calvinism & the ESV

[Presbygirl]

(06-12-2012 08:26 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:I think it's very unfortunate right now that people look to misogynistic Calvinist men as the main "authorities" (for lack of being able to think of a better term right now) in conservative Christianity.

Not all Calvinists are complementarian. (And not all complementarians are misogynistic but that's a whole 'nother discussion). See also: Anglicans.

You're kidding!!

Also, from what I've read, Piper loves G.K. Chesterton who was.....Roman Catholic!!!!! ( gasps and screams)

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 08:26 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:I think it's very unfortunate right now that people look to misogynistic Calvinist men as the main "authorities" (for lack of being able to think of a better term right now) in conservative Christianity.

Not all Calvinists are complementarian. (And not all complementarians are misogynistic but that's a whole 'nother discussion). See also: Anglicans.

Most of the ones that people look to as "authorities" right now are, though. I think that's very unfortunate. And honestly it seems to me that complementarian and Calvinist go hand in hand as in a lot more Calvinists are complementarians than anybody else, and I think that might be in part because both those theologies mesh together. Certainly not all of them are but most of the ones that are seen as some kind of authorities right now are. (And, in order to be complementarian, you have to believe in some kind of hierarchy even if it's supposed "benevolent" hierarchy where you use those pretty words like "servant leader" etc, it's still essentially misogynistic and essentially, no matter how pretty it's made, the basic underlying belief is that, for whatever reason, usually "Biblical", the man is to be the "leader".)

[Presbygirl]

(06-12-2012 08:44 AM)leaving Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 08:26 AM)Darrell Wrote:  Not all Calvinists are complementarian. (And not all complementarians are misogynistic but that's a whole 'nother discussion). See also: Anglicans.

Most of the ones that people look to as "authorities" right now are, though. I think that's very unfortunate. And honestly it seems to me that complementarian and Calvinist go hand in hand as in a lot more Calvinists are complementarians than anybody else, and I think that might be in part because both those theologies mesh together. Certainly not all of them are but most of the ones that are seen as some kind of authorities right now are. (And, in order to be complementarian, you have to believe in some kind of hierarchy even if it's supposed "benevolent" hierarchy where you use those pretty words like "servant leader" etc, it's still essentially misogynistic and essentially, no matter how pretty it's made, the basic underlying belief is that, for whatever reason, usually "Biblical", the man is to be the "leader".)

So, what would a marriage have to look like in order for you to deem in NOT complementarian? I know the term is egalitarian. But, can you be specific?

[leaving]

Also, I'm only a student so I claim no expertise, but my major is in sociology, and so far from all the research I have been doing (and I have just started so it's not been extensive yet) is that Calvinism and patriarchy have gone hand in hand historically and for the most part still do. However it's an interesting study that like I say I've just started so during my research my thoughts may change depending one what I dig up but for now everything I've read has made a major link between the two.

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 08:48 AM)Presbygirl Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 08:44 AM)leaving Wrote:  Most of the ones that people look to as "authorities" right now are, though. I think that's very unfortunate. And honestly it seems to me that complementarian and Calvinist go hand in hand as in a lot more Calvinists are complementarians than anybody else, and I think that might be in part because both those theologies mesh together. Certainly not all of them are but most of the ones that are seen as some kind of authorities right now are. (And, in order to be complementarian, you have to believe in some kind of hierarchy even if it's supposed "benevolent" hierarchy where you use those pretty words like "servant leader" etc, it's still essentially misogynistic and essentially, no matter how pretty it's made, the basic underlying belief is that, for whatever reason, usually "Biblical", the man is to be the "leader".)

So, what would a marriage have to look like in order for you to deem in NOT complementarian? I know the term is egalitarian. But, can you be specific?

What a great question! I know there is an argument that a lot of complementarians are "functionally egalitarian" as in their marriage "looks" egalitarian to outsiders, but I believe the difference is in the core beliefs and actions of the individual. If you are "functionally egalitarian" but have a deeply held belief that, if it comes down to it, the husband has the final say when you disagree, in my opinion you are still complementarian.

So, to answer your question, in order for a marriage to be fully egalitarian, both the husband and the wife would have to believe that they make decisions together, that nobody is the "leader" because they are in the marriage together and need to work decisions out together. After all, the Bible teaches that when a man and woman marry, they become "one flesh". If they are one then they need to make decisions as one. It means continuing to work on a problem until a mutually agreed upon decision is reached. It's about being one. Which means that there is no "servant leader" to "guide" the family spiritually both parents do that (or in my marriage I do it because my husband currently claims non-believer status but is fine with me teaching the kids about God). Nobody holds the trump card in the relationship, like I said the couple works together to work things out.

[Presbygirl]

@Leaving. Makes sense. By your definition I have an egalitarian marriage.

[redbeardiam]

(06-12-2012 08:26 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:I think it's very unfortunate right now that people look to misogynistic Calvinist men as the main "authorities" (for lack of being able to think of a better term right now) in conservative Christianity.

Not all Calvinists are complementarian. (And not all complementarians are misogynistic but that's a whole 'nother discussion). See also: Anglicans.

Hey, that's what I was gonna say.

[That'sWhatItSays]

I just bothered to look at three "controversial" verses in the Bible and compared them. It would seem on a simple analysis, that the ESV matches closely the NIV, but perhaps chooses to line up on occasion with the KJV contra the NIV (notably here in Hebrews 13:17). Overall, I don't think there was any need whatsoever for the ESV, and I do agree with the KJV-Only argument that there are too many Bibles. Food for thought....

Hebrews 13:7-8

KJV: 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

NIV: 7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

ESV: 7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Hebrews 13:17

KJV: 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

NIV: 17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

ESV: 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

I Timothy 2:11-12

KJV: 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

NIV: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

ESV: 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 10:58 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  I just bothered to look at three "controversial" verses in the Bible and compared them. It would seem on a simple analysis, that the ESV matches closely the NIV, but perhaps chooses to line up on occasion with the KJV contra the NIV (notably here in Hebrews 13:17). Overall, I don't think there was any need whatsoever for the ESV, and I do agree with the KJV-Only argument that there are too many Bibles. Food for thought....

Hebrews 13:7-8

KJV: 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

NIV: 7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

ESV: 7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

This first one is a good example of what I was saying about the KJV earlier in that I think some pastors and churches are KJV only because the way the KJV is worded, it can seem more hardcore on issues.

"Remember them which have rule over you" and "Remember your leaders" is saying two totally different things. A leader isn't always someone that has "rule over" another person. Therefore the KJV makes this statement a little more ambiguous and hardcore which is why I think fundies like it because they can insert more authority where they may not necessarily have any. And then they can define, in this passage, who "them which have rule over you" are. Usually, ironically, the pastor.

[greg]

(06-12-2012 08:01 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:it seems to have kept some of the phrasing and word order of the KJV

This is why I like it.

Greg, you know I am not a Calvinist but can you point me to a group of "conservative" Protestant scholars who would be qualified to do this kind of translation right now who are NOT Calvinists? I have a feeling that if non-Calvinists were doing a new translation you'd find out that they were gay-friendly or Obama-supporters or social-justice-obsessed or some other thing you would find equally distasteful.

Calvinists pretty much hold the line on conservative intellectual Christianity right now for better or worse.

Robert Picirilli, Vic Reasoner, Jack Cottrell, Michael Brown........shall I keep on? ..........looks like you want to argue, instead of discuss the ESV and its merits, or lack thereof, and/or why calvinists are falling all over themselves to get one. (if you thought I was baiting folks, I'm not)

Your last sentence is simply not true, I would agree that "many" calvinists do, but they certainly are not by themselves, in fact far from it!

just sayin...........