Which of the two did the will of the Father?

While the forceful advocacy of women ministers by some within the PCA is troubling, equally troubling is the attitude of others who--while claiming to hold Biblical views on manhood and womanhood--reject making such views a fundamental indication of Biblical orthodoxy.

"Good people disagree on this issue," they argue, "it's not a matter of the Gospel. Why, even Roger Nicole--a stalwart of Biblical authority--disagrees with the father-rule position. We've got to go easy here. There's room for latitude because, after all, this issue does not involve essentials of the faith."

This view is wrong at many levels. Most fundamentally, few modern heresies strike more directly at essentials of the Gospel than egalitarian feminism. What is more central to the Gospel than the preeminent authority of the Father, the obedience of the Son, the headship of Christ over His Church and the role and authority of His Bride? One must be blinkered by pride or fear not to see this.

But, even should we grant that no essential tenet of the Gospel is hazarded by egalitarianism, this view underestimates egalitarianism's destructive power.

Secondary concerns are seldom issues of direct obedience or disobedience to the Law of God. Bad eschatology may lead to a sinful lifestyle--especially if you're a Thessalonian. But usually it doesn't, and that's why eschatology is generally regarded a secondary issue.

But in the debate over father-rule defective theology and sinful practice are as linked as shinbone and anklebone. The primary issue in the controversy is economic headship and subordination, not ontological essence. And economic subordination becomes visible in practice. Whether men and women have equal worth before God is simply not at issue. What is at issue is whether, despite equal worth, men and women are called to separate forms of obedience.

Obedience lies at the very heart of the debate over father-rule. Reduce egalitarianism to a secondary issue and we separate obedience from faith. And faith without obedience is dead. It's absolutely no denial of salvation by grace through faith to call for obedience from those who profess faith--or to deny the faith of those who obstinately refuse obedience.

Jesus asked the Pharisees:

“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.”

In the same way, thieves, prostitutes and drug addicts will enter the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of those who obstinately and unrepentantly substitute the language of faith for actual obedience to the Bible's requirement of father-rule today.

Comments

[Arnold H]

Preach it brother!

[Jeffrey]

I am thankful this particular straw man was taken to the woodshed and soundly rubbished. It puts the cross hairs right where they need to be and inflicts a wound to those who simply want to avoid having to stand for truth on this issue.

[David Lehr]

Thanks for creating a post about this issue. I've never been 100% convinced that sexual roles in the church was an essential tenet of the Faith, and I know there are many others who are likewise unpersuaded. It seems more important than church polity but less so than the resurrection. But you make an interesting point by defining an essential issue as one tied to obedience. I haven't thought of it that way before. As the Bible says, whatever isn't of faith is sin.

However, it's hard to find other people making this argument. At least online. Doing a quick search, I only found one site, CARM, that mentions it in a discussion of essential and non-essential issues. They place it in a gray area and say, "Affirming the doctrines in this grey section are signs of significant lack of understanding of biblical theology. Nevertheless, believing them does not negate salvation." (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/grid.htm)

It seems to me that the advocacy of egalitarianism in the church indicates a spiritual rebelliousness because it requires a willful refusal to submit to the plain teaching of the Bible. It suggests that the egalitarian has usurped authority by sitting in judgment over the Bible, determining what is and is not disposable in it. And it suggests that he's hopped in bed with the feminist culture. But friendship with the world is enmity against God.

[Lane Bowman]

David,

The conclusions you came to in your last paragraph show an accurate understanding of what is going on in most churches today. It really does concern our willingness to submit to our King through His Word. May we all be humbled before him.

[Arnold H.]

Wait a minute. I spoke too soon. It sounds to me, Mr. B, as if you're saying the Apostle's Creed is defective, and must be amended. If you believe what you're saying is an "essential" truth of the Faith, then there's no way around it - you view the Apostle's Creed as defective and insufficient.

It also logically follows from what you write that Roger Nicole and other men are apostates who don't know Jesus Christ, and will burn in Hell.

I cannot go along with that. You may choose to believe that Roger Nicole will burn in Hell, but I choose to believe he's a lover of our Lord Jesus Christ, with an imperfect understanding of the Bible. Just like you and me.

[Fr. Bill]

First, I endorse without reservation the analysis above. I would offer the following as additions to this accurate analysis of the issues.

Pr. David writes “...even should we grant that no essential tenet of the Gospel is hazarded by egalitarianism ...” I understand David here to posit a point in order to make a further point. Moreover, his further comments suggest that the egalitarian agenda does, after all, undermine the gospel. I concur, and I offer the following as points where the gospel is eroded by egalitarians:

Hermeneutics: to argue for egalitarianism in the Bible, one must handle the Bible in heterodox ways, departing from the catholic consensus of two millennia as well as the particular communal understanding of the Bible within (in this case) the Reformed stream of Christianity. Easily verifiable is the way in which the Kroegers’ handling of 1 Tim. 2:12ff is mirrored by the Campolos’ handling of Romans 1:18ff. Women’s ordination is routinely followed by gay ordination (or, agitation for it).

Trinitarianism: functional subordination between the Persons of the Trinity is the only way in which they are distinguished in the Bible. Denial of functional subordination (done, because this advances egalitarianism among humans) leads necessarily to Unitarianism or other classical Trinitarian heresies (e.g. modalism, Nestorianism, etc.) Related to these errors are the notions that femininity is intrinsically resident in the Trinity (usually identified with the Holy Spirit).

Incarnation: In Jesus’ day, the Jews were scandalized that a man claimed to be God. In our day, egalitarians are scandalized that the Bible claims God became a human male and that He remains a human male forever (cf. the entire Book of Hebrews for starters). Krister Stendahl is an early example of egalitarians who dismiss Jesus’ sex to be as irrelevant to his person and mission as was the color of his eyes.

The economy of salvation and male headship: Male headship is how we are damned in Adam, and it is how we are redeemed in Christ. Dismiss, discount, or deny male headship and you do the same to the gospel itself.

For all the reasons above, egalitarianism is every bit as serious a heresy as Arianism in the Fourth Century, both having the power to transform the Apostlic deposit of faith into something hostile to the Biblical revelation.

Many comment that someone like Roger Nicole, for example, are not gay activists, and that they do not stray into all the errors I’ve sketched above. So what? This merely shows they have not followed the path of error as far as their disciples will happily pursue.

I am encouraged to see the debate awaken within the PCA. Further encouragement comes from recent statements by prominent Southern Baptists (Russel Moore, Albert Mohler) to the effect that egalitarianism challenges the gospel itself. Complementarians generally have been too long in connecting these dots, prefering in most cases to view the debate as intramural among fundamentally orthodox Christians. Finally, that misunderstanding of the egalitarian danger is beginning to dissipate.

[Michael Foster]

Arnold H.,

That was major u-turn! I'm not convinced that it is being said that Mr. Nicole has a hot-spot next to Charles Finney or not. Thus, I'll leave that to the Bayly's to field. What I want to know is, in your estimation, what are the major skirmish lines that the battle for the true gospel is being waged? In other words, where is the hole in the wall that false gospels are pooring through into the church at present? I can't help but see feminism as a primary breach in the wall.

[Thomas Twitchell]

Wow, can we roll this arguement back a few centuries to John Stewart Mill. Of course we could even go all the way back to Eden where we first see the reversal of the order of creation. Interesting thing that Eve did. She could not climb above Adam, so she brought him down to her level.

Necessary doctrine? If I understand correctly, the writers of the "Fundamentals of the Christian Religion," held that there was no such thing as unnecessary or peripheral doctrine. All doctrine of Scripture was necessary, and must necessarily be understood.

Feministization, oi, how do you say it? Is at its heart the diminution of doctrine, the removal of the authority of the Word of God. Compromise it and you compromise the whole.

Our so called peripheral doctrines must all reflect the essentials. Whether it is the authority structure of the Church or home. The two are paralled by Paul. The latter is an image of the first and teaches, as Paul is clear, the former. Mess with the latter, and you mess with the first.

The same could be said of the covenant of marriage. Undermine the permanency of it, and you undermine the perserverance of the Saints. Allow remarriage for the divorcer, and you violate Hebrews 12. The once for all sacrifice that is permanently perfect because of its efficaciousness, is sullied by permitting divorce. How can one even begin to say that the "blood" bond can be treated lightly, and then be enjoined, later? Instead we are given exact instruction on reconcilliation, not remarriage outside the original bond. There is much to be said of this subject, but it is just as egalitarian arguements. Though divorce and remarriage seem peripheral, they attack the very core teachings of salvation, faith, repentance, forgiveness, perserverance, and more than that they bring discredit upon the Lord, our husband.

Necessary, unnecessary? The Word of God is not confused is it? Is Christ? Is he divided? The doctrines of life are not removed from the doctrines of the Spirit, are they? Is it not true that if the immortal Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, indeed did, that he will also give life to our mortal bodies? It is Spirit and Truth, not one or the other.

Creeping relativism sums up the feminist church today, with its egalitarian ethic. It pushes those, "inconsequential" teachings out side the perimeter. Because of that the core is out of balance. These matters of life and doctrine are like a wheel within a wheel. As long as one remains within the other they travel in the same direction with the same rotation and arrive at the same objective, harmoniously. If they are outside one another, they push at each other, rotating opposite to one another, creating friction and heat and an eventual breaking down of the system in relationship to its intended purpose. There is a reason, and a reasonable Word written so that the simplicity of the Faith might be followed within Christ. We may not always keep it in the middle, that does not negate that the Word of God is perfect and we have a commandment to study to see if these things are so, understanding their proper relationship and function, establishing the Word of God and thereby being able to discern between good and evil.

[Michael Foster]

I read this quote today in How People Change (by Lane & Tripp) that reminded me of this post: "In Corinthians 10:5, Paul talks about "pretensions that set themselves up against the knowledge of God." Remeber that a pretense is a plausible lie, with enough truth to be believable. The lies that capture us as Christians usually seem to fit well within the borders of our Christianity. Perhaps postmodernism and sexual immorality are not the greatest threats to the church of Christ in our day. Perhaps we are in more danger from subtle lies that flow from subtle shifts in how we understand the gospel." The only thing I would add is the the danger of feminism is only subtle because we have become numb to the Word and warm to the world.

[Kamilla]

Thomas,

It's John Stuart Mill (not Stewart). And, if you'd like, I'll be glad to say hello to his mentor, Jeremy Bentham, for you at the end of July. I'll be in the neighborhood, after all.

Kamilla

[Jack's Pipe]

Thanks for this article. I have been hoping you or someone would write on this very topic; I've rarely seen it directly addressed. Based on the evangelicals I know, most would consider it inessential, and many of those from simple ignorance.

Some thoughts as I continue to learn on the topic:

-My own views have shifted over the past few years (I was once in the "women can do what any unordained man can do" camp). Perhaps such openness to instruction and change may not be acceptable to those who only tend to see "openness" in 'leftward' drift (perhaps at a coffee shop?).
-Obedience seems to sum up the issue most helpfully. It semes bound up with a general disdain for authority. It's hard to believe that the Reformers saw church discipline
as a key mark of a true church. Where is it practiced today? When invoked, it's seen as mean-spirited.
-We hear it's nonessential because it doesn't go (directly, for the sake of argument) against the Creeds. Well, neither does stealing or 'gay marriage,' but would you see your church in the same light if an unrepentant thief or a sodomite were installed as pastor? How about a drunken elder? If he accepted the Apostle's Creed, would that make him ok? (And never mind that this Creed is still read in many churches that pour completely unorthodox meaning into them, or treat them as a dead letter thing you just read because it's tradition). The point is that these things are serious and cause for discipline.
-I wonder how much of this comes back to anti-Lordship teachings that deny the authority of Scripture (by denying our need to be
obedient to it in express denial of it). Faith is a free gift of God (Eph 2:8-9, John 6,
John 10), and that gift always produces good works (Matt 3:8, 3:10, Matt 7:17-19, Matt 12:33,
Mark 4:20, John 15:8, Romans 8, 1 Cor 6:10, James 2:14-18, etc). Some people seem to think
that God plants trees that don't bear fruit.
-Those who act like there's no tie between this issue and the culture must be kidding themselves.
-When people say "Are you saying that Mr. Egalitarian and Mrs. Pastorette is going to burn
in hell?" as a layman I retort "I have no clue, that decision is in God's hands, but they are
teaching serious error and you should not heed them." In other words, such speculation seems
to scratch a feminist itch, but it seems to me an unhelpful changing of the point. I'd say the same to followers of Ken Copeland or Rick Warren
for that matter. It's not my position to determine whether someone is definitively in the
invisible church, but I should warn people away from their false teachings. Why pay heed
to those persisting in blatant error?
-Fr. Mouser makes good addendums. Have you considered creating a library where all these points are brought together (something more concise than a blog category?). It seems like a lot of commenter questions could then be answered by pointing people to pamphlet-size library articles that basically consolidate blog posts but also allow additions as new thoughts develop on a topic.

[Chris Atkins]

Jack makes an excellent point here that deserves more prayer and study:

"We hear it's nonessential because it doesn't go (directly, for the sake of argument) against the Creeds. Well, neither does stealing or 'gay marriage,' but would you see your church in the same light if an unrepentant thief or a sodomite were installed as pastor? How about a drunken elder? If he accepted the Apostle's Creed, would that make him ok? (And never mind that this Creed is still read in many churches that pour completely unorthodox meaning into them, or treat them as a dead letter thing you just read because it's tradition). The point is that these things are serious and cause for discipline."

[Eric Rasmusen]

A doctrine like male headship is actually a better test in our day and age than in most, because it is not important so much for itself as because it raises two questions:

1. Do I believe that anybody has authority? If I am unwilling to submit to an elder or a husband, I probably have problems submitting to God too. Traditionally, the question was whether I would submit to God as well as to human authorities; now it is a question of whether I will submit to anybody.

2. Am I willing to put God's commands over my own? It is the teachings that least appeal to me that are the best test of my faith in God. Anybody will agree with God that murder is evil. When it comes to divorce, obedience, or homosexuality, we modern Americans get less comfortable.

[Lou]

"few modern heresies strike more directly at essentials of the Gospel than egalitarian feminism"

How about salvation by baptism, possibility of losing one's salvation, and the requirement of membership to an organized institution for salvation? Certainly these non-reformed doctrines strike at the heart of the gospel much more so than the general debate over male vs. female roles (a distinction which has either been eliminated or at least diminished WITH the coming of the Gospel). Not sure why you think this is such a threat - to the Gospel! Keep in mind, I don't agree with ordaining women and basically support removing the title minister, but by reading this blog, I can see that you guys go way further these particulars. And way further than what the PCA supports.

[David Gray]

>How about salvation by baptism, possibility of losing one's salvation, and the requirement of membership to an organized institution for salvation?

Well I don't see any Reformed folk pushing the first two and regarding the third here is what the WCF says:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

So perhaps it is you who is not reformed in this regard?

[Pastor Trey Austin]

David and Lou,

I do not advocate an ex opera operato view of baptism or the Eucharist, however, in light of the blanket statement against "salvation by baptism," i think it should be pointed out that both the WLC and the WSC call baptism an "effectual means of salvation," and also say that it is an outward and ordinary means of grace, and through those outward and ordinary means of grace, the benefits of Christ's redemption/mediation are communicated to us--and by "communication," it does not only mean to impart knowledge of or make known to; it means actually to take part in or participate in.

In other words, if by "salvation" we mean the ultimate goal of being redeemed, free from sin, and in a glorified state, it is without question through Christ's work and his benefits that we will come to that place, but the Westminster Standards say that baptism is at least one way by which Christ's work comes to us, is applied to us, and we become partakers of it.

[lou]

I'm going to back up and stop making assumptions about what Presbyterians believe. Before I started reading blogs by all of these different and various Pastors, I was pretty sure that thru my studies I really did understand what it meant to be Presbyterian and Reformed. Not anymore. While I still stand by my (non-Roman) views, I'm going to stop assuming that their is a true standard in our denom, especially in light of the increasing Romanism that we see creeping in.

In the meantime, here is my response to David who quoted Ch. 25, para 2 of the WCF which refers to the 'visible' church. We must also read para 1 of the same chapter and then also the larger cathecism:

WCF I "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof."

Westminster Larger Catechism-- The privileges of membership in the visible Church do not automatically include eternal union and communion with Christ in grace and glory (Q. 63-65). Only those who are members of the invisible Church have this benefit (Q. 65, 68). Moreover, this union with Christ occurs at the time of their effectual calling (Q. 66), which only happens to the elect (Q. 68) Therefore, the invisible church may exist inside and outside the visible church. A hugh distinction historically for the Reformation/ Protestantism RCC.

[lou]

Pastor Austin: My understanding, based on the placement of the WLC placement of that discussion of baptism, is that it describes the means of grace given by Christ to the Church, not in the sense of unbelievers coming to saving faith, but in the sense of 'working out' one's salvation with fear and trembling within the assembly of the body of Christ. The reason I have always believed this and why I was taught this is based in part on Question 165. It says that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant.

Certainly, we cannot believe that every infant who is baptized is automatically eternally admitted to communion with Christ in glory? I know that the benefits of grace are administered thru the Church IAW the covenant community, but in terms of reformed doctrine, there is not a guarantee that such an outward act even if administered with all earnestness and sincere belief by ordained means can secure everlasting salvation for an individual.

Question 165: What is Baptism?

Answer: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ has ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.

Thanks for listening...

[David Gray]

Lou, so what do you think they meant in the WCF 25-2?

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Lou,

Thank you for taking us back to the Westminster Standards, and therefore to Scripture.

Concerning your earlier comment, there's nothing on this blog concerning sexuality that’s not boringly normal for Calvin, Luther, Knox, and the other reformers. In fact, across the centuries, what has been argued here on this blog’s posts concerning the nature of authority between the sexes would produce a flurry of stifled yawns among our fathers in the faith—that is, until twenty or thirty years ago.

So when you say my brother and I “go... way further than what the PCA supports” concerning the nature and purpose of sexuality, you speak for some within the PCA, but you have left behind the historic Protestant and reformed church. Who is right—you or they?

Time will tell. Certainly, for our part, we believe your major premise is contrary to Scripture—that “male vs. female roles (is) a distinction which has either been eliminated or at least diminished with the coming of the Gospel.” Not at all. Scripture doesn’t say this, nor do we find our reformed fathers claiming Scripture says this. Your position is a modern invention that even Karl Barth saw through and unequivocally opposed. http://www.baylyblog.com/2005/09/barth_on_simila.html

Agreeing with you that, even among the reformed (and specifically, PCA reformed), we cannot assume knowledge of our “Westminster Standards,” let me call your attention to my most recent post on this subject titled, “The Westminster Standards and the PCA on male headship…” I hope you’ll find it helpful.

[Fr. Bill]

Pr. Tim: “ ... for our part, we believe your major premise is contrary to Scripture—that ‘male vs. female roles (is) a distinction which has either been eliminated or at least diminished with the coming of the Gospel.’ Not at all. Scripture doesn’t say this ...”

Indeed, Scripture says exactly the opposite. The sexual ruffles and flourishes of Scripture, sounded first in Genesis, grow ever louder throughout the progress of revelation, until they reach an absolutely deafening crescendo at the end of the Bible. The small quiet wedding in the Garden is the first note, the wedding supper of the Lamb is the last note, though “note” is hardly what you’d call the conclulding visions of that Bridal Blowout at the end of John’s Apocalypse.

Some egalitarians love to point to what they call the “trajectory” of Scripture. I wonder what they make of a trajectory evinced by (a) it is not good for the man to be alone, to (b) the man may nullify his wife’s vows, to (c) wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, to (d) the wedding supper of the Lamb?

This trajectory is further bolstered by a remarkable way that Christ is portrayed in the Bible: as the bringing together of things otherwise distinguished. Christ is both the prophet who is to come (from Moses’ perspective) and the Word of God. Christ is both the Son of David and David’s Lord. He is the one under whose feet all things are placed and also the Servant of the Lord. He is the Babe of Bethlehem and the Ancient of Days. He is the Lion of Judah and the Lamb. He is lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and the Great High Priest who offers His own blood in Heaven, the Sacrificer and the Sacrificed, the Lord of all and the Servant of all.

He is both male and female.

Oops. That’s how the egals would have us think. Somehow they miss the fact that He is always King, never Queen. Father, never mother. Brother, never sister. Bridegroom, never bride. Son, never daughter. On matters sexual in the Bible, egalitarians stumble on a rock of stumbling as large as the Mountain of God.

It is precisely in the sexual distinctions that the Bible shows us two things: that the sexual distinctions are never erased, compromised, or blurred; and that these same sexual distinctions are elaborated, embellished, and exaggerated until they become the frame inside of which the the Bible sets forth the climax of God’s redemption in all its glory.

Anyone who says that the coming of the gospel eliminates, or even diminishes, these distinctions is reading a Bible similar in design to Jefferson’s New Testament – a work in which the egalitarian-friendly bits shine as jewels embedded in the patriarchal dung.

[Lou]

Dear Tim, I agree that the traditional reformers do take a stronger view, Calvin, Knox, Luther. I'm thinking more of the PCA as a denom. I would like to do as you suggest and go back and read your references and also to see whether the reformers' stance is cultural or biblical and cathecismal. Thank you for the reminder. Still learning...

Dear David: You should refer to my previous post, as I did answer that.

[David Gray]

>You should refer to my previous post, as I did answer that.

Doesn't look like it to me.

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Lou: "My understanding, based on the placement of the WLC placement of that discussion of baptism, is that it describes the means of grace given by Christ to the Church, not in the sense of unbelievers coming to saving faith, but in the sense of 'working out' one's salvation with fear and trembling within the assembly of the body of Christ."

Well, i don't dispute this at all. Baptism is that--but it is not *ONLY* that, and there comes the seeming difficulty.

Lou: "The reason I have always believed this and why I was taught this is based in part on Question 165. It says that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant."

Yes, indeed. And? It seems you are assuming that to be a "sign and seal" is another way of saying "symbol and reminder"--and *ONLY* that. As i said before, it *IS* that, but it's not *ONLY* that. One key word in the Westminster Standards is "confer." The WSs are very clear that the sacraments actually *CONFER* the grace that they signify. My guess is that this goes beyond what you understood by "sign and seal." One word we can use to explain this relationship is "instrument." The sacraments are instruments through which God works to give to us the actual thing that is signified and sealed in the sacraments. The elements aren't the things signified themselves (as if there were no distinction), but there is such a sacramental union between the sign (the element that does the pointing to and serves as the conduit of the grace) and the thing signified (the actual grace itself) that one can actually speak of the outward element doing the thing that only the inward grace can do. You'll find a discussion of "sacramental union" in the WCF as well. I'm not making this stuff up, and it's nothing like Romanizing.

Lou: "Certainly, we cannot believe that every infant who is baptized is automatically eternally admitted to communion with Christ in glory?"

No, indeed. Nor have i intimated any such thing. The WCF and Catechisms are clear that, while grace is conferred through the sacraments, it isn't conferred *AUTOMATICALLY* (i.e., ex opera operato--which, if my memory serves, i already dismissed in my previous post to which you took exception). God confers grace not by any power in the outward elements; nor by the inherent goodness, spiritual superiority, or good intentions of the one administering them; nor anything else, but his own working through them by his Holy Spirit according to his sovereign purpose.

You said that we do not think that every infant is savingly united to Christ simply because he or she is baptized, and i readily agree that we do not and should not. However, i would likewise point out that neither should we assume that since not all are, that they never are or cannot be. It is not wrong to believe that what God promises to do (i.e., give his righteousness to our children and our children's children, on down to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments) he normally does, nor is it wrong to believe that where the sign is so is the thing signified, until and unless we see otherwise. The WCF says that there is (as Christ himself instituted it and God himself intended) a union between the sign and the thing signified, and so am i wrong to believe that where the sign is, there the thing signified also will be? Or should (as it seems you are saying) assume that the thing signified is *ALWAYS* absent, unless i have some special knowledge otherwise. Which better fits with what the WCF actually says?

Lou: "I know that the benefits of grace are administered thru the Church IAW the covenant community, but in terms of reformed doctrine, there is not a guarantee that such an outward act even if administered with all earnestness and sincere belief by ordained means can secure everlasting salvation for an individual."

And, as i said, i never claimed that to be the case. It is not a guarantee; it is a promise. And all promises are received by faith alone.

Tell me, my dear brother, which is more God-honoring, to *BELIEVE* that God has done, is doing, or will do (because it is not tied to the moment of administration) what the sacrament signifies and seals, or to *DOUBT* that God has done, is doing, or will do what the sacrament signfies and seals? Will the promise he extends in his sacraments be received by my pious and rationalist doubt, or will it be received by child-like trusting faith? Indeed, that can't be a false dichotomy, because there are only two responses to God's words and acts: faith or doubt.

Why do we believe that God so works his grace through the Word (both preached and read) actually to effect salvation in its hearers, but we somehow do not believe that his sacraments (which are nothing but the promises of his Word--indeed the Gospel itself--in visible form) can be a similar venue.

BTW, the Word of God is mentioned in the same section of the Catechisms as the sacraments. If your reasoning holds true, and the sacraments are *ONLY* "the means of grace given by Christ to the Church, not in the sense of unbelievers coming to saving faith, but in the sense of 'working out' one's salvation with fear and trembling within the assembly of the body of Christ," then you must also affirm that that's all the Word can be, too. But i doubt you'd go that far, nor should you.

[Sarah]

Ok, a few questions:
"Of course we could even go all the way back to Eden where we first see the reversal of the order of creation. Interesting thing that Eve did. She could not climb above Adam, so she brought him down to her level."

1)Why did noone question Thomas saying "down to her (Eve's) level" as though she is lessor by merely being female. Adam and Eve both sinned by eating the fruit. We are condemned through Adam, yes. Is he seriously saying that Adam might not have sinned if Eve hadn't been there?

2)KJV, Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Where did "femaleness" come from, if both male and female were created in the image of God?

3)What exactly is the issue being argued here? That women should not be ordained?
And for those discussing essential/nonessential in the Word, do your wives wear hats to church? How long is your sons' hair? Are these essentials too that need to be discussed? Are we completely ignoring the fact that women were not given education in the same way men were in the first century after Christ?

The Bible teaches that men and women are distinct and have distinct roles, but never that one is more valuable than the other.

4. Explain Deborah's leadership in Judges 4. "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided."

5. Wives are called to submit to their husbands, husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church (a sacrificial love). Both submit to God. Is Eric inferring that females need the extra practice to submit to God by submitting to their husbands and that is why God called wives to submit?