Back in the day, I sat in Baptist Polity class (we had that where I went to college), and I remember then Dr. Weeks (what we called our instructor) bringing up the fundamental pie. He drew a circle with five pie slices on it and for each piece, because my pie was too small to start, I drew a line with an arrow to the inside of each slice and wrote out each of the “fundamentals” in each one. It’s something I never questioned at the time, because that was typical, accepting without question. After that I proceeded to memorize the pie, including drawing the pie. Later it occurred to me, “Why is it a pie?” Why not just a list with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 fundamentals? That would be the list of fundamentals, instead of a pie.
I have revisited the pie in my mind, and maybe it’s a pie because each piece is part of a whole. There are five, get that, five, fundamentals. Not four. Not six. Not ten or twelve. Five. Making up pie for a nice tidy pie chart. The 9 Marks guys have to be shaking their head at the number five. Nine is it. I’m now saying, Nope. I don’t even know why it is five. It does remind me of the argument the Pharisees had about what the was the greatest of the laws. Their discussion. Pharisees. Jesus could reduce the whole law down into two parts, because you could put all the laws into to two categories, two legitimate ones as spoken by the Lord Jesus Himself.
Today we return to the Pharisaaical attitude of numbering the fundamentals for, I believe and believe I can prove, many of the same reasons as the Pharisees. You reduce everything down to a few number because you’re not prepared to have more than that. You can hold together, maybe, a coalition with the number five, even if it does deny literal twenty-four creation or baptism by immersion for believers only. Is God pleased with five? Does God want five? Does God even want us making up lists of fundamentals? I’m saying, no. Take seriously everything that He said. Listing fundamentals is a basis for not doing that.
When men start making up a list of fundamentals, you should think that a major premise of such a list is making room for not doing something that didn’t make the list. God didn’t make the list. He exterminated Ananias and Sapphira for something not on the list and killed Nadab and Abihu for something not on the list. That’s more like how God thinks. He killed numbers of people for the numbering of people.
What got my attention on this — again — is another “fundamentalist” bringing fundamentals up as a bogus argument. I’ve got three words now I can use every time that someone says something isn’t a fundamental as an argument for pandering or capitulation or obfuscation or just plain disobedience, sometimes out of cowardice: same. sex. marriage. In a nicer way, maybe it’s just deceit or ignorance. Delusion is defined as the misleading of the mind. The Greek word translated “delusion” in the New Testament (plane, basis for the word “planet”) is most often translated “error,” and the portrayal of the Greek word is something wandering off the beaten path.
The recent president of Bob Jones University, Steve Pettit, played Rocky Top with a professing Christian musical group. SharperIron linked to this occurrence and a long discussion ensued (at 62 comments at this writing [there will be more]). Many questions could be asked about Pettit’s activity with the knowledge that he represents this fundamentalist institution in the most obvious way with its long, long time stand and standards on music, both for worship and personal listening, the latter as a matter of Christian living. People should ask and in public, since it is public.
I know that this should not be considered a good quality of me, but I am very able at ridicule. By testimony of others, I have been often judged to be quick-witted. Well crafted mocking comments come to my mind. I think they are best left unsaid and tamped down. A high percentage of the commentary at SharperIron toward any criticism of Pettit was ridicule by some that think they’re good at it and that it must be a good way to deal with criticism, their mockery. That isn’t a fundamental either in the fundamentalist pie, that is, whether it is right or wrong to mock critics.
A lot of mockery or ridicule occurs at SharperIron with almost no moderation. It’s typical everywhere, not just there. Much of it continues there because it isn’t moderated for whatever reason. I see it as either a fear of a mob, the desire to be one of the cool guys, or the tendency to capitulate to the left. The targets are deemed, it seems, worth the ridicule and in this case they are advocates of traditional or conservative music. I think it would be better for them if they could be put in their place by defenders. Answering them in kind wouldn’t be allowed, so they continue on with their unfettered scoffing. The scoffers are actually low hanging fruit themselves with their unmoderated attempts to diminish critics with this method. If that’s the way things are there, more power to them. I don’t think it is the right or even best way to deal with criticism. It is the best a mocker can do, very much like the apostates in 2 Peter 2-3.
I want to get back to the idea of “fundamentals,” but first playing Rocky Top or even the place of blue grass among Christians. The song Rocky Top expresses the virtues of wild fornication and desperate drunkenness, enjoyed and without judgment. Someone might say, “It’s just fun; let it go.” Meats for the belly and belly for meats. If you watched, you saw singers and instrumentalists participating with great support and gusto. They loved it (1 John 2:15-17). It’s one thing to be attracted to it because it titillates the flesh, but another thing to push and promote it. If this is a Christian liberty, as some people judge it to be, which I don’t believe it is, even then it violates many of the limitations Paul requires of liberty in 1 Corinthians 6-10.
The big argument about judging such activity, which scripture says to judge and you should judge if you take the biblical and historical view of sola scriptura, is that it isn’t worth judging and that it isn’t a fundamental worth separating over. They are really both the same argument. Something isn’t worth judging because it isn’t a fundamental.
Scripture says everything is worth judging and God kills people for violating things not on the list of fundamentals. It’s a replay of the practice of the Pharisees, ranking truth as a basis for what will be tolerated and what won’t. It’s not how God operates. It isn’t following Christ. He doesn’t do it. It’s also an attack on the perspecuity of scripture and the biblical understanding of unity (1 Cor 1:10). Unity isn’t disregarding biblical teaching to maintain a coalition. I know they would say they aren’t doing that, but the denial rings hollow — they are in fact doing that.
Someone in the comment section of SharperIron, G. N. Barkman, a pastor who is a regular contributor there, writes in two separate comments (here and here):
Fundamentalism, historically speaking, is about defending the fundamentals of the Christian faith against those who attack and erode them. In the “old” days, the attackers were called Modernists and Liberals. Now, they are just as likely to be called Evangelicals. Along the way, cultural issues began to take their place as part of the definition of Fundamentalism. That, in my opinion, is when things began to go off course. Cultural issues are, for the most part, too subjective to defend or decry Biblically. I have my opinions and preferences, and you have yours. I will not break fellowship with you over yours, and expect you to do the same with me. Liking or not liking a particular style of music is not a fundamental of the faith. Let’s keep God’s Word central, and allow Christian liberty where clear Bible doctrine is not the issue.
But back to the original premise. Do you consider music styles a fundamental of the Christian faith? How many other fundamentals do you include? I believe that when everything becomes a fundamental, nothing is a fundamental. The word “fundamental” indicates something of greatest importance. If everything is equally important, nothing is of greater significance.
Barkman barks up the wrong tree. Protecting fundamentals is a delusion, not intended to protect truth itself. There are no “fundamentals.” Where is this list? I get the original idea, meant to gain a widespread defense of Christianity against liberalism, to attempt to salvage something. I don’t agree with it. I just get it. But it’s taken on a shape of its own, mutating into deformity. Fundamentalism is nothing scriptural to defend. Defend scripture. Defend truth. Defend Jesus. Defend the church. Fundamentalism at the most was a means to an end, an unscriptural means that led to a less than scriptural end. No one should be satisfied with it.
You can read the comments and there’s no scriptural basis. He leaves himself some deniability with “for the most part,” which I’m assuming is to deny things like same sex marriage and smoking crack pipes. Those are not fundamentals though and so the list expands and then you see truth as subjective, just conventional thinking. It’s true because you cobble enough support for it to be true. Every Christian was against rock music at one time. Every Christian was against shorts on women. Now it’s no longer conventional, so it’s only a preference. We’ve already arrived at effeminate male behavior, rampant in churches today. God expects different from us.
The “fundamental” is now a tool for capitulation and pandering. Rocky Top panders. People who support it are pandering. They want approval. It’s the days of Noah, marrying and giving in marriage. Just move along, nothing to look at. Five things are worth looking at.
Read the first chapter of Ephesians. The purpose of salvation, the reason we were chosen, what we read in the first three and half verses are “that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (v. 4b). Being holy and without blame in love aren’t fundamentals. The adoption as children to Jesus and the redemption through Christ’s blood abound toward “all wisdom and prudence” (vv. 5-8). In other words, true doctrine, what might be “fundamentals,” you know, what you’re really supposed to be parking on, are there to produce the right application of the knowledge of His will (v. 9), which is “wisdom” and then thinking straight, which is “prudence.”
Holy living, living without blame, loving behavior, the right application of knowledge, and thinking straight are tied to “the fundamentals.” They are the purpose. If you have “bad music” and “wrong dress” and all these cultural issues, that’s part of not knowing and doing the will of God, which necessarily proceeds from right doctrine. The first three chapters of Ephesians, the doctrine, are about the last three chapters of Ephesians, the practice.
Paul ends 1 Corinthians in v. 22, saying this: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” It seems loving Jesus is a fundamental. Yet, it isn’t on the list or in the pie. Can you love Him by singing to Him like He’s your boyfriend or girlfriend? Barkman would say that’s not a fundamental and its a cultural issue, so it’s impossible to judge. You have to know what love is to love. If love is actually lust, so someone isn’t loving the Lord Jesus Christ, then that’s Anathema Maranatha. A curse is on that person. Churches are full of a lack of affection for Jesus Christ. They have passion produced by ecstatic experiences, choreographed by rhythm and syncopation, other atmospherics and instrumentation and suggestion. It isn’t reverence and sobriety required by God from those who worship Him and love Him.
Dismissing the cultural issues as preferences is not prudent or wise. Christians are here to say “no” to Rocky Top. The world isn’t going to do it.
I left the following comment at the youtube video:
I remember BJU producing Sheffey which portrayed moonshine making, selling, and consumption as wicked and a catalyst to domestic violence, blasphemy, etc. Now the president of BJU plays a song that promotes moonshine making and drinking as cute and funny. Maybe all the domestic violence, drunkenness, blasphemy, incest, rape, etc. that floats in the corn liquor river is funny and cute too. Maybe all the sermons by Bob and Sam Jones, Billy Sunday, and the other preachers who raised their voices like thunder against strong drink were just for that era and culture and don’t apply anymore. Is that where the Gospel preacher, Steve Pettit now stands? Is that where BJU stands?
I want to add that I agree with your post. Reducing Scripture to five fundamentals isn't, well, Scriptural. How do we "live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" and also attempt to practice according to fundamentalism? I can't. Like you, I "get" fundamentalism, but I don't embrace it. It is a man-made movement as opposed to what the Lord Jesus actually established, the New Testament (local, visible, particular) church.
Bobby,
It seems Steve Pettit is skilled at the mandolin. I don't think I would know good Mandolin playing. Bill Clinton played the saxophone. I noticed when Mike Huckabee ran for president, he made his electric base guitar a promotion. For John Kerry it was his wind sailing. Michael Dukakis appeared in a tank with an army helmet on. I would guess there are some piano players that know how to play like Billy Joel or Elton John. "Look, I can play like they can, we is a good college." It's very smart and crafty to worldly marketers, encouraging more of the same. It isn't wise, it isn't prudent, and sober. I don't believe it is even righteous, but it's at least none of those, qualities that should be shown by godly leaders.
BJU must have been in what they thought was a desperate financial situation, or they really have rethought what were to them some formerly very very important positions. Obviously there was already a clash with Christianity with the art department. Perhaps it never was really a belief or biblical practice with them, more of a strong preference pushed by Jones Jr and Jones III. This is who they really are. It isn't anchored in a biblical view of truth, goodness, and beauty. It was just artsy, high church, good taste, preferential.
The idea of fundamentalism isn't scriptural. It results in this, because it can be used to defend it.
Maybe they just disagree with you that the Bible has strict dictates about styles of music, dress, etc. No reason to go looking for a more nefarious cause than that. I would also disagree with the above post. One of the five "Fundamentals" is scriptural inerrancy, so presumably fundamentalists believe that obedience to ALL of the Scripture is necessary. They are not "reducing Scripture to five fundamentals" as is claimed above since ALL scripture is inspired. It is telling that inerrantists have difficulty agreeing on what the Bible actually dictates in these areas.
Rob
Hi Rob,
Thanks for dropping by. I'm representing what those defending BJU and Steve Pettit are saying, and it isn't unusual. It is a very common defense today. People are actually not saying what you are saying, Rob. Obeying all of scripture is not what they are saying. They are saying that it's a matter of preference because it diverts off the small list of fundamentals. In practice most fundamentalists were closer to what you are explaining at one time, which is why BJU enforced stricter dress standards and music standards. They are slipping now and calling them issues of preference. This guy says cultural issues themselves are matters of preference. It is the ranking of doctrines for the sake of keeping larger coalitions. I'm afraid it is at least as nefarious as I'm explaining, and probably worse.
Regarding "inerrantists" not agreeing on matters, they do regularly argue about what's important enough to keep. It's a scourge of fundamentalism. Agreement is found in the church. You aren't going to get it much in anything larger than that, and that is what God tells us.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think inerrancy means, Rob?
Thanks again.
Kent,
Thanks for the response. Maybe we travel in different circles but I have never met any conservative Christian who would argue that Christians do not have to follow all of Scripture. I think disagreement comes in because Scripture is sufficiently obscure in some areas that reasonable people can disagree about the meaning.
Let's say that I agreed with all of your theology except the dress issue. My wife wears pants and I have no problem with it. Would you now argue that my wife and I are clearly unsaved over this issue? Most people would say no, reasonable people can disagree on this. If you think that this one area of difference indicates a lack of salvation, then I would strongly disagree with your theology. Let's say that you are correct on the dress issue and I am wrong. Does this indicate that I am unsaved? It seems that you expect theologic perfection before you can safely say that someone is a Christian. I think that's where the "Fundamentals" come in. Historically, anyone who deviated from these Fundamentals was thought to be unsaved. BJU and others may have opinions on correct Christian dress, music, behavior, etc, but thay are unwilling to say that this indicates a lack of salvation.
You said agreement is found in the church. Which church? There are 30,000 denominations so there is hardly any consensus there either. If you are saying that only your church and likeminded churches have it right, maybe you're right. Maybe you're not, so where do we go? To Scripture. But then that takes us back to where we started. People disagree what the scripture says about these "peripheral" issues.
When I say "inerrancy" I mean as described in the Chicago statement.
Take care,
Rob
To a Fundamentalist, believers baptism is a non-essential (so much so that campaigns, associations, conventions, pulpit affiliations mattered little). To a Bible believer, this Christian baptism is one-third of the Lord Jesus' mandate. It is easier to preach against the Pharisees for laying aside God's Word through their traditions but why is it harder to challenge the same spirit simply because the shoe is on the other foot? Where do we or any man get off by relegating any of Jesus' command as primary, secondary, & tertiary? (or quarternary,…duodenary). Why hold to a "camp" when the Lord already gave us what He wanted: "a church." Why look to something broader that goes beyond the Bible? Answer: deceitfulness of the heart, deceitfulness of riches, and deceitfulness of sin.
Ha ha, Rob is exactly right. In Kent-world, the following logic applies:
1) Women wearing pants is a sin (according to Kent)
2) A Christian can't continue in sin
3) A woman that wears pants over her lifetime is not a Christian (and presumably the same is true for a husband that "allows" it).
It is beyond absurd. There are no words to describe it really.
Hi Rich,
The Chicago statement is a relatively new view of that doctrine. I understand that it isn't liberal per se, but it isn't the historic view of the infallibility of scripture. It is more in line with the innovation of Warfield of the late 19th century, that is, inerrancy in the original manuscripts, and by inerrancy, saying that it isn't teaching any error. Even in saying that, textual variants do contain errors. That's why I asked, and it does relate to your view that some parts of scripture are obscure, which is also not historical or biblical theology. Scripture is perspicuous. One of the reasons for fundamentals was this notion that God hasn't been clear enough, so we have to reduce doctrine and rank them. Is that a matter of faith? Do you base that on scripture? I would see it as staggering in some degree of unbelief. I had ten minutes at the end of class that I wrote this. I'll come back later to deal with the rest.
Once their doctrine of the Church becomes universalistic, their doctrine of separation and unity must be defined in practical terms rather than Biblical terms.
Kent, I think you must not be serious about the Five Fundamentals. I am sure you know the history.
I don't think any fundamentalist, even those who originally asked for affirmation of the Five, believes (or believed) there were only five. There was a reason they were proposed, the attempt failed, and the fundamentalists of the day split from their mainline denomination.
But I am sure you know all that.
Anyway, as for Pettit, I don't defend him. He's been a disappointment, not that I was expecting a lot. It's tough to take. I consider him a personal friend, but I find it really hard to recommend the school any longer.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
A lot of people take this idea now. Historically, there was division perhaps about the meaning of fundamentalism, and I write above that I "get" the original idea, get it if not agreeing with it. However, you do see many many who revert to the thought that it is a short list of some kind, even if not five.
Thanks.
Lance,
I agree that the wrong view of the church is much to blame, if not almost entirely to blame.
Right, I agree that many are clueless about what the Five Fundamentals were all about.
If I may, for any readers still tuning in to this post, during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, the Presbyterian General Assembly adopted the Five as "essential and necessary" for ministerial licensing (this occurred in 1910). They were attempting to force the ordination of only orthodox ministers. They declared that other doctrines were "equally important." This position was reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923, but only by a narrow margin in 1923. The Five were repeatedly attacked by liberals, and eventually the Presbyterians gave up insisting on them.
Since then, people have misused the notion to assume that there are only Five fundamental doctrines. Nothing could be further from the truth, and shows how even an attempt at orthodoxy can be twisted into a weapon to be used against orthodoxy, with willing dupes wielding the weapons of their enemies.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Not being sure what in the world "Rocky Top" is, I went to the not-always-reliable, but usually accessible Wikipedia.org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Top).
Excerpt: "The singer reminisces about a love affair he once had on Rocky Top with a woman "wild as a mink" and "sweet as soda pop." The song's second verse recalls a story about two "strangers" (apparently revenue agents) climbing Rocky Top "looking for a moonshine still," but never returning (conflict between moonshiners and "revenuers" is a common theme in Appalachian culture).[12] The song says that the soil on Rocky Top is too rocky to grow corn, so the people of Rocky Top "get their corn from a jar"."
Wow! I am totally ashamed of my alma mater, Bob Jones University. Shame on them for disgracing the holy name of Christ, whom they claim to love, by supporting this stuff ("Rocky Top" and what it promotes)!
Brother Mitchell, I tried to find your comment on the YouTube page, but couldn't. Only a few comments showed up on my screen, and I didn't see any comments opposed to what Steve Pettit is doing with his influence.
E. T. Chapman
Hello Anonymous,
Ha ha, Rob is not exactly right. I'm sure Kent needs no defending; I would however not mind answering your statements:
1) I would agree. Woman wearing pants is a sin indeed. God made male and female. Only a woman who rebels against male leadership (and God's Authority) would argue against that.
2) I would agree. A Christian shouldn't be continuing in sin. Those who do, were never saved to begin with (e.g. Jn. 8:34-36; I Jn. 3:4-9; I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-12). Only someone that loves sin wants to "continue in sin."
3) I would agree. She demonstrates over her lifetime that she wants to be a like a man, even though God has made her a woman. Again, she has an issue with authority. She has also lived her life as a transvestite. I would say that person has a serious problem with submitting herself to her husband and obeying him. As for her husband, at the very least he is a coward and at worse, doesn't mind living with a trany.
The only absurdity is your absurdity.
Reuben
Reuben,
1) Scripture does not state wearing pants is a sin. Pants did not exist then as I am sure you know. There are female pants, so women wearing pants are not attempting to be masculine any more than you wearing a shirt is you trying to be feminine (women also wear shirts which are no more distinctive from men's shirts than male and female pants are from each other).If you really want to set yourself apart from the world by dress, why not use the Amish model? I immediately know their theology as soon as I look at them. Have the courage of your convictions!
2) unless you believe in pre-death sanctification, all Christians "continue in sin" until death, ergo all Christians "were never saved to begin with" according to your logic.
3) Thanks for at least attempting to answer the direct questions that I posed to Kent, which he has thus far dodged. Thanks also for demonstrating the complete moral bankruptcy of many on this blog- women wearing pants are necessarily going to hell.
4) Reuben you have previously argued on this blog that divorced and remarried Christians must divorce and remarry their second spouse and return to their first in direct defiance of Deuteronomy 24, so I think we should all take your exegesis with a huge grain of salt.
Rob
“Rob”
1) Kent has a number of articles on this subject, so no need to repeat information against your arguments about female “pants” and historical clothes and whether woman dressing like men is a sin. Is it okay for your husband to start wearing a dress? Why don’t you encourage that, since you want to wear the pants in the home. Be courageous and reverse the roles, which would likely fit you fine. This statement of yours is loaded with straw man. Is it okay to do drugs since the Bible says nothing about it? It seems perhaps you have difficultly interpreting Scripture, in applying Biblical principles for example. Why don’t you go ahead then and prove that men didn’t wear pants back in Bible days, or that male and female weren’t distinctly different in dress, and woman didn’t wear dresses or that woman can dress like men without it being an abomination (De. 22:5). Distinction between male and female genders has been from the beginning of time. God created male and female, not male and male. What you advocate for is an abomination to God.
2) Sounds like antinomianism to me. Not sure what you do with all the passages such as Jn. 8:34-36; I Jn. 3:4-9; I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-12 and dozens more. I wonder, did you learn that from S.M. Davis, who loves Jack Hyles, who embraced antinomianism?
3) Kent (and Thomas Ross) has already addressed your arguments before. I’m sure he has better things to do then argue with a angry and contentious woman who won’t listen to instruction. So much for anger management therapy with S.M. Davis. Why post here at all, since you don’t like much on this blog anyway, especially not articles on male authority and health issues (those by Thomas Ross) and questioning salvation. And you are consistently attacking truth, on those subjects and on “continuous sin” in professing believers. Kent hit the nail on its head when he called you a troll, not a Russian bot, in the comments under article “Church Decrease Movement (CDM): Faithful Numerical Church Decrease.” You are indeed trolling, I know that. The Lord knows it even better.
4) My exegesis is just fine and precise according to Scripture, thank you. Unlike you, I study extensively to answer (Pr. 15:28a). I am not interpreting these passages according to experience or external circumstance (i.e. parents or siblings) but literally and interpreting the unclear by the clear. I‘m not privately interpreting a passage of Scripture (De. 24), divorced (pun intended) from very clear and plain teachings on this subject (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:2-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Rom. 7:1-4; I Cor. 7:10-11, 39). God is not the author of confusion. He is the author of Gen. 2:24.
Lastly, you speak of “Hav[ing] the courage of your convictions” but what about you? Why hide behind a pseudonym, yea, a male name of all things?! Do you think people wouldn’t respond to you well if they knew you are actually a female? Why “Rob” and not at least a name of your own gender, like Katharine for example? Have courage “Rob” and come out of your closet. It occurred to me that your pseudonym goes well with your desire to be a man. You want to dress like one, run the house like one, and then be named after one (I.e. “Rob”). Is that not a form of “Rob[bery]? Poor husband. “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.” (Pr. 21:19).
I think the following statement by Kent in the comments section to you in the aforementioned article (Church Decrease) is apples of gold: “Be of good courage, Anonymous. Or as Jesus said, fear not. Don't live in fear under the cover of anonymity. Let your light so shine. Fear not man who can destroy body, but fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell forever.”
Reuben
“Rob”
1) Kent has a number of articles on this subject, so no need to repeat information against your arguments about female “pants” and historical clothes and whether woman dressing like men is a sin. Is it okay for your husband to start wearing a dress? Why don’t you encourage that, since you want to wear the pants in the home. Be courageous and reverse the roles, which would likely fit you fine. This statement of yours is loaded with straw man. Is it okay to do drugs since the Bible says nothing about it? It seems perhaps you have difficultly interpreting Scripture, in applying Biblical principles for example. Why don’t you go ahead then and prove that men didn’t wear pants back in Bible days, or that male and female weren’t distinctly different in dress, and woman didn’t wear dresses or that woman can dress like men without it being an abomination (De. 22:5). Distinction between male and female genders has been from the beginning of time. God created male and female, not male and male. What you advocate for is an abomination to God.
2) Sounds like antinomianism to me. Not sure what you do with all the passages such as Jn. 8:34-36; I Jn. 3:4-9; I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-12 and dozens more. I wonder, did you learn that from S.M. Davis, who loves Jack Hyles, who embraced antinomianism?
3) Kent (and Thomas Ross) has already addressed your arguments before. I’m sure he has better things to do then argue with a angry and contentious woman who won’t listen to instruction. So much for anger management therapy with S.M. Davis. Why post here at all, since you don’t like much on this blog anyway, especially not articles on male authority and health issues (those by Thomas Ross) and questioning salvation. And you are consistently attacking truth, on those subjects and on “continuous sin” in professing believers. Kent hit the nail on its head when he called you a troll, not a Russian bot, in the comments under article “Church Decrease Movement (CDM): Faithful Numerical Church Decrease.” You are indeed trolling, I know that. You know that. The Lord knows it as well.
4) My exegesis is just fine and precise according to Scripture, thank you. Unlike you, I study extensively to answer (Pr. 15:28a). I am not interpreting these passages according to experience or external circumstance (i.e. parents or siblings) but literally and interpreting the unclear by the clear. I‘m not privately interpreting a passage of Scripture (De. 24), divorced (pun intended) from very clear and plain teachings on this subject (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:2-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Rom. 7:1-4; I Cor. 7:10-11, 39). God is not the author of confusion. He is the author of Gen. 2:24.
Lastly, you speak of “Hav[ing] the courage of your convictions” but what about you? Why hide behind a pseudonym, yea, a male name of all things?! Do you think people wouldn’t respond to you well if they knew you are actually a female? Why “Rob” and not at least a name of your own gender, like Katharine for example? Have courage “Rob” and come out of your closet. It occurred to me that your pseudonym goes well with your desire to be a man. You want to dress like one, run the house like one, and then be named after one (I.e. “Rob”). Is that not a form of “Rob[bery]? Poor husband. “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.” (Pr. 21:19).
I think the following statement by Kent in the comments section to you in the aforementioned article (Church Decrease) is apples of gold: “Be of good courage, Anonymous. Or as Jesus said, fear not. Don't live in fear under the cover of anonymity. Let your light so shine. Fear not man who can destroy body, but fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell forever.”
Reuben
For those that haven’t figured it out as of yet, “Rob” and the nameless “Anonymous” here are in fact the same person. They are also the same nameless “Anonymous” that is attacking in Church Decrease Movement (CDM): Faithful Numerical Church Decrease and also the “Anonymous” in other posts such as Health Threats from Samaritan Ministries, part 3, etc, all of which is the poster by the name of Kathrine (real name) seen in this article: The Budwig Protocol: Deadly Cancer Quackery, where she again posts not only under “Katharine” but also as “Anonymous” and possibly as “Paul.” In practically all these articles, including this one in discussion, she is arguing (or attacking and vilifying more like it) her position from the standpoint of multiple people, in the attempt of giving her position further credence. She gets both Kent and Thomas all worked up. There are likely other pseudonyms she has used and other “Anonymous” posts unbeknownst to me. If you don’t believe me, examine the style in which all these posts I am attributing to her, are written. Her writing is very distinctive and it’s similarily vilifying. Because I know her personally, I know her style of writing, speech and personality. And the very things she argues here, she has argued with me. It’s definitely the same person. Without a doubt.
Reuben
Dear Rob,
Have you read the study here:
http://faithsaves.net/deuteronomy-22-5/
I ask, because your arguments are dealt with there and it would be a good idea to get some better ones or deal with the evidence there before keeping the ones you have.
Thanks.
Wow Reuben, that is quite an attack. You seem to like conspiracy theories. I can assure you I am quite male and have only posted under my name, Rob. I have never posted under any other name or anonymously. I can't prove it to you, so you can believe it or not.
Yes, dress is cultural. In biblical times, men and women wore robes. In Scotland, men wore kilts. Asian women have worn pants for centuries. This is really not that complicated. I have never argued that men and women should dress identically, but that female pants are different than male pants, just as female robes were different than male robes, but they still had the same basic shape. I am not advocating an abomination- you have actually done that by telling people to ignore Deut 24.
I am sorry that stimulating a debate angers you. I am here because I like to hear all points of view, whether I agree with them or not. I do oppose the Pharisaical Christianity that you espouse. Pharisees would tie people up in rules and regulations that had no biblical basis and proclaim their superiority when people fail. I've seen many people walk away from the church because of people like you. I asked a simple question: could a Christian be "wrong" about the pants issue and still be saved. Kent has not responded, but you have angrily responded that pants on a woman will send her to hell. That is beyond stupid.
Your comments to me as a woman or "anonymous" are odd and have no basis in reality, so I won't delve into that. I am not attacking as multiple people. the views espoused on this blog are held by a tiny minority of Christians, so it's not hard to believe that many people would make critical comments.
Thomas,
I've read the arguments, but do not find them convincing. Given that a small percentage of Christendom holds your view on this, I'd say that most don't find them convincing. Take care.
Rob
Katharine (aka. “Rob”),
Why am I not shocked that you deny you are “Rob”? Of course you would see it as “an attack” because I have exposed who you really are and your belligerent and cantankerous attitude. “Angry” response? Yes maybe angry over your deceptive and lying attitude and the damage you are attempting to inflict.
"Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight." (Pr. 12:22)
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." (Pr. 14:5).
There is no more a thing as “female pants” as there are “male skirts.” Thats the invention of rebellious woman. You just keep convincing yourself that culottes are okay. They are an abomination (De. 22:5). Here we find a good example of what happens when we are corrupted by bad association. Just because your pastors wife and majority of woman in your church wear pants, doesn’t make it right. Again, experience is your substitute for truth. Neither was it right for you to attempt to influence my wife in this direction. That’s evil.
“[P]eople walk away from the church” not “because of people like [me]” but maybe because of people like you as we saw in Canada (you know the situation) and maybe because of I Jn. 2:19. And truth has always been held to be a very small minority (Matt. 7:14; Lk. 13:23-25).
I won’t continue to argue with you. I have better things to do with my time. I know who you are and you know who you are, and you are definitely not “quite male.” Of course you can continue to argue your “maleship” because people can’t prove it either way, but that demonstrates your serious lack of fear of God (also evident in your resistance towards God’s truth). You can’t fool me and you’re definitely not fooling God. You are a contentious and angry woman, and to spin it around to make me the angry person doesn’t really fly. I’ve had no reason to be angry because I am allowing the Bible to dictate truth to me (Jn. 17:17) and I’m very fine with that, but you seem to be very angry over God’s truth in dress standards for females (De. 22:5), God’s truth over male leadership for the home (Eph. 5:22-24; Gen. 3:I Cor. 11:3; I Tim. 2:9-15), God’s truth in woman being silent in church (I Cor. 14:33-35), God’s truth in one marriage for life (Heb. 13:4; cf. Pr. 6:32; 1 Cor. 6:9–10 & 15-20 & the previous passages referenced including Gen. 2:24 & Mal. 2:13-17), and even God’s truth in hair length for woman (I Cor. 11:1-15). I wonder in what you are doing here transgresses 1 Tim. 2:11-12? “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
You should cut back on the fermentation. It’s leavening you.
Go ahead, put the last word in, as you do in most of your posts against Kent and Thomas. That’s very Katharine like to.
Reuben
Katharine (aka. “Rob”),
Why am I not shocked that you deny you are “Rob”? Of course you would see it as “an attack” because I have exposed who you really are and your belligerent and cantankerous attitude. “Angry” response? Yes maybe angry over your deceptive and lying attitude and the damage you are attempting to inflict.
"Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight." (Pr. 12:22)
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." (Pr. 14:5).
There is no more a thing as “female pants” as there are “male skirts.” Thats the invention of rebellious woman. You just keep convincing yourself that culottes are okay. They are an abomination (De. 22:5). Here we find a good example of what happens when we are corrupted by bad association. Just because your pastors wife and majority of woman in your church wear pants, doesn’t make it right. Again, experience is your substitute for truth. Neither was it right for you to attempt to influence my wife in this direction. That’s evil.
“[P]eople walk away from the church” not “because of people like [me]” but maybe because of people like you as we saw in Canada (you know the situation) and maybe because of I Jn. 2:19. And truth has always been held to be a very small minority (Matt. 7:14; Lk. 13:23-25).
I won’t continue to argue with you. I have better things to do with my time. I know who you are and you know who you are, and you are definitely not “quite male.” Of course you can continue to argue your “maleship” because people can’t prove it either way, but that demonstrates your serious lack of fear of God (also evident in your resistance towards God’s truth). You can’t fool me and you’re definitely not fooling God. You are a contentious and angry woman, and to spin it around to make me the angry person doesn’t really fly. I’ve had no reason to be angry because I am allowing the Bible to dictate truth to me (Jn. 17:17) and I’m very fine with that, but you seem to be very angry over God’s truth in dress standards for females (De. 22:5), God’s truth over male leadership for the home (Eph. 5:22-24; Gen. 3:I Cor. 11:3; I Tim. 2:9-15), God’s truth in woman being silent in church (I Cor. 14:33-35), God’s truth in one marriage for life (Heb. 13:4; cf. Pr. 6:32; 1 Cor. 6:9–10 & 15-20 & the previous passages referenced including Gen. 2:24 & Mal. 2:13-17), and even God’s truth in hair length for woman (I Cor. 11:1-15). I wonder in what you are doing here transgresses 1 Tim. 2:11-12? “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
You should cut back on the fermentation. It’s leavening you.
Go ahead, put the last word in, as you do in most of your posts against Kent and Thomas. That’s very Katharine like to.
Reuben
Reuben,
I'm not going to waste time responding to your bizarre attacks that I am someone else, but I will say that such attacks are dishonest, without merit, and are not befitting a person who claims to be a man of God. Really what you are trying to do, is dishonestly deflect from the debate at hand.
My wife, and other women in my church, will sleep soundly at night after having worn pants during the day because you have not shown from scripture or with logic that pants are a sin. You're right, in American culture men do not wear skirts. In Scottish culture they have/do. Jesus himself wore a robe, which is much more similar to a dress than to pants. The women of his time dressed very similarly. Yes, there was some variation of fabric, etc but the basic shape was the same, just as female pants have the basic shape of male pants with some minor variations. Why aren't you following Jesus' example and wearing a robe? I never claimed that majority rule determined what was right or wrong, but because you have not made your case from scripture, I will rest assured that the women in my church are dressing appropriately.
Take care,
Rob
Rob (or Katharine),
If you are truly “Rob,” a man and not a woman, why don’t you email me and prove it. If you are willing to do that, I will send you my email address.
Thanks,
Reuben