Actscelerate.com

Logic and Gal. 3:28

Acts-celerater Posts: 854 **8/11/12 9:36 am**

I teach Systematic Theology at BHU and we use Norman Geisler’s books. These books were being used as the standard text when I arrived as the chair of the graduate division and because our online courses are built around his text, I was not able to change them. I’ve reviewed many others (Culver, Erickson, Grudem, Grenz, and Williams, to name but a few of the larger works), but as of yet have not found one that really stood out to replace Geisler. There is much I do not like about Geisler including the fact that while he seems so solid in many areas, he often allows his theological predispositions to override sound exegesis on occasions (for example when he argues only the 12 apostles spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost). So, for balance, I augment his moderate-Calvinism and anti-Pentecostal perspectives with readings form Dr. Arrington’s work.

Having said that, I will say that one thing I like about Geisler’s work is that he employs the use of logic to make his case. He argues that foundational logical reasoning is fundamental to theology.

For example, he argues that there are three “fundamental laws of thought” that are elemental laws of all rational thinking:

1) The law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A)
2) The law of identity (A is A)
3) The law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A)

Why are these three laws so important for theology? He explains:

1) Without the law of noncontradiction we could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God.
2) If the law of identity were not binding, we could not say that God is God (G is G). Without the law of identity, God would not be identical to Himself; He could be something other than Himself (e.g., the devil), which is plainly absurd.
3) Likewise, if the law of the excluded middle didn’t exist we could not affirm that it is either God or not God that we are speaking about. When we use the term “God,” we could be referring to both God and not God. This clearly is meaningless.

I said all of that simply to point out that when making a theological argument, it must also by logically sound. We cannot simply throw out opinions without some rational, reasoned, logical antecedents upon which to base our argument. Often, as in both deductive and inductive reasoning, we must demonstrate a rational progression of thought that builds upon previous proven sound statements or arguments, or the following views become non-sequitur (does not follow).

What does this have to do with the topic of women in leadership? Or more specifically my argument that women should be recognized as qualified, gifted, anointed and appointed by God in all areas of ministry without gender restrictions regarding leadership in the church?
I’m glad you asked.

First, if we begin with the premise that God is God (law of identity), then it follows with the universal affirmative that God is perfect. Further, to say that God is perfect would be to say that God does not make mistakes, and God does not contradict Himself. To say that God is perfect, is to say that God’s Word is perfect (inerrant and infallible). Therefore, God (and by extension His Word) is always consistent with Himself (to be inconsistent, or to contradict oneself, is to be less than perfect).

This is an example of deductive logic. If the premise is true that God is perfect, then the propositions that follow are also true. Again you ask what does this have to do with the topic of women’s equality in ecclesiastical leadership/ministry.

If the Bible cannot contradict itself (because God cannot contradict Himself), then any apparent contradictions lie not with the perfection of God, but with the imperfection of humanity to adequately understand the text, or to fail to appreciate the context, or to be missing some key element of the historical context in which the literary text was penned. In light of this, we can begin with those key texts that are clear and concise and which form the foundation for understanding other texts. For example, “The Lord our God is One.” This is a foundational truth with which all explanations of the Triunity of God must agree.

Some truths are placed in the context of theological statements, such as the example above, and others are placed in the context of historical narrative, Psalms, biblical poetry, prophetic statements, parables, and other literary genre found in Scripture. However, regardless of the genre, the theological perspectives and propositions must be consistent with one another as the Word of God.

So, what do we find in Scripture concerning women in various leadership positions in Scripture. I will argue that if God did use women in leadership positions, then God does use women in leadership positions. It would be illogical to argue that God does not, when we have historical, biblical, precedent that clearly demonstrates that God did. Some might argue that God did, but He doesn’t now. However, one would have to be able to demonstrate that from Scripture, and unfortunately for those who will take this line of argument, the Scriptural record from the Old Testament (Deborah, Huldah, Esther, etc.—though, in fact, only one example is enough to prove the point) through the New Testament (Lydia, Pricilla, the many women in the Gospels, Phoebe, Junia, etc.) is that God did and continued to use women in various leadership roles, and in many of those roles they had a leadership position in which men were led, taught, guided, or instructed by a woman. So I would argue that since God did, then God does and there is no biblical support for the position that God no longer does.

Second, with respect to Paul’s position on women in ministry (given that Paul’s writings are inspired scripture), one would do well to start at the beginning of Paul’s statements and then understand that everything that follows must be in agreement with the previous statements. Most NT scholars are agreed that the Epistle to the Galatians is one of the earliest, if not the first, epistle written by the hand of Paul. As such, his comments on the women in the kingdom become foundational for any other statements that follow, because the Word of God cannot contradict or be inconsistent with itself. What does Paul state in Galatians?

Gal. 2:8 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This is a seminal statement by Paul, and it reflects his view (in the Holy Spirit) that the racial, social, and gender distinctions engendered in the curse, and perpetuated in the law, are no longer the guiding principles for relations under grace. Under grace, through faith in Christ, the division between Jews and Gentiles in the kingdom of God are no longer in force. One is a an heir of the promises of Abraham through faith, not law or race. Certainly, there continue to be Jews and Gentiles, but Jewish and Gentile believers have absolutely equal footing in the kingdom with regard to all facets of ministry and standing before the Lord. There is no superiority of Jews over Gentiles in the kingdom of God through grace and faith in Jesus Christ. In a sense, through faith in Christ the spiritual “Israel of God” is Jewish and Gentile believers together--a point that Paul made publicly clear in his rebuke of Peter for acquiescing to the separationist views of the Judaizers.

The division between slave and master in the social context of slavery is no longer in force. Certainly, slavery continued to exist in the Roman Empire, and such social/cultural distinctions were there, but in the kingdom the slave could be the bishop of his master and as Paul tells Philemon, slave and master are brothers in the kingdom and should treat one another with mutual respect. This view laid the foundation for the demise of slavery in Christian nations. While we later see Paul telling slaves to obey their masters, no one would argue that slavery should still be in force. The theological precedent for the end of slavery is found in Galatians 3:28 and all other statement concerning slavery by Paul must be read in light of this seminal statement.

The division between male and female is also one that is found in the same sentence, in the same breath, at the same level, and in the same context as the two previous statements concerning Jews and Gentiles, slave and free. Just as there are no kingdom distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave or free, then by extension the same principle applies to male and female. This is an unavoidable and foundational truth concerning this passage. As such (as with the previous cases) everything else that follows in later writings by Paul must be read in light of this passage and not the other way around. Further, this is inspired Word of God and as such is not inconsistent with itself and cannot contradict itself. It follows, then, that later statements are not to be seen as the general theological position of Paul (and God) concerning women. Galatians 2:8 is the general rule, and all other statement which may appear to contradict are local issues related to historical context (some of which may be lost to us) and in no way negates the foundational statement.

The argument that there should no longer be slaves and that the comments concerning slaves obeying their masters must be considered in the historical context, while at the same time arguing that the same logic does not apply to male and female standing in the kingdom as equals, is in my view, inconsistent and more revealing concerning the agenda of the person who makes such statements, than it is about the position of Scripture on the topic. Logic demands a view of equality (Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female), and those who wish to dismiss a rational, logical approach to this topic simply cloud the waters with emotional a priori rhetoric that is not helpful in this discussion.

Also, please do not simply respond by arguing that my judgment is clouded and that I’m the illogical one. Instead, please take the time to respond with a scholarly look at my comments and sound exegesis. This discussion is important and good people can take different sides, but if possible let us dig deeper together as we explore the issues.

(By way of full disclosure, Geisler does not embrace the same view concerning women in ministry that I do. In my opinion this is another example of where his Reformist views cloud his judgment.)
_________________
Mark E. Hardgrove, D.Min., Ph.D.
Senior Pastor Conyers Church of God
http://www.conyerscog.org
Dean & VP for Academics at BHU
http://www.beulah.org/

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3944 **8/11/12 10:56 am**

You had me at "Logic".

Neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female.

How much doctrine are you prepared to build on your application of those last three words, and to what end? You have already posted of sitting and listening to a speaker who agrees with you adding the next logical comparative: neither gay nor straight.

If 1 Tim 3 must conform to Gal 3:8 rather than Gal 3 being understood within the context of 1 Tim, then is this only true when we are talking about women in church? If there is no difference in the design, capability, and function of male or female in the church, certainly it must be true in the home as well. Statistically speaking, then, if the Cog had not been so wrong on this point for the last 100 years, then half our churches would be pastored by women today. But as far as I know we have always allowed women to pastor.

The AoG has had a more liberal but not completely open stance on this question. They dealt with it a lot in the 30's and commisioned a study on it again in the 1990.

But the percentage of Assemblies of God pastored by women has continued to decline.

.........................

I am a student of design and function. I own the fastest grumman cheetah on the planet. I have made some observations and done some aerodynamic clean-ups as best the FAA will allow me.

Woman have equal access to every license offered by the FAA, but their percentage of participation continues to be small.

Can they do it? Absolutely. Patty Wagstaff is one of the best stunt pilots ever, competing against the best men and beating them. Her sister is a Captain for an airline.

But it is harder for them. Their brain doesn't process information the same way. Men make a map in their head, and though they might not draw that map and it look like the real map, it is still an image they can rely on. Ask a woman how to get to a certain place, and almost without exception she will tell you certain landmarks at which to turn this way or that. But there are no landmarks inside a cloud on final approach. A man will give you road numbers and names and mileage estimates.

We are different. We are made different. Our strengths and our weaknesses remain in us, long after we have digested Gal 3:8

There is an order to a home that is functioning as God designed it to, and gender was a necessity in that arrangement, not an accident.

....................

I know this doesn't change your made up mind one bit. I fully expect you to keep at it just as you have promised. I tell you that you are fighting against nature and its designer.

I am telling you that if we let you re-write the MINUTES all by yourself, and the Lord should tarry another 100 years, the numbers would not change. The AoG numbers reveal the design.

....................

I expect you to live to see the day, Mark. What I don't know, is how you will be able to stop them when the next wave of seminary students make this exact same argument for ordaining God loving monogomous committed homosexuals. We are already questioning how a pastor who has an affair can regain the pulpit, but a pastor who has a homosexual affair can't.

And it is the same question. Did God know what he was doing when he designed humans, or didn't he?

.....................

Here is a quick read supporting (sort-of) your view.

http://ag.org/wim/roleofwim/0306_wim_questions.cfm

I hope I didn't make you mad. AFAIK this is the only thing I disagree with you on. Too bad it is your biggest goal.

Bro Bob,

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/11/12 11:16 am**

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3944 **8/11/12 11:55 am**

How rare it is for anyone to ask me, "Which way do you want it?" It is enough for me to determine, which way is it? Why is it this way?

I am on record on this topic as having a position I don't ever see repeated: I have no problem with women pastors, because I see no Bible or Minutes authority given pastors that women are prohibited from. (<<< that needs grammar editing)

But in practice, we in the CoG defer EVERY decision to the will of the pastor. THIS is our error.

................

I'll be honest with you Bonnie, If I were married to Patty Wagstaff, who is far better at radical extreme maneuvers as pilot in command than I am, and we had a mechanical malfunction, loss of power in flight, lives at stake... I would be the one trying to figure out if power could be regained while she got to best glide speed and started looking for a place to set down. Bottom line, she would be flying, but I would be decision making. My first decision would be that she fly the plane. And we would have established this before we ever left the ground.

From the very first couple, God required obedience from both. But He had a different expectation of accountability from Adam than from the woman. She was punished for disobeying God and believing a lie. HE was punished for listening to his wife when the call was his to make. (Go back and read it.)

....................

About a month ago we had to have our border collie of 17+ years put down. Tougher on me than I thought it would be. Gina is adamant that there will be no more dogs here. I would like to get another one.

I have decided that this is a question that will require two yeses.

Gina privately got on me once about me being harder on my son about something than I was on his older sister when she had made the same mistake. I told her, "I don't have to make a man out of Nicole." It had to do with checking the oil in their cars. Gina said it wasn't fair to Colin that I held him to a different standard.

.....................

My argument is not that God intended man to be the leader in his home (only) because he is better suited to be. My argument is that somebody must be. My argument is that God placed that burden on the man. And we do not follow it. The number of newly minted adults whose real mother and father are still together is plummeting. And MOST of that is because we have stopped making men.

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/11/12 12:17 pm**

Excellent dialogue

Acts-celerate Owner Posts: 6957 **8/11/12 12:29 pm**

Thank you Mark for this excellent and interesting article. Thanks too for the time it took to write and post it. The work you've done has been a blessing and is much appreciated.

Doyle
writedoyle@yahoo.com
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/11/12 12:44 pm**

Bro Bob,

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/11/12 12:53 pm**

I really liked this quote from the link you posted.

"The senior bull"

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/11/12 3:49 pm**

A flawed argument?

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/11/12 6:11 pm**

While you are correct that God's Word would be inerrant, you make no logical argument--nor is there a persuasive one available to you--that ALL OF THE BIBLE is God's Word.

Yet your arguments--and mine, alas!--rely heavily on the assumption that all that is in the Bible is God's Word, when it is almost certainly NOT the case that that is true.

So, while this MIGHT deprive you of verses in your support (of course, it might be that everything you are relying on IS scripture), it also deprives me of the same thing...making it hard to argue that "God's Word" says women cannot be in leadership.

The Bible gives us to believe that the SCRIPTURES are inspired of God. The Bible itself, neither completed nor assembled nor approved at the time the "scripture is inspired" verse was written, came much later and at the decision of man. The Bible's OWN TESTIMONY is NOT that everything in the Bible is scripture, but rather that the scriptures are inspired.

Moreover, we KNOW (from the Bible, oddly enough) that there are scriptures that are not even in the Bible (e.g., the Book of Enoch and others are referenced as being prophetically valid, so, if they are out there somewhere, what are we to do?).

Lastly, we KNOW that all of the Bible is not inspired because Paul himself said in one place that "to the rest speak I, and NOT the Lord." There are other places of this nature, as well as some things that clearly are parenthetical at best ("I left my cloak..." etc.), and simply greetings and filler otherwise.

You can preach a sermon from a Superman comic book. Or an Andy Griffith TV show. There is truth to be found--"wisdom crieth in the streets"--everywhere. And if you are gifted and anointed, you can...why, you can "consider that ant" and bring out a truth.

As for me, while I may or may not agree in the end, I have a lot of respect for an argument that claims that only-men-in-leadership was a cultural thing that, like slavery, should be cast away as we grow in grace and wisdom. But to argue that the Bible (or scriptures) makes that claim simply will not work. It's not there...and to seek to impose our cultural feelings on the scripture without claiming that the scriptures SHOULD change as culture changes...well, it just won't work.

Dr. Hardgrove...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/11/12 6:19 pm**

I do admire your efforts and diligence in putting forth this argument. However, I think that while women OCCASIONALLY show up in scripture in a level of leadership (and never as a king, priest, or high leader in the church), we might ponder why we seek to have, I am sure, much more than an "occasional" women in leadership.

For instance, if we had a similar ratio to the Bible's records, we might have a woman in leadership for every 100 men in leadership. Would we settle for that? Or would we claim that, no, women should be equally represented, even though the Bible doesn't indicate that God did that back then?

I am also not sure that just because a woman was in leadership it is a model for the future. Consider that there are plenty of one-off instances in scripture--there'll never be another worldwide flood; to my knowledge there have been no more talking donkeys (myself excluded, of course), there have not been any instances of a Ten Commandments being given, etc. So while I accept your argument that if God did it then, He can do it today, I still must say that this is not necessarily the case...nor is it the case that He now be even pleased if we would place more women in leadership (ratio-wise) than He did in the Bible.

How do you propose that these objections be addressed?

Tom...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/11/12 7:18 pm**

Indeed, it is a choice we all have to make. I felt FORCED to make the decision I did--that the Bible contains the Word of God as opposed to being the Word of God (though I hold all of it as precious)--because I knew that the arguments that were being used to prop up inerrancy were weak and often outright false.

I felt that the theory of inerrancy forced me to take an all-or-nothing view of the Bible. That is, if there is even a SINGLE error, then it cannot be the Word of God, and therefore is no more spiritually valid than Robinson Crusoe.

I knew good and well there were difficulties with the text that could only be "explained" by using arguments that often beggared belief, seemingly made up out of whole cloth as a way to win the argument, rather than a sincere attempt at truth (e.g., try to find an explanation for the various accounts of Jesus' resurrection that really makes sense).

So, concluding that I did not want to give up on the Bible if there was a single, solitary, minute flaw in it, I chose another path. I realized that while the resurrection accounts vary considerably, there is one thing on which all accounts absolutely agree: Jesus rose from the dead. I was not at all going to allow that truth to be stolen just because there were difficulties with the text.

And so I concluded that God would not have given us something that was not inerrant...so if something had logical or other flaws, it must not have been directly from God (thought that does not mean it isn't valuable--Shakespeare is valuable, but not inspired).

And there you have it.

I get to hold on to Jesus no matter how the textual battles go. But inerrantists(?) are logically forced to toss the Bible if there is a single error (of course, the way this is handled is to simply claim that it is a translation problem, and was absolutely correct in the original version, but I sensed that this was one of those snatched-out-of-thin-air arguments that, not being disprovable, was also not provable).

Now I must get busy reading the Reader's Digest so that I can prepare for Sunday School! Laughing

Major Trammell...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/12/12 9:10 am**

Yeah, I get that sort of response when people disagree with me, but don't have any reasoning behind them.

So, brother, since you disagree, I'll ask you some questions that you surely must know:

Re: Major Trammell...

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1323 **8/12/12 12:22 pm**

[quote="Aaron Scott"]Yeah, I get that sort of response when people disagree with me, but don't have any reasoning behind them.

So, brother, since you disagree, I'll ask you some questions that you surely must know:

Patrick...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/12/12 1:20 pm**

Re: Bonnie...still interested in your reply...

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/12/12 3:37 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3944 **8/12/12 3:51 pm**

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/13/12 5:37 am**

Doesn't it make more sense to let Paul tell us what he means by looking at other scriptures he wrote? The context is regarding being heirs according to the promise. Later, he writes to Timothy that he does not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, and continues on to say that the bishop must be the husband of one wife. He also tells slaves to submit to their masters. He tells the circumcised to seek not to be uncircumcised. He circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewess, but not the Gentile Titus. He argued against the Galatians getting circumcised, but paid for the sacrifices of some Nazarenes in the temple to demonstrate that he did not teach Jews to not circumcise their children.
_________________
Link

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/13/12 11:04 am**

Re: Logic and Gal. 3:28

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **8/13/12 5:18 pm**

Brother Hardgrove,

That was a long post for Actscelerate. I know I can get long-winded, but it sure seems like you took a long time to make a very small point.

And it seems to me that your premise here that the first time an argument is made should color the interpretation of other scripture is just plain wrong. I think a better approach would be to say that specific passages explain less specific passages. That is a Jewish approach to scripture. For example, if a passage in the Old Testament says not to chop down fruit trees during war, and another passage in the Old Testament clarifies that the Israelites are not to chop down fruit trees when at war in the land, and we read a prophet telling them to chop down fruit trees in some other land beside Israel, we shouldn't conclude the prophet was telling them to break the law of God. The law, as we see from the more specific passage, was against cutting down fruit trees for warfare in the land given to them, not outside of the boundaries of that land.

I just think your whole approach is wrong. You keep arguing that scripture does not contradict itself, yet your assertions lead one to read contradictions into scripture. Paul writes that a bishop must be the husband of one wife.

Using logic, we can see that a woman does not meet the qualifications.

All husbands are men.
Women are not men.
Therefore, a husband cannot be a man.
The Bishop must be the husband of one wife.
The bishop must therefore be a man.

The Greek for 'husband' can be translated 'man' so my use of logic is a bit superfluous. My point is that we need to use logic on other passages, too.

And we should take the more specific passages to interpret the more general ones.