female voices,” that “exaggerates the feeling that she’s got that she’s not going to be heard.”

She must be god to know what happens in every case of reported abuse in the church. We are being a little bit mean here because Ms. Moore thinks a woman is qualified to be an advocate just by being female. She seems to ignore that the Church belongs to God and he has the say as to what takes place inside the church. Her words are also a backhanded insult to the integrity, honesty and character of Christian men.

Having spiritualy qualified women’s voices is important but Ms. Moore seems to leave that part out. We have concluded that she wants to make her personal mark on the church instead of being an instrument of God tso he can implant his ways on his people.

When a church staff, whoever it may be, begins to work with the victim, also there must at all times be a female advocate in every single one of those meetings. Without exception. Whether that seems fair or not,” stated Moore.

The bold words prove our point. Fairness is part of what God is all about. So is justice, mercy, compassion and more. The soul of the offender is as important to God as the soul of the offended. When God said he desired that all men be saved, he did not leave out abusers. We have to be fair, just, honest and so on without those aspects the truth remains hidden.wWithout the truth, we cannot take the right measures to prevent and discipline the sinner. It isn’t about protecting women only, it is about obeying God when these issues arise. We have no permission to disobey God simply because a woman brings an accusation against another person.

There is more to that article but we will leave it for another day. Suffice it to say that we follow God  first, not women and not law enforcement.


Thomas Hatley, a former chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board, has called for the resignation of Kevin Ueckert, chairman of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s board of trustees, as well as the executive board members for firing the seminary’s former president Paige Patterson.

Hatley, who served as IMB chairman for eight years and has been a pastor in the SBC for more than 40 years, also called for the reinstatement of Patterson as president of the Texas seminary and an independent investigation of the claims that led to his firing.

“I recommend that the SWBTS board chairman and executive committee resign as board members for the following reasons,” Hatley wrote in an open letter to Southern Baptists after noting that conflicts should be handled biblically with both love and grace.

We agree. These movements are not just, they are more for appeasement and to let sin dictate the actions of the church. Most of the time, if not all, these movements, including church variations, do not have God in them or directing them. They are more about revenge, hurting the supposed offender and a power grab.

In this case, the women trying to grab the power are acting more sinful than the men they accuse. This alone undermines their credibility, their honesty and their claims. We are not going to say more, compare the actions of those opposing Dr. Patterson, abusers, pastors, denominations and church leaders with biblical instruction and you will see it for yourselves.

You cannot conquer sin by being sinful.

{PS we know there are mistakes in the above article but our time ran out and we need to go}


Who is In Charge of Right & Wrong?

This is the question every Christian must ask themselves and then properly answer. We are not going to spend a lot of time on this post because we have a busy schedule this morning. BUT this is a very important question in light of an event that took place several days ago.

The CEO of Twitter says he was wrong to enjoy a Chick-fil-A meal, telling commenters on social media that he had forgotten about “their background,” referring to the Christian beliefs of the company’s owners.

This quote is what God used to bring that question to mind and to ask our readers along with the people they share our material with. For some people it seems that the masses who flock to Twitter are the ones in charge of what determines right and wrong behavior. It seems that those faceless people are the ones who  make the determination as to what the standard of right and wrong looks like and its content. {You can substitute the standards good and evil & morality and immorality for right and wrong as well}.

Many people and churches do use social media as their moral conscience, especially when they are more famous than other members of society. The problem is that the world, in general, are more like the city of Nineveh in the days of Jonah. They do not know their right hands from their left. They do what the book of Judges says and act accordingly to what is right in their own eyes. They use no other standard to guide theiir thoughts or actions.

This is the problem for the church. The church must decide who is in control of the standard of right and wrong. If they choose the option of LGBTQ community, then they are opening themselves up to a very deceived group of people who are both selfish and spoiled:

Erica Baker, senior engineering manager at Patreon, was perturbed at Dorsey, telling him to either delete his Chick-fil-A tweet “or follow up with how much free advertising you’re going to give to [gay rights group] GLAAD.”

If the church declares the government, then they are opening themselves up to very corrupt people who let money, power and control influence their decisions. Then if the church says it is, they are again opting for a very subjective standard that would be flexible and fluid. That standard would depend on the ideology of the church and which church had the most power.

But if the church declares that God is in charge of the standard of right and wrong, then they need to stop what they are doing and act accordingly.

By now you may have guessed what our position is. God is in charge of the standard of right and wrong and people who claim to follow him need to straighten out their act and get right with what God wants his followers to do.

A church cannot save the world and make an impact for the God they claim to love if they do not first accept his leadership, second follow his leadership, third, proclaim his ways to the unsaved people and fourth, do not alter his standards of right and wrong, etc.  How can a church save people to their God when they do not follow him and his ways themselves?

The secular world cannot be in charge of the standard of right and wrong because they have no ultimate, objective standard to use. Right and wrong is solely determined by their own subjective opinion and it varies among tribes, cultures, regions and nationalities. Only God can bring the right standard to the lives of people. He is the ony one who is holy, perfect and good. Every other source is tainted with evil and original sin, including those churches who stop following biblical instructions.

The church cannot be in charge of the standard for as we have seen over the centuries, too many individuals like to place their human mark on the church.  We could say more but we want our readers to think for themselves on the topic of this question. They need to decide their own answer as they are responsible for their own decisions. Just remember, the  standard of right and wrong applies to every aspect of life.


Our Commentary

The same woman who wrote about biblical womanhood was put back in the pages of the Christian Post the other day

The articlee was as bad as the first one, lacking solid Christian information, biblical evidence and so on. Here is her introduction

As you have probably already gathered from my recent series on Biblical womanhood, I claim neither the label of “egalitarian” nor the label of “complementarian” for myself. Because our modern-day church culture is one in which you are expected to be either one or the other (with no third option), this may not seem like a possibility. But I assure you that it is. In fact, I personally believe that when you begin to find issues with either side of a debate, the only alternative is for you to refuse both. Otherwise you will inadvertently be saying things about yourself and your beliefs that are not truly representative of what you actually do believe. With that in mind, here is why I’m neither an egalitarian nor a complementarian.

The only position a believer is to take is the biblical one. Sadly, too many people try to elevate women to positions they are not allowed to have and in the process condemn the complementarian role. To anyone who has honestly studied the Bible, there is a very great distinction between the roles of women in the church and the roles of men. Again, too many people reject God’s roles for his followers and we are left with the article partially linked to above.

What I am saying, however, is that rather than strictly adhering to and following a system of belief, packaged together and labeled by man, why don’t we instead just look to the Word of God alone and believe what it says?

What that author fails to realize is that most of us have already done that and have been shown by God what the truth is. Women are barred from certain church leadership positions because God is consistent and has set the rules for his followers to follow. It is not a man made system but one that is humbly believing what  God wrote and acknowledging that those instructions still apply to the church today.

Her attitde makes us sad because she has done what many believers have done before her and not tested the spirits before leaping onto something they assume to be of God and then go off half-cocked. They lack knowledge and how to apply the knowledge they do have. They look at some passages of scripture yet ignore those which instruct us on how to proceed when encountering ‘being shown by God’. Adhering to those important instructions woould help keep her from embarrassing herself.

When you adhere to a man-made system, you are far more likely to willingly ignore, explain away, or change passages of Scripture that do not fit into your box, rather than simply allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

We would like to know whom she is accusing here and why she came to the conclusion that they are following a man-made system? While many people do explain away scripture or change certain  passages, it is not because they are neccessarily following a man-made system. It is possible that those people just doo not want to obey God and want their own selfish desires. Getting wisdom and discernment would be 2 suggestions for that author.

Said systems are always formed in response to something else and therefore are typically fear-based more than they are Bible-based.

Usually they are formed when people are deceived, mislead, misguided and also do not want the truth. They are not necessarily fear-based but look to make Christianity more appealing to the unsaved masses. Sort of what the early RCC priests did when they instituted Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter.

Complementarianism as a belief system began in 1987 with the formation of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, founded by John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and others.

No it has been around a lot longer than that. Plus, it was established by God long before he had the Bible put together. She my reject complementarian way of life but women are not to be leaders of the family or the church. God is quite clear in his instructions on both aspects of life.

What we ought to be doing instead, however, is simply resting in the Word of God, believing that His Word and His wisdom far surpass anything man could come up with.

This is something that tires us as that author again assumes no one else has done this, had studied the word of God and that the truth has not already been told. She thinks she is basically the only person to stumble on God’s truth in the past 2,000 years. The problem is she has rejected the truth and opted foro something she finds appealing.

Both complementarianism and egalitarianism are unBiblical.

She is wrong of course. Only the latter one is. But we are interested to see how she comes to that conclusion. Unfortunately, her explanation falls very short of being biblical and the truth. she ignores the fact that women were not given leadership roles in Genesis. That is read into the passage she quotes the reference. Her misinterpretation of that passage leads her astray and we would question the leading she says she has from God.

The false belief that women are subordinate to men.

She seems to not read the curse placed on women in Genesis 3 or skips over that passage that says otherwise, although we would not use the word subordinate. She also ignores Paul’s words when he said that the husband was the head of the family. While she accuses many of selecting reading, she should check on her own and correct her reading behavior.

The false, borderline-heretical doctrine of ESS.

We are sorry  but she has not stated any credentials that qualify her to make such an identification. We do not know much about ESS but from what she has said about Jesus, she seems to ignore many of Jesus’ own words where he states he came to do the will of hsi father, and the God was his father. We are not going  to get into a theological discussion here but we wonder how she reads the Bible.

Complementarianism” is just another word for “patriarchy”

No it isn’t but in her mind she seems to think so. We are going to stop here as her arguments have become absurd and not even close to biblical. That author seems to have an agenda that is not of God and seeks to restructure the church after her personal views. She should be warned that God created both patriarchy and complementarion way. She needs to be more cautious in  her attacks on the two systems.

We do not know how many people will accept her words but one thing is for sure she is not delving into the topic humbly, carefully, scripturally and makes far too many faulty leaps to a conclusion that she cannot support biblically.


PS we will try a second time to contact her and let her know that we have responded to her articles.


An Issue That Won’t Go Away 4

To be truthful, with sin guaranteed to be part of this world till it ends, this issue will not go away. Soon we will have to move on to different topics but that change does not mean that the problem is solved or that the words in this series do not matter anymore. They will apply as long as they are biblically correct. Sadly, there are more aspects that need to talked about that so far haven’t really been discussed.

We do not think that we carefully and properly addressed the value of a woman yesterday so we will include a section on that point.

#1. Porn

A lot of men, both inside and outside of the ministry, struggle with this issue. Part of their problem may stem from the way that they were raised. Another part of the problem is lust. The desire to see a woman naked can be overpowering. In all cases, men need to get this under control and keep porn away from their lives. The  majority of women do not match up with porn stars or nude models physical features and it places a lot of stress on those women who look less endowed and healthy.

Men, porn is not where you go to get your training on how to be with a woman. Its source is from evil and that evil has no intention of teaching men God’s way on how to be with or treat a woman. If you want to romance a woman you can turn to the Song of Solomon BUT within reason of course. You obviously do not talk like that on the first date.

Dinner and a movie is a good way to go as well. BUT sex is not the evening ending event. Sex is to be done when two heterosexual people get married to each other. We understand that the excitement of romance can lead to exploration but that exploring should be kept under control and not lead each other to sinful acts. Touching the body is not wrong just when and where are the issues. Of course, both men and women need permission to touch the opposite gender before they do touch.

That permission is not generally given when a woman says ‘no’. The idea that a woman means yes when she says no is a secular one not a biblical one. And women the Bible teaches to make your yes answer a yes answer and a no answer a no answer. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

#2. Peoples’ Opinions

The #MeToo movement is bringing about a radical reconsideration of the sexual revolution and its implications, according to leading female Christian scholars.

And no it is not. The #metoo movement seems to be more about revenge than anything else. The women who are being hailed as heros are not really heros. They waited up to 20 to 30 years before saying a word. This is long after they became famous, long after they cashed those men’s checks to get their salaries and long after the evidence is gone.

In those intervening years they left many other not so famous and poor women vulnerable to the same men.  Why we disagree with that quote is because the #metoo movement is NOT pointing anyone to a biblical definition of romance, marriage and heterosexual unions. There is not one thing of God in that movement and sadly the #churchtoo people have followed the same script.

The evidence is lacking, women’s words are blindly accepted without a shred of proof, no two witnesses are talking about the same event, other men are trying to protect a woman’s honor, and so on. Yet what honor do those women have when they wait decades before speaking up and cannot present credible evidence to prove their claims? We read yesterday that Time magazine made those female whistleblowers people of the year. Why? They did not do anything for decades.

We wrote yesterday about one man’s opinion and how faulty that opinion was. Be careful when people offer their opinions. Often it is their distorted, subjective personal perspectives influenced by their own personal views on different issues that make up the content. Rarely is God and his ways behind their speaking. Oh, they will use scripture but as seen yesterday, they pick the wrong verses and apply them badly.

These type of people do more damage to the church than the real offenders do. The seem to ignore so much of what both God and Jesus has taught us and seek to put their personal stamp on the church.

The sexual revolution over promised a landscape that would allow women to experience ‘no strings attached,’ sex without physical or emotional risk,” Hollman said. “It is possible that women now feel more pressure to appear free, emotionally unaffected and to consent even when not entirely comfortable.”

As a side note, the sexual revolution and the free sex promoted by the hippies in the 60s and 70s was more for allowing men to have sex without strings, not the women. it was not about freeing the woman.

#3. The church needs to be prepared

“We live in a moral wasteland where human beings are desperately seeking answers to hard questions about life and sexuality, “Pearcey, who The Economist describes as “America’s pre-eminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual,” stresses in the book’s Introduction.

We are only addressing the one part we liked in that article. This is an important point. The Bible tells us to study. God has his reasons for this instruction. He knew that unbelievers, young children and teens would be asking the adults of the world and the church difficult questions. How we handle those questions determine a lot of future behaviors and decisions.

What and how we study is very important. We cannot give God’s answers to those questions if we do not study to find and accept God’s answers. But studying is tricky because we need insight. That is why it is important to ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth. Because we need to learn what the secular world is saying and then we need to learn how to refute and counteract those ideas biblically.

In giving the correct answers to tough questions we are being a light unto a dark world. The secular world does not have the spirit of truth helping them so their answers are not to be accepted. How does this apply to the abuse issue that has made the front pages of different newspapers for weeks now? One, correct study tells us that the answer to the issue and to receive justice is not dependent on personal opinions and expected results. What people want to see done may not be God’s answer to the problem.

Two, correct study helps us to apply all the bible verses to an issue correctly. One passage of scripture does not over-rule another but they work together to bring justice, mercy, fairness for all not just one group of people or one set of victims. Justice is to bring the offender to true repentance. It is not to appease those who feel they have been wronged.

Three, The church has to please God first and obey his instructions over the demands and desires of the victims, their family and friends and society in general. Changing cultural ideology, fads, popular trends and so on are not to influence justice nor to be pleased. They are not gods who oversee this world.

The people of the church need to study correctly to get the truth and be able to bring the right answers to everyone who asks.

# 4. Repentance

Amid the ongoing fallout from the firing of Paige Patterson, one of the most prominent leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention, many are calling for “repentance” and “reformation” ahead of their denomination’s annual meeting.

Our question is, what does the person calling for repentance want to see as a result? Does he want men to repent according to his views or does he truly want God’s result? If it is the latter, then he should expect the women accusers to repent of their sinful actions against innocent men, male supporters to repent of their unbiblical words and actions in support of those women as well as any sinful man who truly sinned against God and a woman. Also, expect many women to repent for their sins against God and men.

You cannot have true repentance if you want the former version. Women are disobeying God in high numbers, it is not just men who are wrong. Those people permeate both sides of the abuse issue. You cannot call one section only to repent unless they are the only ones sinning in the issue at hand.

God’s wrath is upon us. Our God is a consuming fire. Excuses will work like tiny strands of straw standing against a raging wildfire. There should be no sermon at this year’s annual convention. Leave the pulpit vacant. Let the room be silent and call the messengers to prostrate themselves in repentance,” Rainer said.

Trying to impose one’s personal views on the majority is not seeking Gd’s repentance but trying to do it in a human way in human strength to get a personal result.

Rainer, who is also president of Rainer Research and the co-founder and co-owner of Rainer Publishing, believes God is presently “purging” the denomination, which is currently a “dumpster fire, and we keep fueling it with shovels of manure.”

If God was purging the denomination, then a lot of women would be falling by the roadside. His purge is not support for one particular group’s hatred towards individual men. God does not leave sinful people to dominate his church. Those groups need to repent of the sins that have driven them to attack men and bring unjust actions toward them.

We should be appalled. Horrified. Sick. No more ‘break her down,'” he said.

No, we should have the attitude that both God and Jesus want in the hearts and minds of their followers.

#5. The value of a woman-

The dictionary defines value in several ways but the first definition is probably the one that bests describes what the author spoke about , which we addressed yesterday. Here is that definition

the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something:(

The Bible describes the value of a women in a different way. The Bible says:

An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.

But we need to point out that value is not automatically or blindly given to a woman. The woman has to do something to achieve that value. Too often, in the modern world, men automatically and blindly place value and honor on a woman without requiring them to be worthy of such status. Some of those activities that gain value for a woman are found  in those few verses.

  • the woman has to be trustworthy
  • the woman does not drain him of money
  • the woman does good to him
  • the woman  does not do evil to him

The last two are not for a year, like Rachel Held Evan’s experiment, it is not an experiment, same example, and it is not conditional, depending on how a man treats her. The value of a woman is not found in that badly quoted verse from Galatians and it is not emphasized or made greater because a man said ‘no exceptions’ or ‘period’, etc.

Women if you want value, then you need to be valuable. and earn your value. We cited the examples of Jezebel and Sapphira yesterday, we can see that they had no real value even though the author of the article we addressed included them. They did not follow scripture, they did not do as the end of Proverbs 31 says, which reads:

But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.

They did not fear the Lord but led their men to or supported them in sin. That is not showing value but how sinful they can be. To fear the Lord is to obey God as well. How many of those accusers in both the #metoo and #churchtoo are truly obeying God? Obedience is not limited to only the verses women like but also to the ones they do not like.

A value of a woman is not shown when they bring accusations without following the rules of evidence or biblical instruction. Such actions show that the women have little value for they disregard the proper way of doing thing and seek to sin in their attempts to get ‘justice’.  The value of a woman is not seen in how the nag and demand their men to obey their wishes over God’s instructions. Christ’s love for the church did not include his ignoring and disobeying his father. Husbands are not allowed to disobey God in their love for their wives.

This is what made yesterday’s article in question so wrong. That author sought to have men disobey God in support of women and their rights. But as shown, there are no rights in God’s kingdom, only God’s standards that include right and wrong. Yes men need to be grateful to God that he made women for them. BUT that gratefulness does not mean they ignore biblical teaching in order to please their women OR blindly place value on women so that the woman get to sin against God.

We suspect that the author we addressed yesterday did not till the whole story in his haste to have his opinion known. We are sure that his wife’s father, his daughter-in-laws’ fathers and the fathers of his granddaughters played a role in how well they turned out. The he did not say by what standard he measures those women in his life and if it was truly biblical or not. We would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but we can’t because his example is missing too much information.

Women do have value but that value does not mean that innocent men get to be ruined

%d bloggers like this: