Sunday, June 05, 2011

The Inverse Danvers Statement

I find this to be very cleverly done. I know it may seem to be ridiculing this belief, but I hope that it is not seen as cruel, but just as an alternative look at how scripture could be selected and prioritized. No sin in that, surely.

However, I am not sure if one very important verse is used to advantage. 1 Tim. 5:14, says, in the most literal translation possible,
"I am minded, therefore, that the younger ones marry, bear children, be head of the house, - giving no single occasion, unto the opposer, as a cause of reviling;" (adapted from Rotherham)
Here is the inverse Danvers Statement, and here is the original Danvers Statement.

4 comments:

Charis said...

Among the elite of complementarian authorities, listed under "Board of Reference" of the Danvers Statement, none other than John MacArthur himself acknowledges the wife as ruler of the household:

QUOTE John MacArthur:
That is part of the "oikodespotes" (Greek) when it says in 1 Timothy 5:14, "that the woman is to be the ruler of the house," or in Titus, chapter two, that she is to be "the ruler of the house." Source: http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0109.htm

I don't agree with everything JM preaches, but he nailed that point!

:)

Don said...

That inverse DS is brilliant!

Retha said...

Thank you, Suzanne, for linking my blog. My site hits increased greatly because of this. And thank you, Don.

Retha said...

Several people reached my site main page today from your blog, but your link does not go directly where they would want to go. Here, for those looking for it, is the Inverse statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/the-inverse-statement-on-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/