Post

More from @ronhenzel

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Jan 3

🧵 𝟎/𝟓

Cheryl Schatz’s (@CherylSchatz’s) denial of the biblical doctrine that regeneration causes (i.e., that the new birth is logically, if not temporally, prior to) saving faith has several problems.…

𝟏/𝟓

Cheryl writes,

“If God must regenerate you before you can believe, your will is effectively overridden.”

This is a pseudo-problem.

Since neither Scripture nor Calvinism teaches that in regeneration God “overrides” a person’s will in any of the normal senses of that term, Cheryl is making, at best, a very poor choice of words here.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the verb “override” can mean, “1: to ride over or across: trample,” “2: to ride (an animal, such as a horse) too much or too hard,” “3 a: to prevail over: dominate,” “b: to set aside : annul” (as in override a veto), “c: to neutralize the action of (something, such as an automatic control)” (as in entering a code to override an alarm), and “4: to extend or pass over especially: overlap” (as in waves overriding a beach).

Definitions 1, 2, 3 c and 4 obviously can’t apply here. That leaves 3 a and b as the only remaining possibilities.

But regeneration does neither of the things described in definitions 3 a or b. It neither dominates nor annuls (in the sense of vetoing) the will of a redeemed person. Rather, regeneration transforms our will.

So, Cheryl has effectively made a straw man argument here.

While prevailing over ordominating the will of others still leaves them unwilling, regeneration makes them willing: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Php 2:13 ESV).

While setting aside in the sense of annulling the wishes of another (as in a veto) often makes that person even more determined to rebel, regeneration causes a permanent change in a person’s spiritual direction: “‘And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me’” (Jer 32:40 ESV).

In regeneration, God Himself circumcises our hearts (Dt 30:6) after we fail to do so (Dt 10:16; cf. 29:4, 18-28).

He replaces our “heart of stone” with a “heart of flesh” (Ez 36:25-27) after we stubbornly refuse to do it ourselves (Ez 18:31; cf. 2:3-4; 3:7; 36:17-23).

He writes His laws on our hearts (Jer 31:33) where sin had hitherto reduced it to a conscience-nagging impression (Rom 2:15) and puts the fear of Him within us (Jer 32:40) where it was previously nonexistent (Rom 3:18; Ps 36:1).

If God waited for us to do these things, it would never happen and we would be eternally lost (Jn 3:3, 5). That’s how deeply entrenched in our being sin is (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Ps 51:5; 58:3; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-3).

Cheryl writes:

“In Calvinism, regeneration happens without your consent…”

Yes, that’s why Scripture calls it being “born again” and why we sometimes refer to it as “the new birth.”

Just as being physically born happens without our consent, so also being born again happens without our consent.

We have as much say in the latter as we have in the former.

The Bible also calls regeneration being raised from spiritual death (Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12-13), and just as Christ did not ask Lazarus for permission before He raised him from physical death but simply commanded him, “Lazarus, come out!” (Jn 11:43), so also God does not require our consent to raise us from spiritual death so that we can turn to Him in repentance and faith.

Cheryl finishes her sentence:

“…with your nature changed first, and faith becomes guaranteed afterward.”

Why would this be problematic for Cheryl? If my justification before God and hence my salvation requires faith, and God does something that guarantees that faith in me, why wouldn’t that be considered a good thing?

All she has to offer by way of explanation is a false dichotomy fallacy.

She says,

“Once you’ve been transformed, belief is not a free response but an inevitable effect.”

Here Cheryl claims that there’s a contradiction between faith being an inevitable effect of regeneration and faith being a free response of the regenerated but gives no reason why we should think this involves any contradiction.

She never explains why an inevitable effect of regeneration can’t simply be a free response, and for a very good reason: there is no basis for her claim; the two concepts are not incompatible.

Cheryl simply assumes there’s a problem here when there isn’t.

Biblically speaking, saving faith can be, and in fact is, both an inevitable effect of regeneration and a free response on the part of the person who’s been regenerated.

The only real problem here is that Cheryl displays no awareness of the biblical teaching that prior to regeneration, sinners do not have freedom in the most important and meaningful sense of that word.

This is because until we receive the new birth, we are natural-born, willing slaves to sin (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16; Tit 3:3; 2Pet 2:19).

We need to be totally rebuilt in our spirits from the ground up.

This is clear from the various metaphors Scripture uses to describe the inevitable blessings of regeneration: being circumcised in our hearts; receiving new fleshly hearts in place of stony hearts; being cleansed by water from above; being born again; being resurrected from spiritual death; being made new creatures in Christ.

All of these assume that Christians had an “old self” (or “old man,” Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9) but now have a “new self” (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).

And the reason we have this “new self” is because our regeneration has united us with Christ, who purchased all these blessings for us by His death and resurrection (Gal 3:13-14; Eph 1:7; Col 1:20). And high on that list of blessings is the breaking of our enslavement to sin:

⁶ We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
⁷ For one who has died has been set free from sin.

— Romans 6:6-7 (ESV)

And one of the key signs of enslavement to sin is unbelief.

As Jesus informed the scribes and Pharisees regarding their own unregenerate state:

⁴⁴ “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
⁴⁵ But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.”

— John 8:44-45 (ESV)

What Jesus said about the scribes and Pharisees was true of all of us before the Spirit regenerated us (Eph 2:1-11; Tit 3:3). As slaves to sin, which is slavery to rebellion against God, we made ourselves unable to turn to Christ in faith until He set us free from our self-imposed slavery:

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.
³⁵ The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever.
³⁶ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

— John 8:34-36 (ESV)

And how does the Son set us free so that we can freely believe? He regenerates us:

¹⁵ For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

— Romans 8:15 (ESV), cf. Ezekiel 36:27

The inevitable effect of regeneration according to both Scripture and Calvinism is the free response to the Gospel.

But Cheryl doubles down on her false dichotomy fallacy:

“And that raises the core question:

“How can you know you truly love God if you were made willing by force rather than by choice?”

This time, instead of using the word “overridden” she uses “force.”

Merriam-Webster provides 16 definitions each for the noun and verb “force.” I won’t waste space here by going over all of them.

Since she’s dichotomizing between “by force” and “by choice,” she appears to be using “force” according to either Merriam-Webster’s verb definition 1 “to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means” (as in “They forced the CEO to resign”) or definition 3 b, “to impose or thrust urgently, importunately, or inexorably” (as in “had the decision forced on them”).

In either case, “force” serves as a synonym for “coerce,” so it’s a stronger word than “override.”

But when someone is coerced, they remain fundamentally unwilling even though we can say they were in some way “made willing” by means of force.

This is because coercive force depends on the threats of negative consequences for failure to cooperate.

Ironically, the Gospel message itself contains threats of negative consequences for failure to cooperate:

³⁶ Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

— John 3:36 (ESV)

Unbelievers have been known to complain about this. This is because, like Cheryl, they lack a biblical sense of how deeply sinful and deserving of wrath we are.

She’s being quite inconsistent to not complain about God “forcing” people to believe in this coercive manner.

But since she clearly understands that Calvinists aren’t saying that God uses threats to regenerate people (obviously because Scripture doesn’t say that), by “force” she can only be referring to a supernatural means (definition 1) or imposition (definition 3 b).

But again, if this supernatural “forcing” of regeneration on a sinner results in their eternal salvation, why should they complain?

Would they rather spend eternity in hell?

And how could they not know that they truly love God for saving them in this way, especially when they realize that if He didn’t, they would have never believed?

𝟐/𝟓

Cheryl writes:

“If only some are regenerated, then God only makes Himself lovable to a select few.”

Why she uses the phrase “makes Himself lovable” is a real head-scratcher here.

To any truly righteous person, God is infinitely lovable.

To say God “makes Himself lovable” implies that God had to change something about Himself, which is impossible.

She chooses her words better, at least temporarily, in what she writes next:

“Calvinism teaches that God regenerates the elect and leaves the rest unable to respond. That means:
Some are made able to love God.
Others are left incapable.”

So, Cheryl objects to two things here:

1. The idea that God leaves the unregenerate non-elect unable to love Him.
2. The idea that God makes the elect able to love Him through regeneration.

As for the first objection, Scripture (and hence Calvinism) makes it clear that the inability of the unregenerate is their own fault:

²³ “But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
²⁴ But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.”…
²³ “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.”

— Jeremiah 7:23-24; 13:23 (ESV)

Even the unevangelized unregenerate know what God expects from them but stubbornly stick with the plans of their own sinful hearts (Rom 1:19-21). Their inability is self-induced.

This kind of inability doesn’t make totally depraved sinners an object of pity but of wrath.

God is obviously not obligated to regenerate anyone who behaves in such a rebellious manner.

And yet Cheryl writes:

“This implies that God must compel love into the elect because, without compulsion, no one would choose Him.”

In keeping with her loaded language strategy, she adds two more words to her rhetorical arsenal: the verb “compel” and the noun “compulsion.”

We all know that there are two kinds of compulsion: internal and external. Either one can be good at times and bad at other times.

The hunger that compels people to eat is a good kind of internal compulsion. It ensures survival.

The lust that compels people to sin is a bad kind of internal compulsion. It leads to death.

Policing that compels people to obey the law is a good kind of external compulsion. It maintains a just society.

Extortion that robs people of their possessions is a bad kind of external compulsion. I shouldn’t have to explain why.

But Cheryl is clearly using the words “compel” and “compulsion” solely as pejoratives here.

She can’t make any room for the notion that God “compelling” our love can be a good thing.

But If this is the case, then when Paul wrote that “the love of Christ compels [συνέχω, sunéchō] us” (2Cor 5:14), we’d have to think of that as a bad thing.

But it’s not.

(The Greek word here can also be rendered “control” or “constrain,” but is that any better in Cheryl’s worldview?)

We’d also have to think Jesus meant to describe a bad thing when He said,

²³ “And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel [ἀναγκάζω, anangkázō] people to come in, that my house may be filled.’”

— Luke 14:23 (ESV)

But He didn’t.

By consistently resorting to words like “override,” “force,” “compulsion,” etc., Cheryl is resorting to loaded language, which is the fallacious use of emotive language designed to manipulate others to accept one’s argument.

Her word choices are designed to get you to base your reaction to reflexive emotions rather than carefully-informed thoughts.

Words like “compel” and “compulsion” are designed to make what she’s denying sound bad, but if regeneration “compel[s] love into the elect” by giving us a nature that loves God, how is that a bad thing?

Is that not a loving and gracious thing for God to do?

If I am unable to walk because of some sin I committed, like driving drunk, wouldn’t it be loving and gracious for God to give me new legs that can walk?

If I am blind because I gave myself drug-induced retinopathy, wouldn’t it be loving and gracious for God to give me new eyes that see?

So, if I am unable to turn to God because my stubborn and deliberate addiction to sin renders my unwilling heart unable to do so, wouldn’t it be a loving and gracious thing for God to give me a new heart that compels me to gladly turn to Him?

It only sounds bad if you don’t spend any time thinking about what the Bible says about the totality of our depravity.

It only sounds bad if you begin with an unbiblical view of the extent of the damage sin has done to our inborn natures.

In their unbiblical naïveté, many Christians want to believe that, despite our sinfulness, enough goodness remains in our fallen souls that we can be moved to saving faith by simply allowing ourselves to consider the love of God in Christ and the free offer of the Gospel.

They think that all we need is to have a sufficient external influence to sway us to make the right decision.

This is quite far from the way the Bible presents the extent of our fallenness.

The tragedy here is that because to Pelagians, Semipelagians, Finneyites, Arminians, Provisionists, etc. the “bad news” isn’t so bad, the “good news” isn’t so good.

In their version of “the good news,” your salvation is ultimately up to your own “free will.”

The problem is, your inborn will is not free. It’s free enough to do what it wants to do, but that’s not a good thing because the Bible repeatedly warns us that our inborn will is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16; Tit 3:3; 2Pet 2:19).

All of us born in Adam have a disease that we cannot cure. And because it is a disease of the spiritual heart, a disease of our own evil motives, we refuse to even give consent to have it cured.

Only the power of God can cure us.

⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.…
⁶³ “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.
⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe.”…
⁶⁵ And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

— John 6:44a, 63a, 64a, 65, ESV

We are utterly unable because we are utterly unwilling.

And this self-induced inability causes the Gospel to look silly to us.

¹⁴ The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

— 1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)

But when your “bad news” isn’t so bad and your “good news” isn’t so good, the true Good News of the Gospel looks pretty bad to you, as Cheryl shows when she continues here:

“It paints a picture of a God who becomes lovable only to those He forces alive.”

In biblical reality, it paints a picture of a God who loves so greatly that He pours His own love into our hateful hearts.

Scripture makes it clear that the only reason we have authentic love in our hearts is because God regenerated us:
⁷ Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

— 1 John 4:7 (ESV)

It turns out that what Cheryl and those who agree with her don’t like about this picture of God is not what it says about God, but what it says about us.

That is what she detests about it. Everything else is just pseudo-theological window dressing.

Read 6 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Jan 1

https://x.com/Pastor_Gabe/status/2006458868424155395?s=20

🧵 𝟏/𝟕: Scripture is clear, in both the Old and New Testaments, that regeneration causes and therefore logically (if not chronologically) precedes the faith in Christ that brings justification before God.

https://x.com/Pastor_Gabe/status/2006458868424155395?s=20

𝟐/𝟕: Regeneration Causes Faith in Deuteronomy 29:4, 30:1-6

𝟑/𝟕: Regeneration Causes Faith in Ezekiel 36:25-27

Read 7 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Jun 24, 2025

🧵

“…I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most ﬁrmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”

—Augustine of Hippo (ᴀᴅ 354-430), Letter 82 (ᴀᴅ 405) to Jerome, NPNF1 1:350.

𝟏/𝟒

Evangelical inerrantists are on the same page as Augustine and apparently Jerome were in the 5th century.

𝟐/𝟒

And here’s further context from elsewhere in his writings:

𝟑/𝟒

Read 4 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Jun 20, 2025

🧵

Eph 1:11b:

God
1. “works” [ἐνεργέω, energéō: produces; effects (BDAG)]
2. “all things” [τὰ πάντα, tà pánta: not some things]
3. “according to the counsel” [βουλή, boulḗ: purpose (NIV); plan (NLT); design (CEB)]
4. “of his will” [θέλημα, thélēma: will; desire].

1/9

I don’t know why the NIV and CSB chose to render the participial form of ἐνεργέω (energéō) as “works out,” which generally means something like “solves” or “resolves,” as in the title of the Beatles’ song, “We Can Work It Out.” The Greek word doesn’t have that meaning.

2/9

There is a word Paul uses that’s rendered “work out” in Php 2:12, κατεργάζομαι (katergázomai), but it’s often synonymous with ἐνεργέω (energéō) and also doesn’t mean “solve” or “resolve” or “bring to resolution.”

3/9

Read 9 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Feb 1, 2025

Our Egalitarian friend, @ryanschatz, continues to tirelessly serve up items from his ample menu of exegetical fallacies. This time, he dishes them out as questions, covering ground so well-trodden that subterranean critters are becoming anxious.

My year is starting to get really busy and I probably would’ve ignored this post if he hadn’t tagged me in the thread. (Perhaps I still should have.)

As Ryan apparently acknowledges, we’ve covered these points before, rather extensively, in fact, so I hardly imagine he’ll find any of my replies persuasive, nor will his fellow Egalitarians. In my view, that’s a testimony to how committed they are to their conclusions despite the biblical and historical-theological evidence.

Any errors here are strictly my own, although I’ll no doubt wish I could blame someone else. I don’t know how much time or how many opportunities I’ll have to reply to follow-up comments here, so please don’t be offended if you don’t hear from me in what you consider a timely fashion.

Thanks!

𝟏/𝟖

“1. Given Paul’s stated purpose was to ‘instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines’ (1Ti 1:3), why did it shift to ‘instruct all women to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17’?”

But that’s the problem: Paul’s stated purpose for writing 1 Timothy was not to “instruct [KJV, ESV: charge] certain people not to teach strange doctrines.” The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to misquote 1Tim 1:3.

In 1Tim 1:3-4, Paul is stating his reason for telling Timothy to remain at Ephesus. This becomes clear when we restore the opening words in verse 3: “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons…”

If you leave out everything leading up to “charge certain persons” (or “instruct certain people”) it’s easier to twist this verse into a general statement about the epistle’s purpose. But it’s obvious here that Paul is not telling Timothy why he’s writing this epistle, but simply reiterating an exhortation (παρακαλέω, parakaléō) he’d given him earlier in Ephesus. 1Tim 1:3-4 states the purpose for Timothy remaining at Ephesus, but it does not state the purpose of his letter.

Paul states that clearly when he states explicitly in 3:14-15, “…I am writing these things to you so that…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God…” If you check the context you’ll see that my ellipses do not leave out anything that might alter or contradict this point, unlike Ryan’s truncated citation of 1T 1:3.

So, there is no shift of purpose between 1Tim 1:3-4 and 2:9-15 that we need to account for. The reason for Timothy remaining at Ephesus is a function of Paul’s broader purpose in this epistle of instructing Timothy about “how one ought to behave in the household of God.”

And Paul obviously covers a lot of ground in this letter unrelated to “instruct[ing] certain people not to teach strange doctrines,” including instruction on corporate prayer (2:1-8), women’s apparel (2:9-10), the qualifications for elders and deacons (3:1-13), exhortations to self-discipline (4:9-16), proper behavior toward age groups and genders in the church (5:1-2), care for widows (5:3-16), care for elders (5:17-22), health advice (5:23), wisdom about sins in the church (5:24-25), admonitions to slaves (6:1-2), and miscellaneous closing exhortations (6:6-21). This leaves only 4:1-8 and 6:3-5 where Paul actually addresses the issue of false teaching.

So, even if we were to accept the (false) premise that Paul’s purpose for writing was to “instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines,” or that Timothy should be occupied with doing that one thing, apparently he didn’t have a problem with shifting to many topics that are not related to that goal.

This being the case, as it obviously is, why should it be considered problematic for Paul to shift to “instruct[ing] all women to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17?” It makes no sense to suggest that it does.

As for whether Scripture teaches that women are not to “to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17,” that’s a crude caricature of what Complementarians believe Scripture teaches. We believe that women are not to occupy any office or official role that makes them authoritative teachers in the church. This includes the office of pastor. It does not include the kind of informal teaching that takes place in non-authoritative settings such as casual conversations or social media interactions.

Egalitarians have argued that Paul’s instruction that all believers should be “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” (Col 3:16) disproves the Complementarian position. Thomas R. Schreiner addressed this well when he wrote:

“Furthermore, Colossians 3:16 (cf. 1 Cor. 14: 26) does not refer to authoritative teaching but to the informal mutual instruction that occurs among all the members of the body. Unfortunately, some churches ban women from doing even this, although it is plainly in accord with Scripture. Yet this mutual instruction differs significantly from the authoritative transmission of tradition that Paul has in mind in the Pastoral Epistles. Such authoritative teaching is typically a function of the elders/ overseers (1 Tim. 3: 2; 5: 17)…”

—Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15, 3rd edition, (Crossway, 2016), Kindle Loc. 4696-4700.

It is inevitable that in various fellowship settings, women will pass on the truths of the Christian faith to men with results that can be characterized as “teaching.” But Paul is not addressing such informal teaching situations in 1Ti 2:9-15. He is clearly prohibiting the formal, authoritative teaching of men in the truths of the Christian faith by women in the church.

𝟐/𝟖

“2. If Paul is giving instructions for the church generally in 1Ti 2:11-12, why does he do it in a personal letter to Timothy rather than a letter to the church or all the churches? Why is this the only place we find this instruction?”

If we ask the first question here, we must also ask why Paul would be giving instructions for the church generally on

1. corporate prayer (2:1-8),
2. women’s apparel (2:9-10),
3. the qualifications for elders and deacons (3:1-13),
4. self-discipline (4:9-16),
5. proper behavior toward age groups and genders in the church (5:1-2),
6. care for widows (5:3-16),
7. care for elders (5:17-22),
8. health advice (5:23),
9. wisdom about sins in the church (5:24-25), and
10. the behavior of slaves (6:1-2)

in a personal letter to Timothy rather than letter to the church or all the churches.

Are we to assume that all these topics only apply to the Ephesian church? Seriously? Then why is 1 Timothy even in the New Testament?

And this is not the only personal letter to an individual that covers much of the same ground. Titus also gives us the qualifications for elders, instructions for dealing with false teachers, etc.

These are canonical letters and their entire content is authoritative for the whole church. Paul covers these issues in personal letters to church leaders whom he himself appointed because that’s the way the Holy Spirit inspired these writings. The question itself is as untenable and presumptuous as the thesis it seeks to support.

As for the second question: This isn’t the only place we find this instruction. Paul gave the same instruction to the church in Corinth:

³³ …As in all the churches of the saints,
³⁴ the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
³⁵ If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

—1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 ESV

Egalitarians have argued that 14:34-35 isn’t Paul’s statement but quotes a saying in the Corinthian church to which Paul responds in 14:36.

Paul does cite issues presented to him by the Corinthians and respond to them at various points in this epistle.

In the places where we are certain that he does this, he introduces these topic with the phrase Περὶ δὲ (Perì dè), “Now concerning…” (KJV, RSV, NASB, ESV, NRSV; NIV, CSB: “Now about…” 1Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12).

It seems that in at least two of these Paul may be providing direct quotes of what is being said in the Corinthian church (e.g., 7:1; 8:1), though interpreters are not unanimous on this. Most of the time he simply refers to the topic (7:25; 12:1; 16:1, 12).

Many believe that Paul is also providing direct quotes in 6:12-13, before he starts introducing topics with his “Now concerning…” formula, and we see this reflected in most modern translations (the NASB and LSB are exceptions).

Some have also suggested 9:1, but that seems highly unlikely.

One thing we immediately observe in the two places where Paul may be providing direct quotes is that they are quite brief:

1Cor 7:1b: “‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman’” (ESV).

1Cor 8:1: “‘all of us possess knowledge’” (ESV).

These are simple, concise statements that Paul uses as springboards to provide very extensive and highly detailed responses (7:2-24 and 8:2-9:27).

In 1Cor 14:33b-36, we find precisely the opposite: a detailed set of statements—Egalitarians assume these are direct quotes—followed by a pair of simple, concise rhetorical questions. If 14:35 is supposed to be a response to some alleged quotations, it’s actually a non-response in the form of a curt dismissal, which is utterly unlike the way Paul handles such issues in the rest of this epistle.

If Paul is encountering an error in 1Cor 14:34-35, it makes zero sense for him to simply dismiss it with two rhetorical questions in 14:36 instead of following his standard course and provide a detailed rebuttal so that the Corinthians could be fully grounded in the truth and know why it is superior to the error.

No, the only way to make legitimate sense of these verses is to read them the way Christians always had until feminism reared its ugly head and invaded the church.

Egalitarians must literally turn Paul’s question-answering procedure in 1 Corinthians upside-down so all its value falls out of its pockets in order to make it conform to their theological precommitments.

𝟑/𝟖

Read 8 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Mar 23, 2024

🧵When I quoted 1Ti 2:11-12 in the ESV, Wesley (@the_blind_guide) said, “if you look in the lexicons αὐθεντεῖν doesn’t mean ‘to have authority’ it means ‘to dominate’ or ‘domineer’ as in boss around, it does not mean ‘have a position of authority’.”

So, I thought, “Why not?”

Wesley says, “the problem is not the woman having the position but the means by which she obtains it.” But that’s not supported by either the standard New Testament Greek lexicon (BDAG), the standard Classical Greek lexicon (LSJ), or the more recent BrillDAG for Classical Greek.

It may seem that BDAG’s bold italicized words “give orders to, dictate to” support Wesley’s “boss around” theory, but (a) BDAG’s editor explained how to understand the formatting, and (b) since authority necessarily includes giving commands, that’s a stretch. More on that later.

Read 36 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @ronhenzel

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!