tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post5396059910552028633..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Complementarianism and plain senseSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-32684570359511662292008-12-29T09:39:00.000-08:002008-12-29T09:39:00.000-08:00But the only preaching I have heard from complemen...But the only preaching I have heard from complementarians is that we should believe in a complementarian hierarchy of roles because they believe that that is what the plain sense of Scripture teaches.<BR/><BR/>11:06 PM<BR/><BR/>But this can only be done by ignoring other contradictory scriptures to that view. Perhaps it is not so much a plain sense reading as it is 'selective' reading.<BR/><BR/>I still cannot understand the 'plain' sense of scripture in reading that a woman is saved through childbearing. A 'plain' sense reading of this verse would negate Salvation though Faith alone. Then we are told that childbearing is related to our 'roles' and sanctification. Which of course, again ignores many other scriptures.Linhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04723395060585207854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-68783658125451216842008-12-29T09:05:00.000-08:002008-12-29T09:05:00.000-08:00suzanne--i think your distinctions between motivat...suzanne--<BR/><BR/>i think your distinctions between motivation and justification are at the root of this complementarian issue. they are often presented as the same thing when in deed they are not. when they are congruent, or close to it, the idea expressed is highest in integrity, i think. when they are far apart, the idea is what harry frankfurt would call 'bullshit.' seems most applicable to theology and politics, this deliberate discontinuity between motivation and justification.<BR/><BR/>peace--<BR/><BR/>scottscott grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334188123201041182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-13009179461860063712008-12-28T23:55:00.000-08:002008-12-28T23:55:00.000-08:00Wayne, There is a difference between motivation an...Wayne, <BR/><BR/>There is a difference between motivation and justification. I believe that you highlight justification. <BR/><BR/>Motivation is more likely,<BR/><BR/>- comfort with what we know, as John says <BR/>- reluctance to give up entitlement<BR/>- justification for how one has already lived one's life so far<BR/>- desire to have one fixed rule of life<BR/><BR/>I agree, Wayne, that you express one perspective on this very complex issue. John presents a different perspective. They are both valid opinions and do not conflict in my view.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-78697093783832715062008-12-28T23:06:00.000-08:002008-12-28T23:06:00.000-08:00The basic premise is that Christians are not compl...<I>The basic premise is that Christians are not complementarians primarily because of the plain sense teaching of scripture. I would agree with this. There are other reasons.</I><BR/><BR/>I suspect that John is right, but the point I want to make in <A HREF="http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/why-complementarianism-is-compelling/" REL="nofollow">my post</A> to which John was responding is that the complementarians I have known consider the "plain sense" of Scripture to be their strongest argument for complementarianism. In actual fact, they may promote other arguments higher, such as those John has mentioned. But the only preaching I have heard from complementarians is that we should believe in a complementarian hierarchy of roles because they believe that that is what the plain sense of Scripture teaches.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.com