11/16/15

From Mark Copeland... Homosexuality A Christian Perspective What Causes Homosexuality?


Homosexuality

A Christian Perspective

What Causes Homosexuality?
Why should Christians be concerned about what causes homosexuality? A proper understanding will help in several ways...
  • Remove some of the "homophobia" that many Christians have because of something they do not understand.
  • Gain appreciation for the extremely difficult challenge that one who is homosexual will face should he or she try to repent.
This will in turn help us to have the compassion and longsuffering necessary if we will be able to help those who wish to repent of their homosexuality.
Before looking at the specific causes of homosexuality, some general comments...

NATURE OR NURTURE? OR PERHAPS SOME OF BOTH?

There is much controversy going on as to whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental in origin. Homosexuals are desperately looking for any evidence that would seem to confirm that they were "born homosexuals." It should be easy to understand why, for if "God made them that way" then it is not their fault they are homosexual and it must not be a sin to act out their desires. So any research that might suggest a genetic origin is quickly offered as a defense. But the vested interest that homosexuals have often prevent them (and more "liberal thinking" heterosexuals) from seeing the obvious.
For example, recent studies done with identical twins have been offered by some as evidence that the origins of homosexuality might be in the genes. In one study, Dr. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University examined 110 pairs of identical twins who had been separated at birth and raised in different environments. He found that if one was gay there was a 52% chance the other was also. But among fraternal twins, the chance fell to 22%. Because the ratio was higher among twins who are genetically identical, this study has been referred to by many as evidence that homosexuality is genetic in origin. I even heard Dr. Dean Edell (a famous radio call-in doctor) appeal to this study in defense of homosexuality.
I may be missing something here, but the reason why identical twins are such fascinating subjects of scientific study is because they ARE alike genetically. Therefore, if homosexuality is solely genetic in origin, then if one twin is gay, you would expect the chances of the other twin being gay to be 100%! The fact that only 52% of those who were identical in genetic makeup to their homosexual twin were gay themselves would strongly suggest that genetics alone does not make one homosexual.
This study would rather confirm that though there may be genetic factors that increase the likelihood of one becoming a homosexual, these genetic factors alone do not produce homosexuality (as in the case of 48% of those heterosexuals whose identical twin was homosexual). There must also be environmental factors for homosexuality to develop.
This study confirms my understanding that the cause of homosexuality is a highly complex combination of various factors, some genetic and some environmental, that make it much easier for some people to become entrapped in this particualar sin. In this regard, it is not much different than alcoholism, where similar studies involving identical twins have shown similar results. All it confirms is that there may be some people with a genetic likelihood of developing a "predisposition" toward such things as homosexuality and alcoholism, but it requires the addition of environmental factors to produce the actual homosexual or alcoholic.

WHAT CAUSES HOMOSEXUALITY

I strongly recommend a book called "THE UNHAPPY GAYS: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality" by Tim LaHaye (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton Illinois, 1978) to gain a good insight into the factors that lead to the development of homosexuality. In his chapter on "What Causes Homosexuality?" Tim LaHaye first describes...
The Components For Developing A Predisposition To Homosexuality
Please carefully note that the components listed below DO NOT CAUSE ONE TO BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL. Rather, they can contribute to the development of a PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALITY. A person can (and many do) have all these components and still not be a homosexual. As listed and describe by LaHaye, these components include:
  1. A Melancholy Temperament
  2. Inadequate Parental Relationships
  3. Permissive Childhood Training
  4. Insecurity About Sexual Identity
  5. Childhood Sexual Trauma
  6. Early Interest In Sex
  7. Youthful Masturbator And Sexual Fantasizer
  8. Childhood Associates And Peer Pressure
LaHaye carefully documents how studies have often found these factors present in the development of a predisposition towards homosexuality. Only the first ("A Melancholy Temperament") is truly related to genetics, but many of the others are environmental factors that can occur so early in the development of a child that one could easily believe that once a predisposition towards homosexuality has developed they feel they must have been "born that way."
But even if one has a "predisposition" towards homosexuality, they are not necessarily homosexual. As LaHaye continues to illustrate, to a "predisposition" must be added other factors. He describes this as...
The Formula For Producing A Homosexual
This formula can be illustrated in this way:
A Predisposition
Toward Homosexuality
Plus
That First
Homosexual Experience
Multiplied By
Pleasurable and Positive
Homosexual Thoughts
To Which Is Added
More Homosexual
Experiences
Multiplied By
More Pleasurable
Thoughts
---------------------------
A Homosexual
When one already has a "predisposition" towards homosexuality, exposure to homosexual experiences and pleasurably reflecting upon them can create a powerful attraction difficult to overcome. So powerful can these experiences and reflections be that one not even need to have developed a "predisposition" to be drawn into this sort of behavior. This is why many who were not born with the "melancholy temperament" are also found in homosexual circles.

Conclusion

My purpose in this section has not been to provide a definitive treatment on how homosexuality develops, and I seriously doubt that what has been briefly covered will convince any homosexual that their "orientation" is primarily caused by environmental factors rather than genetic ones.
My hope is to help my brothers and sisters in Christ see that the "web" of homosexuality is one that involves more than a simple choice on the part of those entrapped. Like all those overcome by sin, it involves a complicated process, one which can be overcome only with Divine help, together with the assistance of understanding and patience on the part of children of God!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

The Five Manifestations of Natural Phenomena by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=751

The Five Manifestations of Natural Phenomena

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

For over a century, scientists have recognized that all natural phenomena in the Universe can ultimately be divided into interactions between five basic, fundamental “manifestations.” In 1882, staunch evolutionist Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher, biologist, and sociologist who was a prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era, recognized “likenesses and unlikenesses among phenomena…, which are segregated into manifestations…, and then into space and time,matter and motion and force…” (Soylent Communications, 2011, emp. added). In First Principles, under the chapter heading, “Space, Time, Matter, Motion, and Force,” he wrote, “These modes of cohesion under which manifestations are invariably presented, and therefore invariably represented, we call…Space and Time,…Matter and Motion [action—JM]” (1882, 1:171, emp. added). “Though Space, Time, Matter, and Motion, are apparently all necessary data of intelligence, yet a psychological analysis…shows us that these are either built up of, or abstracted from, experiences of Force” (p. 169). So, time, force, action, space, and matter are the five manifestations of all scientific phenomena.
This truth—fundamental to understanding science—was articulated by an agnostic in the 19th century, and yet these fundamental principles were articulated in the very first verse of the Bible millennia ago. “In the beginning [time], God [force] created [action] the heavens [space] and the Earth [matter].” It is truly amazing that a renowned apostle of agnosticism would be the one to verbally articulate this discovery from science—a discovery which gives significant weight to the contention that one can know there is a God and that the Bible is His inspired Word. And further, it is notably ironic that the very man from whom Charles Darwin took the phrase, “survival of the fittest” (Spencer, 1864, 2:444), would be the man that unknowingly found evidence specifically supporting the inspiration of Genesis chapter one—the very chapter of the Bible that relates the truth about man’s origin. Acts 14:17 rightly says, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good…” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Soylent Communications (2011), “Herbert Spencer,” NNDB: Tracking the Entire World, http://www.nndb.com/people/013/000094728/.
Spencer, Herbert (1882), First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy (New York: D. Appleton and Company), fourth edition.
Spencer, Herbert (1864), Principles of Biology: A System of Synthetic Philosophy (London: Williams and Norgate).

Pope Francis Claims God Will Save Atheists by Kyle Butt, M.A.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4667

Pope Francis Claims God Will Save Atheists

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 Pope Francis conducted Mass in Rome. During that service, he made one of the most memorable and astonishing statements ever spoken by anyone who calls himself a Christian. The theme of his sermon was that all humans should do good deeds for others. In the course of the talk he stated:
The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! “Father, the atheists?” Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. “But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!” But do good: we will meet one another there (“Pope at Mass...,” 2013, emp. added).
The Pope’s statement highlights two very important issues. First, it shows how far the Pope and the Catholic Church have fallen from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus explained to the first-century Jews: “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). His point could not have been more clear: acceptance of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is required for salvation. That is why Jesus told His apostles: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Furthermore, the inspired apostle Paul explained that Jesus Christ is coming “from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8, emp. added). John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, boldly stated: “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Make no mistake, neither Jesus nor His inspired apostles ever once hinted at the possibility that people who do not believe in God will be saved. They will not. Revelation 21:8 explains: “But the cowardly,unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral…shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (emp. added).
The second issue evident in Francis’ statement is the fact that pressure from the unbelieving community is mounting. As the number of unbelievers gradually increases, so does the temptation to appease them and attempt to bend the truth to ingratiate one’s self or organization with unbelievers. As Christians—followers of Jesus Christ—we must resist this tempation at all cost. Yes, praise God, Jesus’ blood is powerful enough to redeem unbelievers, if and only if, those unbelievers turn to Him with humble hearts, confess that He is God’s son, and obey the Gospel (Lyons and Butt, n.d.). Barring that response, unbelievers can look forward to nothing in the afterlife except a “certain fearful expectation of judgment” (Hebrews 10:27).

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (No Date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation, Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf.
“Pope at Mass: Culture of Encounter Is the Foundation of Peace” (2013), Vatican Radio, http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445.

Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620

Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Science is supposed to be observation-based, according to the National Academy of Sciences. “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). The evolutionary community openly advocates this idea—at least, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of its baseless atheistic evolutionary presuppositions. Directed panspermia is a relatively recent example of evolutionists’ brazen contradiction of their own “observation and experiment” rule.
If there is no God, as the atheist claims, then how did life originate? Did it spontaneously generate? More and more scientists are conceding that there’s just too much scientific evidence against abiogenesis for it to be palatable. After all, even the evolution-based biology and life science textbooks openly admit that the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi disproved abiogenesis (e.g., Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, pp. 36-37;National Geographic…, et al., 2005, p. 19; Miller and Levine, 2006, pp. 12-13). But if life did not create itself, it had to come from somewhere, and the atheist “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (Lewontin, 1997, p. 31). So, where is he left? Outer space?
That is precisely what many in the evolutionary community are hoping for. Some, like distinguished British astronomer Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales, realizing that the import of the Law of Biogenesis cannot be ignored (see Miller, 2012a), have jettisoned abiogenesis theory in support of the alien seed theory, or “directed panspermia.” This theory speculates that life did not spontaneously generate on Earth, but rather was brought here by alien life forms 3.8 billion years ago and evolutionary development has since been directed by them (“Professor’s Alien Life…,” 2010; Hoyle, et al., 1984). Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, who co-discovered the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, suggested that life was sent here from other planets as well (1981). Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, believes that aliens almost certainly exist, but believes humans should be leery about making contact with them, since they may raid our resources. According to him, we should use everything in our power to avoid contact. He said, “If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans” (“Stephen Hawking Warns…,” 2010). Some have suggested that life simply fell to Earth from space after having evolved from the warm, wet nucleus of a comet (see Gribbin, 1981; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981). [NOTE: We have addressed this idea elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 2012b).] In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, well-known British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Oxford University’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008, said concerning the possibility of intelligent design:
It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that, if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some kind of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe (Stein and Miller, 2008).
So, according to Dawkins, there could be a designer, and we could find evidence of that designer in the “details of our chemistry.” Does that sound familiar? It should. That is one of the fundamental arguments theists have made for centuries in support of the existence of God—the Teleological Argument. There is clear design in the Universe, and design demands a designer.
Ultimately, since there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, there can hardly be any evidence for their establishing life on Earth. Such an idea can hardly be in keeping with the evolutionist’s own beliefs about the importance of direct observation and experiment in science. Such a theory does nothing but tacitly admit (1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis—in nature, life comes only from life; and (2) the necessity of a creator/designer in the equation—in this case, aliens.
However, notice: since aliens are beings of nature, they too must be governed by the laws of nature. Dawkins went on to say, “But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously” (Stein and Miller, 2008). So, the alien creators, according to Dawkins, have been strapped with the laws of nature as well. Thus, the problem of abiogenesis is merely shifted to the alien’s abode, where the question of the origin of life must still be answered. No wonder evolutionary astrophysicist and astronomy journalist, Stuart Clark, rejects the alien seed theory. Writing in New Scientist, Clark stated that its probability is so “remote,” it should be left aside (2008, 199[2675]:30). Bottom line: A Being not governed by the laws of nature is needed to initiate life, according to the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible, a book containing supernatural characteristics, tells us Who that Being is. [NOTE: SeeThompson, 2004 for more on the question of extraterrestrial life.]

REFERENCES

Clark, Stuart (2008), “Where Did Life Come From?” New Scientist, 199[2675]:30-31, September 27.
Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005), Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).
Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Gribbin, John (1981), “Of a Comet Born,” Science Digest, 89[3]:14, April.
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1984), Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.
Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Miller, Jeff (2012b), “Space: The Womb of Life?” Reason & Revelation, 32[6]:62-64, June,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1032.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine (2006), Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
National Geographic Education Division, Lucy Daniel, Peter Rillero, Alton Biggs, Edward Ortleb, and Dinah Zike (2005), Life Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe).
“Professor’s Alien Life ‘Seed’ Theory Claimed” (2010), BBC News, February 1,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/8491398.stm.
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).
“Stephen Hawking Warns Over Making Contact with Aliens” (2010), BBC News, April 25,http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science(1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
Thompson, Bert (2004), “Is There Intelligent Life in Outer Space?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1129.

Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5007

Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In little more than half a century, American culture has experienced a massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards. One facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values has been dramatically altered gender roles. The feminist agenda has penetrated the American social landscape. Indeed, the onset of the feminist movement in the turbulent 1960s sparked a significant adjustment of societal norms resulting in the transformation of virtually every sphere of American culture—from the home and the church to the business world and beyond. Women now routinely serve in historically male capacities, including the military, politics, sports, and a host of community services including fire, police, ambulance, etc.
Make no mistake, a number of changes with regard to gender have emerged that may be deemed beneficial and positive. Nevertheless, the overall impact on American civilization has been negative, and the erosion of femininity has ushered in a host of evils that are hastening America’s moral implosion (e.g., abortion and homosexuality). Concomitant with the effort to eradicate gender differentiation has been the degradation of masculinity and the restructuring of the family unit (the fundamental building block of humanity—Genesis 1:27; 2:24). As womanhood has been devalued and her function altered, the rest of society has suffered dramatically. After all, women inevitably exert a profound influence on culture and society—for good or ill. Virtuous femininity is the glue that holds human civilization together. In the words of American poet William Ross Wallace’s immortal poem, “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Rules the World” (1865). Sadly for America, feminism has overturned the rocker, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, punched Dad in the face, and stomped away from the house in a huff.

THE BIBLE STILL HAS THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE

Amid this polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who wish to conform to Bible protocol and those who wish to modernize, update, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say we are the product of a male-dominated society and have consequently misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.
The underlying catalyst for this social turmoil, and resulting gender confusion, has been the rejection of the Bible as the authentic Word of the divine Being Who created the Universe and humans. Even among those who continue to profess their allegiance to Christianity, large numbers have capitulated to political correctness and abandoned the traditional, i.e., biblical, depiction of gender roles as defined by the Creator. In their quest to maintain relevance among the shifting sands of secular culture, they have imbibed the spirit of the age, been infected by humanistic philosophy, and consequently have compromised the clear teaching of Scripture on the role of women (cf. “Gender Inclusive…,” 2013; “Believe It…,” 2006; Pauls, 2013; “The Role of…,” 2006; Stirman, 2010).
As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as engaging in “fresh scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is guilty of prejudice and being unduly influenced by “Church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of American society?
Nevertheless, Bible teaching on this subject is not that difficult to ascertain. Recent attempts to redefine gender roles fall flat, not only before a sensible assessment of relevant Bible passages on the subject, but in the face of the 2,000 year history of Christianity which has, for the most part, demonstrated a generally accurate grasp of the basic parameters of God’s will on this matter. Such has certainly been true in America where the Founders and 18th century men and women embraced the Christian worldview, and believed that “family integrity was indispensable for the public safety and happiness” (West, 1997, p. 85).

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of the relevant biblical texts in one article is impossible. However, God’s Word is essentially simple on any significant subject in the Bible [NOTE: For useful discussions see Hicks and Morton, 1978; Piper and Grudem, 1991; Cottrell, 1992; Highers, 1991; Laws, 1994; Warren, 1975; Miller, 1994; Miller, 1996.] In fact, it is the more recently emerging “scholars” with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (e.g., Osburn, 1993). Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). Is such a cavalier attitude to be allowed to so easily dismiss the historical and biblical distinction between the sexes? The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.

1 Corinthians

Chapters 11 and 14 of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men. [NOTE: The equality of male and female in Galatians 3:28 pertains to salvation status, not role.] Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter 14. In chapter 11, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.
The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an authoritative act of leadership. They recognized that to wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated explicitly in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted in the created ordernot culture. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).
Later in the same context (in chapter 14), Paul addresses further the confusion over spiritual gifts and returns specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasizes the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence.” Cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word, and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).
Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters 11 and 14 address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts are no longer available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see Miller, 2003a), and veils, in Western society, are no longer a cultural symbol of female submission (see Miller, 2003b; cf. Moore, 1998). Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.

1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).
The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.
In this passage, Paul affirms that adult males (andras) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech, metonymy, in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth from holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus on appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast framed in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text. Authentein should be translated “to have (or exercise) authority” (NKJV, ESV, NIV, RSV, NASB). Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.
Why? Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment, stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum, until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not. The Holy Spirit gives the reason for the limitations, and that reason transcends all culture and all locales. Paul states that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because Adam was created before Eve. Here we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate. But what does the chronological priority of Adam have to do with the interrelationship of male and female?

Grounded in Creation—Not Culture

Paul is saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male first as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate—though not inferior—assistant. God could have created the woman first, but He did not. He could have created both male and female simultaneously,but He did not. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.
This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created to be “an help meet for him,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that in a unique sense, the woman was created for the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating “the woman whom You gave to be with me” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued in the Corinthian letter on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of naming the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evidenced by the practice of primogeniture—the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man first was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission arrangement of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).
Observe that Paul next elaborates on this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with and act in violation of divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.
God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership, thereby circumventing the divine arrangement of male-female relations.
Paul concludes his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God, undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).
Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11 suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church—but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek worddiakonos, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.
The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office is under consideration.
In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all non-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.
Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. “Our sister” designates her church membership and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.
Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2 translated “help” implies a technical usage. It is true that prostatis can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that diakonos does in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.
Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (paristemi) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine nounprostates can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun prostatis means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.
The second passage that some have appealed to in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since gunaikas (from gune) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy: “female” in 2:9-12,14 and “wife” in 3:2,12; 5:9.
Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in a discussion of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual to switch in the middle to female deacons for one verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could simply mean that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with gunaikas (“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).
Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two ministrae (female ministers). This term has the same ambiguity within it that diakonos has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).
Not until the late third century in the Syrian Didascalia do we find reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women would hardly be content with such tasks.
Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.
The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.

UNEQUAL OR INFERIOR?

A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women are often superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of all human beings to the will of God (Ephesians 5:21). It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing am I to fit myself into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

The role of gender, like most of the values of Western civilization, is in the throes of confusion and redefinition. Those who resist unbiblical redefinitions are considered tradition-bound, narrow-minded, chauvinistic misogynists, as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters; as if the Bible has been misunderstood all these years. If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them tosurpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today.
Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible will remain unaffected by and disinterested in the teaching of the Bible regarding gender. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words we will be judged (John 12:48). For those who respect the Bible as the Word of God, Bible teaching is fatal to the notion of female leadership in the church and home. May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of Heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
“Believe It Or Not” (2006), Christianity: Then and Now, ed. John Waddey, 5[11], July,http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com/PDF/CTN%20July%2006.pdf.
Cottrell, Jack (1992), Feminism and the Bible (Joplin, MO: College Press).
“Gender Inclusive and Egalitarian Churches in the Church of Christ Heritage” (2013),http://www.wherethespiritleads.org/gender_inclusive_churches.htm.
Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal, 6 NS, 38-59.
Hicks, John, and Bruce Morton (1978), Woman’s Role in the Church (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House).
Highers, Alan, ed., (1991), “Role of Women in the Church,” The Spiritual Sword, 22[2], January.
Laws, Jim, ed. (1994), Women To The Glory of God (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ).
Lewis, Jack (1988), Exegesis of Difficult Passages (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).
Miller, Dave (1994), “An Exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (Part 1) & (Part 2),” The Restorer, 14[3]:12-16 & 14[4]:9-14, March & April.
Miller, Dave (1996), “Feminist Attitudes Toward the Bible,” The Spiritual Sword, 27[2]:3-6, January.
Miller, Dave (2003a), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0303b.htm.
Miller, Dave (2003b), “Veils, Footwashing, and the Holy Kiss,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1275&topic=379.
Moore, Kevin (1998), We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui, NZ: Kevin Moore).
Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993), Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Osburn, Carroll (1994), Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
Pauls, Dale (2013), “Good news!: Naomi Walters Named Minister in Residence at Stamford Church of Christ,” Reflections on Announcement, July 7, http://gal328.org/category/good-news/.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. (1991), Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books).
“The Role of Women in the Church” (2006), Cole Mill Road Church of Christ,http://www.colemillroad.org/.
Stirman, Sarah (2010), “Women in the Church: Moving Toward Equality,” Abilene Report-News, February 25, http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/25/women-in-the-church-moving-toward-equality/
Wallace, William Ross (1865), “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World,” Poets’ Corner, http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/wallace1.html.
Warren, Thomas, ed. (1975), “Woman—In the View of God,” The Spiritual Sword, 6[4], July.
West, Thomas (1997), Vindicating the Founders (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).
Woods, Guy N. (1986), Questions and Answers: Volume Two (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Why Didn't Adam Die Immediately? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=797&b=Genesis

Why Didn't Adam Die Immediately?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Garden of Eden, the Lord delivered a single, solemn prohibition to man. God commanded Adam saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17, emp. added). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil that stood in the midst of the Garden was off limits to Adam and Eve. God prophesied that disobedience on their part would bring death “in the day” it was eaten. However, the Genesis text does not reveal an instantaneous physical death on the part of the first sinners. Adam lived a total of 930 years (Genesis 5:5), and the text indicates that most of those occurred after the transgression in the Garden of Eden (see Thompson, 2002, pp. 44-46). Is such consistent with Genesis 2:16-17? Was God mistaken in saying, “in the day that you eat of it [the fruit—EL] you shall surely die”? Why is it that Adam did not drop dead the very day he ate the forbidden fruit?
For Genesis 2:17 to represent a legitimate contradiction, one first would have to assume that the phrase “in the day…you shall surely die” must refer to an immediate death occurring on the very day a certain transgression has taken place. The available evidence shows, however, that the Hebrew idiom bªyôm (“in the day”) means the certainty of death, and not the immediacy of it. For example, King Solomon once warned a subversive Shimei: “For it shall be, on the day (bªyôm) you go out and cross the Brook Kidron, know for certain you shall surely die; your blood shall be on your own head” (1 Kings 2:37, emp. added). As the next few verses indicate, Shimei could not have been executed on the exact day he crossed the Brook Kidron. Solomon did not call for him until after Shimei had saddled his donkey, went to king Achish at Gath, sought and retrieved his slaves, and returned home (approximately a 50-60 mile round trip). It is logical to conclude that this would have taken more than just one day (especially considering a donkey’s average journey was only about 20 miles a day—Cansdale, 1996, p. 38). It was only after Shimei’s return from Gath that King Solomon reminded him of his promise saying, “Did I not make you swear by the Lord, and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you go out and travel anywhere, you shall surely die?’ ” (1 Kings 2:42, emp. added). Solomon understood that even though he executed Shimei sometime after the day he crossed Brook Kidron, it still was proper to refer to it as occurring “on the day.” As Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton noted, this phrase (in Genesis 2:17, 1 Kings 2:37,42, and Exodus 10:28ff.) “is underscoring the certainty of death, not its chronology” (1990, p. 172). Thus, it is logical to conclude that when God said, “in the day…you shall surely die,” He did not mean Adam would die on the exact day of his transgression, but that his death would be certain if he ate of the forbidden fruit.
A second problem with the skeptic’s assertion that Genesis 2:17 contradicts 5:5 is that it assumes the “death” mentioned in 2:17 is a physical death. The Bible, however, describes three different kinds of “deaths”: (1) a physical death which ends our life on earth (Genesis 35:18); (2) a spiritual death which is separation from God (Isaiah 59:1-2; Ephesians 2:1); and (3) an eternal death in hell (Revelation 21:8). The fact is, one cannot know for sure which death is indicated by the phrase, “for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die.” Realizing that Adam sinned against the Almighty in the Garden and became “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1; cf. 1 Timothy 5:6), it is possible that the death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is a spiritual death. If this is the case, the reason Adam did not physically drop dead on the very day of his transgression was because God’s prophecy was referring to a spiritual death, not a physical one.
When Adam chose to follow his own desires instead of God’s will, he cut himself off from God. Without a doubt, man perished spiritually on that day. But, equally certain is the fact that God’s punishment for that sin was a physical death—a death that would occur centuries later. Exactly which death God meant in his prophecy is uncertain. (Perhaps He was referring to both.) Whichever is the case, we can be sure that no contradiction exists.

REFERENCES

Cansdale, G.S. (1996), “Animals of the Bible,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Hamilton, Victor, (1990), The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Thompson, Bert (2002), “Questions and Answers—A Matter of Time,” Reason & Revelation, 22:41-48, June.