Thinking to Believe

I explore the last two possible interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34-35, namely the view that Paul is prohibiting women from engaging in theological discussion/debate in the church, and the view that Paul is prohibiting women from engaging in the judgment of prophetic utterances.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr:...

I explored two more possible interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34-35: (1) the cultural/circumstantial view; (2) the absolute silence view. I argued that the cultural/circumstantial views cannot explain all that we see in the text, and we would have to believe that Paul prohibits all women from speaking due to the sins of a few. We would also have to ignore Paul’s rationale for this. He said it was shame...

After dealing with possible understandings of Paul's reference to "the Law," I examined two interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34-35: (1) The interpolation view which holds that these verses are not Pauline, but were added to the text by a scribe early in the text's history; (2) The quote and refute view which holds that verses 34-35 reflect the Corinthians' point of view, not Pa...

Did an extended recap of what I covered for 1 Tim 2, and then began my discussion of 1 Cor 14:33-35. I concluded: 1. Paul's teaching pertains to public worship. 2. "As in all the churches of the saints" in 33b is the start of the sentence that continues in v.34, and thus it's clear that Paul is not talking about a local circumstance but a universal church practice.  3. Paul is...

I focus on Paul's second reason for prohibiting a woman from teaching or exercising authority over a man, namely the fact that it was Eve - not Adam - who was deceived by the devil.  While Eve was the first to sinn, Adam was held responsible for the fall of mankind because of his headship role, showing that headship and submission were part of creation, not a result of the fall.  I argue agai...

I examine 1 Tim 2:13, where Paul provides his first reason for permitting women from teaching or exercising authority over males, namely creation order. Man was created first, then Eve, and thus Eve was created in a place of submission to Adam. Paul's reason was rooted in Scripture, not culture or historical circumstance. I demonstrate why a number of egalitarian attempts to make Paul's...

I explore the two things Paul did not prohibit women from doing in 1 Tim 2:12 - teaching and exercising authority. I show why the egalitarian claim that "exercise authority" is talking about an abuse of authority is mistaken.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Truth: @ThinkingToBeli...

I begin my examination of the most important NT text on this topic: 1 Tim 2:11-14. I look at the meaning of "silence" and "subjection" in verse 11, and then start my exegesis of verse 12 by exploring two things: (1) Does the fact that Paul said "I do not permit" mean his teaching is not binding?; (2) Is Paul's teaching for husbands and wives in particular, or men...

Is the role of pastors and teacher open to women, or has God ordained that these roles be occupied by men? In this episode, I define the positions, define some key Biblical terminology, and clarify what the debate is about. Finally, I provide three key observations about 1 Tim 2:11-14 and 1 Cor 14:33-35 that will help us properly interpret Paul's meaning.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: Th...

To even ask the question is heretical to feminism and an affront to some very recent Christian traditions, but the question is not what we think should be true or would like to be true. It's what Scripture teaches. In this 1-N-Done, I argue that 1 Tim 2:11-14 and 1 Cor 14:33-35 clearly prohibit women from occupying these roles. There are many ways in which women can be used by God, but pastor...

I finish up my examination of difficult OT passages and start with the NT teaching that women are "weaker vessels" and should submit to their husbands as unto Christ. In the process, I show why the doctrine of "mutual submission" is not Biblical.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinkin...

After looking at a variety of texts where women are given important roles and spoken of favorably, I looked at a number of difficult OT texts: --God's word to Eve that her husband would rule over her --The jealousy trial --Coveting your neighbor's wife --Levirate marriage --Marrying one's rapist --The bride price --The treatment of women POWs Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: Thinki...

Is the God of the Bible sexist and misogynistic? No, He’s no feminist either. After critiquing feminist ideology, I demonstrate that the Bible teaches women are equal to men in dignity and spiritual status. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I look at the NT data regarding slavery to wrap up my discussion on the Biblical view of slavery. The NT teaches that our spiritual status is more important than our earthly social status. In Christ, there is neither slave nor free. While Paul encouraged those who could obtain their freedom to do so, what mattered more was their spiritual status as slaves of Jesus Christ (true of free men as well)...

There are really two institutions of slavery in the OT: one for Israelites, and one for foreigners. The last episode explained the former institution, while this podcast explains the latter. I explain how they were different. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve Parler:...

Did you know the Bible regulates slavery rather than condemn it? How can a good God allow something as immoral as slavery? In this episode, I look at the OT data, specifically the OT teaching regarding Hebrew slaves. I argue that the kind of slavery allowed in the OT is vastly different from the kind of slavery most of us think of today. The purpose of slavery was different, how slaves were obtain...

I demonstrate that the commands to devote the Canaanites to destruction are hyperbolic rather than literal, explain why God can (but we cannot) kill anyone He wants, ask whether women and children were killed in the Conquest, and compare the Conquest to Islamic jihad.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @think...

Critics have claimed the Conquest of Canaan is an example of divinely commanded genocide or ethnic cleansing. I argue that the rationale for the Conquest had nothing to do with race or ethnicity, and is not an example of genocide. It’s an example of mass judgment for gross immorality. I also explain how Israel had a historical claim to the land, God waited patiently for the Canaanites to repent be...

Many think the God of the OT is harsh and judgmental, while the God of the NT is gracious and loving. Is the God of the OT different than the God of the NT? Did God reform Himself between the testaments? No. I demonstrate that we find a God of love and justice in both testaments.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & G...

Christians and Jews believe the God of the Bible is morally good. Many non-believers, however, think otherwise. They claim the God of Christianity is morally evil, and thus no god at all. So is the Biblical God the epitome of moral perfection, or a moral monster? I introduce this new sub-series and provide some guiding principles to help us understand difficult Biblical issues. Web: ThinkingtoBeli...

I finished my thoughts on how Christians can deal with the emotional problem of evil, which wraps up this sub-series on the problem of evil. I explored the different purposes God has for evil, give some perspective in light of eternity and the cross, and God's plan for ultimately solving the problem of evil.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com...

Evil brings with it suffering and emotional pain. How are we to deal with this? I contrast the atheist worldview with the Christian worldview on this matter.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I’ve offered a theodicy for moral evil, but what about natural evil? Why does God allow for suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, and accidents?  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I wrap up my examination of the Free Will Defense and conclude that it succeeds. In the course of the discussion I explore why believers will not sin in heaven. I present two different explanations that Christians have offered, and reasons for preferring one over the other.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr:...

In the last episode, I offered the Free Will Defense (FWD) as an explanation for why God might allow evil: God cannot create free creatures who are unable to choose evil. The example of God, however, calls this logic into question. He is free, and yet He cannot sin. Is the FWD cooked, or is there a reason why God cannot - but we can - choose evil?  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelie...