My teaching pastor is doing a 7 month course over this book as part of my church's leadership development program. We read several chapters, and discuss for two hours every week.

We are one week in, and I am already amazed. We only covered the introduction and classroom format / rules, and I'm anticipating great things, from both the book and the class, and I thank God for a church that pours into it's members and leaders like this.

I'm reading, taking notes, and discussing for no reason other than growth in my faith in God, and the opportunity to lead others in their faith. It feels like I'm in college again, but without any tests!

Random, I know, but I wanted to share my excitement over this blessing with yall. If you have read the book, or are interested in it, then keep up with this thread.

quote:

---

Though I have found immense help in Dr. Grudem's book over the past months, I have post-poned a review in order to get a complete reading of it first. Now that I have read it all, I can say that this may be the best systematic theology written in the 20th century.
Dr. Grudem combines theological insight, practical application, and faithful exegesis of Scripture with simple, uncomplicated language and clear thinking. The result? The most readable and informative Systematic Theology one could desire. Every chapter starts with a question and ends with application questions and a hymn! Education is turned into exaltation over and over again as Grudem moves you from deep thinking to appropriate feeling about the greatest truths in the universe.

The arrangement of topics is typical. Grudem covers the doctrine of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, and last things. Like any book of this magnitude, it has strengths and weaknesses. But the strengths are more than the weaknesses. The section on theology proper (the doctrine of God) is outstanding. Grudem's explanation of the Trinity is very helpful avoiding both modalism and arianism. His treatment of God's character and attributes is especially good, arguing strongly against the "open" view of God and process theology.

The chapters on Creation and Providence are also very well-done containing lengthy Scriptural arguments for his position. His soteriology is Reformed and not much different than you would get from Berkhof or Murray. Still good, though.

Grudem spends much time discussing the Holy Spirit (though the chapters are scattered around the book and not in one section)and especially the church. His understanding of the nature of the church is excellent avoiding denominationalism, yet affirming a very Biblically-grounded argument for plural elders governing a congregational church. He is baptistic in polity, though not dogmatic on the issue. He believes that charismatic gifts are still current in the church today, but is wary of extremes. Whether one agrees with Grudem or not on this issue, he should be read, because he approaches the subject from a scholarly standpoint with supreme concern for the text of Scripture. One can't afford to neglect his arguments in forming their opinions (I still somewhat unsettled on many questions relating to this and so do not write from a bias.)

On last things, Grudem defends historic premillenialism and presents some thoughtful arguments to both amillenialism and dispensational pre-tribulation premillenialists. He should be read here. But again, he proceeds with caution.

The weakest chapter of the book is the one on the Atonement. Although Grudem provides some excellent scholarship on the question of Christ's "descent into hell" here, there is a lack of depth in his treatment of this most glorious doctrine. Berkhof and Gill are better.

Overall this is an excellent book. It's greatest strength is its textual basis. Grudem's chief concern is to be Scriptural and for the most part he succeeds well. You don't have to be a theologian to read this book. But you will become a theologian if you do.

---

when you finish maybe you can teach me what the big words mean.

I spent a summer in Scottsdale and attended the church where he teaches a sunday school class. Myself and my friends were the only people under age 50 in his class. The younger people really have no idea who he is.

I thought his teaching was fairly good, and centered on the Bible. That being said, I haven't read systematic theology, so I don't know that much about it.

good book, especially for small group discussion. there's some curriculum that has been developed that is for small group discussion. i've got it saved somewhere, but i can't remember who put it out.

Grudem:

quote:

---

On Women Preachers

"I don’t think a pastor can give a woman “permission” to do Bible teaching before the church, because the Bible says not to do that. Would we say a pastor, or a board of elders, could give a woman “permission” to violate the command, “You should not steal”, or to violate any other command of Scripture? No pastor or elder board has authority to give permission to anyone to disobey the Bible. It’s God’s Word and we need to obey it."

---

According to Grudem's "System" it is important to ignore Galatians 3:26&27. "Since everyone of you that has been baptised has been clothed in Christ there can be neither Jew nor Greek, the can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female..."



[This message has been edited by Senecation (edited 9/4/2010 10:03a).]

Senecation,

I believe that verse in Galatians is referring to the fact that believers are all one in Jesus Christ, and no one is spiritually superior to another.

However, Paul does state that there are distinctions in the area of spiritual service:

1 Tim 2:12
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

1 Cor 14:33-35
"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

I hope these verses help in understanding where Dr. Grudem is coming from.

page 1

Paul spends all of Chapter 3 explaining the obsolescence of the Law, culminating with what this means for the church: an end to discrimination.
And the first priority Gruden has is to publish a new Law: only people with peenises can speak.
You can proof text excuses for this, but no one's motives for such a rule are truly scriptural.
Your own position seems to be that discrimination is preferred, but you must recognize the "spiritual" equality of people of other nationalities, statuses and genders when you discriminate against them.


[This message has been edited by Senecation (edited 9/6/2010 10:05a).]

When men are too weak and fearful to take the mantle of defending the church against heresy and bad doctrine I think that God would use anyone who is willing to do His will.

It's unfortunate but it happens...

[This message has been edited by Mrs. Lovelight (edited 9/6/2010 10:12a).]

Senecation,

First of all I hope that you and I can arrive at the Truth together.

You and I disagree on the meaning of Gal 3. I believe Paul is trying to stress that salvation is for everyone, not just certain groups.

This does not imply that everyone is equal in the role of spiritual service.

As an example, a 10-year old child is equal to his or her mother and father in spiritual equality under God, no? But that doesn't imply that the child's role would be the same in spiritual service.

As for the idea that "no one's motives are truly scriptural", I somewhat agree with this. Throughout history, men who claim to be Christian but who aren't have misused the Bible to subjugate women.

I don't judge such people (God will), but I would ask if those men are willing to serve their wives as Jesus served the Church. If not, then they merely want the benefits of being the heads of households/churches without the work. And Mrs. L is right that women can and should step up when the ball is dropped like that.

When men are too weak and fearful to take the mantle of defending the church against heresy and bad doctrine I think that God would use anyone who is willing to do His will.

It's unfortunate but it happens...
*******************
Interesting. Remember the pagan king Cyrus of Persia? He let the Jews go back to Jerusalem when their own leaders refused to rebuild the temple. Jeremiah implies he was doing God's will. 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1.

Gator, mentioning Salvation in connection to Gal 3 is touching the third rail, because Paul so carefully delimits the population he is discussing to the BAPTIZED.

If you believe all baptized people are saved and all unbaptized people aren't---nevermind.

Gator, mentioning Salvation in connection to Gal 3 is touching the third rail, because Paul so carefully delimits the population he is discussing to the BAPTIZED.

If you believe all baptized people are saved and all unbaptized people aren't---nevermind.

quote:

---

Gator, mentioning Salvation in connection to Gal 3 is touching the third rail, because Paul so carefully delimits the population he is discussing to the BAPTIZED.

---

Senecation,

If I may, I think Gator is not saying that Paul was talking to Christians and unbelievers, but he was talking to Christians that were both Jew and Greek. The context here is that Paul is talking about God’s promise to Abraham and applying it to all believers (not just Jews).

I’m curious as to what you would say about the scriptures that Grudem uses to justify his complementarian views. What else could I Timothy 2:11-14 or I Corinthians 14:33-36 be saying?

I'm one of a bunch of guys in the Southeast who have used Grudem's Systematic Theology for a weekly course that takes well over a year to complete (I did it a few years ago).

I found his book to be excellent, and his treatment of viewpoints that he doesn't have was very well done (a rare thing).

The way he presented the material helped us all be prepared each week for terrific discussions.

For those who wonder about his views on biblical manhood and womanhood, he's written quite a lot about it, and I encourage you to read his words in depth before you make surface-level criticisms.

[This message has been edited by agulhas78 (edited 9/10/2010 11:18a).]

He just released a book on Christianity and politics that I'm planning on picking up.

Orbit, no matter how much one plays with Galatians 3, it has a simple message: amongst the baptized--that is in church, we should not recognize incidental differences such as previous faiths, social status , or gender.

If that threatens you and you need to resort to other texts to prove this wrong, that's too bad.

Here is a question for all Gruden's apostles out there. Your congregation probably offers Sunday School Classes. Probably most of the teaching faculty is female. At what precise age, according to your "systematic theology" is it appropriate for the teacher to shut her pie hole and defer to her male students? Eight? Ten? Twelve? Fourteen? Exactly when does her role as a teacher become obsolete because she lacks male genitalia?

Ironic that Galatians is about the end of legalistic thinking. If we follow Galatians the answer is easy. If we don't the answer is inevitably legalistic.

Senecation,

First - It is not a matter of “playing with” Galatians. It is simply putting it into context. This is not talking about instructions for church worship – there is nothing in the context that would imply that at all. Paul is saying all are united in Christ, not that they don’t have different roles in the body. Paul clearly distinguishes roles between slaves and masters in Ephesians 6 – why would he do that if they are the same in every possible way based on this verse? He also distinguishes between husband and wife in Ephesians 5. To read this verse the way you want to, you have to remove the context and ignore the rest of scriptures.

Second – I’m assuming, based on your lack or response, that you have no explanation for the verses I mentioned in my last post that are explicitly talking about instructions on church gatherings. You merely blow by them by implying that I am “threatened” and have to go to other texts. That’s a pitiful implication given the fact that I explained the meaning of the verse in Galatians in my last post and in this one, and that YOU are actually the one who whipped out this text (out of context I might add) because you can’t address the scriptures Grudem uses.

And since you are curious, beginning in middle school ministry, we have male pastors. We have breakout sessions during lessons where women lead the young ladies and men lead the young men, and then the middle school pastor wraps up.

"I don’t think a pastor can give a woman “permission” to do Bible teaching before the church, because the Bible says not to do that"

Where did your reference to worship come from?
Gruden says nothing about worship. I have said nothing about worship.

I am surprised that you cite First Timothy. Because the passage demanding that women keep quiet is part of larger section that culminates in 2:15 and contradicts the notion that Galatians could be discussing salvation. "Nevertheless, she will be saved by child-bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is constant in faith and love and holiness." Do you pass on this information to women in your church who wish to be saved? If salvation is the same for men as for women, I assume the men of your church are also saved by childbearing and being constant in faith, love, and holiness.

First Corinthians will have to wait.

[This message has been edited by Senecation (edited 9/11/2010 12:46p).]

First Corinthians
In Chapter 11:6 Paul states unequivocally that if a woman does not wear a veil, her hair should be shaved off. Does your church follow this practice? If so, why not?
In verse 3 Paul states that the head of men is Christ but the head of woman is a man. Does your church emphasize this in discussing the priesthood of every believer--that men have direct access to Christ but women do not?

Assuming you follow First Corinthians closely in all matters and not just when you wish to justify ignoring Galatians, let's look at 14:33a and forward

"As in all the churches of God' holy people, women are are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part as the Law itself says. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly."

Paul is absolutely clear. Women should not speak because they have not been given permission. Does Paul say they cannot be given permission? No. Obviously he would not give such permission. With his limited imagination, he cannot even picture a woman having no husband to talk to after the service, much less a day when the educational attainments of women would rival if not surpass that of the men. Ultimately it does not matter whether Paul views an end to demanding silence from women. It only matters if God would perceive the voice of a woman in an assembly with disgust.

Whether God would be disgusted by a woman speaking in church is a subject for Systematic Theology. And I have nothing but contempt for a system that would conclude that God would be disgusted by the voice of a woman in and of itself, regardless of what she happened to be saying.

quote:

---

Paul is absolutely clear. Women should not speak because they have not been given permission. Does Paul say they cannot be given permission? No. Obviously he would not give such permission. With his limited imagination, he cannot even picture a woman having no husband to talk to after the service, much less a day when the educational attainments of women would rival if not surpass that of the men. Ultimately it does not matter whether Paul views an end to demanding silence from women. It only matters if God would perceive the voice of a woman in an assembly with disgust.

---

And you are the perfect judge of how God perceives things - thank goodness we have the wisdom of Senecation and don't have to rely on Paul or the Bible.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, it's becoming clear that you don't believe in the inspiration or authority of scripture. If that's the case, this is an exercise in futility for both of us, and I suggest we agree to disagree.

I fully accept the wisdom and authority of scripture. Paul says women cannot speak in assemblies without permission. I say "Amen. In my congregation they have permission."
Does your congregation insist that unveiled women shave their heads? If your congregation believes in the ultimate authority of scripture. Mine doesn't, if we're having some sort of how-much-weight-are-you-willing-to-give-scripture contest. Does your congregation's teach that childless women go to hell? Neither does mine. You say the gender of the speaker matters more than what the speaker is saying rather than WHAT the speaker is saying. I'm saying that is completely in compliance with a verse or two and but completely out of harmony with the other 99.99% of the Bible.

If you know the Bible, you are familiar with songs attributed to Deborah and to Miriam. Words attributed to Mary. For all we know larger swatches are penned by women. So it's ok for women to author the Bible, but not to explain it.

[This message has been edited by Senecation (edited 9/11/2010 1:02p).]

Alguhas, thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Is your copy of Systematic Theology handy (does anyone else have a copy?)?

Obviously 2 Tim 2:11-12 is the linchpin of Gruden's views on the role of women in the church.

Just as obviously, a systematic theology is going to go into the topic of salvation in a lot of depth.

Please check the index and let us know what Gruden says about 2 Tim 2:15. 2 Tim directly addresses the topic of salvation, so any discussion of salvation would take it fully into account.

Thanks,

quote:

---

When men are too weak and fearful to take the mantle of defending the church against heresy and bad doctrine I think that God would use anyone who is willing to do His will.

---

Well, Joan, there is another very good reason for women to speak in church. Sometimes the men have been strong and courageous, and have all been martyred or imprisoned. I suppose the women must speak, or there would be no church.

Some of Grudem's words on the subject of women in ministry:

quote:

---

For the purposes of this article, I will assume that my readers are in agreement that Scripture teaches some restriction on the roles women may fill in the church. Generally these restrictions fall in three areas: (1) governing authority, (2) Bible teaching, and (3) public recognition or visibility.

In fact, almost all the questions of application pertain to at least one of these areas. This is because Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim. 2:12), and the other passages which speak of restrictions on women's roles in the church also deal with questions of governing and teaching (1 Cor. 14:33-35; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; Matt. 10:2-4; etc.). I have included area (3), public recognition or visibility, because some activities in the church are very visible but may not include governing or teaching authority, yet people easily confuse these issues in their minds. If we keep this issue distinct, it helps us think more clearly about specific applications.

---

Here's the link to the article: http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-1-No-2/But-What-Should-Women-Do-In-The-Church

It is a long and detailed article, and gives a newcomer to Grudem a good feel for how carefully he approaches and presents his analyses of biblical issues, and how he takes pains to let the reader know when he is stating his personal views (he was, in the article, careful to note what were some of his personal positions on the Danvers statement).

I found it interesting to examine the three in-depth lists and how he described various churches may draw the lines about what women cannot and can do in different places, but how in so doing he counseled that they should of course be led by the discernible biblical source material.


[This message has been edited by agulhas78 (edited 9/13/2010 3:52p).]

Thanks. I will read this over immediately. Meanwhile, my question: does Grudem discuss 2 Tim 2:15 when he discusses salvation? Anyone who visits 2 Tim 2:12 to study the role of women in the ministry is bound to be very familiar with 2 Tim 2:15. And seldom is salvation is explained as starkly and clearly as in 2 Tim 2:15.

Obviously, from reading my posts above, I think that if Grudem doesn't place as much emphasis on what 2 Tim 2:15 says about salvation as he puts on what 2 TIm 2:12 says about the role of women, or at least goes to great lenghths to harmonize 2 TIm 2:15 with what he says about salvation, then 2 Tim 2:12 only illuminates a tradition--it is not the real reason.

My first reaction to the Grudem link is that he is naive.

"Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim. 2:12),"

What does "I" refer to? Not to God. If "I" means "God, elsewhere when Paul says he has fought the good fight, we would assume God has fought the good fight. If Paul says he is imprisoned, we would assume God is somehow imprisoned.

Paul does not say "God does not permit women to teach..." he says "I do not". Fine It is useful for us to know this fact about Paul when we read his other writings.

The Holy Spirit could very easily have inspired Paul to say "God does not permit". The Holy Spirit did not!

Equating Paul to God is making an idol of Paul--making Paul's words the ultimate instead of God's.

Please contrast this with the impersonal language of Galatians. That they would have been uttered by the author of 2 Timothy is truly the work of the Holy Spirit!