Home

Recent comments

Andrew replied to Daniel on Heaven: Daniel, resurrection is always in principle bodily, but whether this means that we should expect the bodies of the martyrs of the martyrs to have gone awol depends on whether this “proto-resurrection” was like Jesus’ resurrection or like the final resurrection. Presumably at... (02/05/2012 - 06:02)
Daniel replied to Andrew on Heaven: Andrew, Do you see this “proto-resurrection” of the martyrs as bodily, in the same manner as Jesus’ ascension to heaven? It seems to me that this view would need to be confirmed by the missing bodies of the martyrs, unless I’m just misunderstanding you. And would this... (02/03/2012 - 18:37)
Andrew replied to Larry Chouinard on Adam was formed first, then Eve: …what have we to learn from cows since they preceded males in the creation order? Possibly not in Genesis 2:18-19, where it seems that animals are formed after Adam in the hope that one of them would make a good “helper” for him. That would, of course, put cows ahead of... (02/02/2012 - 21:08)
Michael Thompson on Adam was formed first, then Eve: Eve was deceived, but Adam was not.  So then, Adam sinned with his eyes wide open.  This leads us to the Question: Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?  Perhaps in the arena of teaching it is ignorance, though apathetic pedagogy is certainly detrimental in its own right.  Yes,... (02/02/2012 - 16:23)
Paul replied to Andrew on He shall rule over you: I think in broad terms we’re not so far apart - we agree on the impact that the fall had; we agree that our redemption should have a restorative impact - so we agree on sin and salvation! Where there is a potential clash seems to be in how we regard Paul’s teaching. You are arguing... (02/02/2012 - 09:45)
Andrew replied to Paul on He shall rule over you: Complex, indeed, Paul. I agree, we are still living under the curse—you make the point well. The relational conflict or tension indicated in Genesis 3:16 hasn’t gone away, even in Christ—to the extent that Paul sought not to overthrow patriarchy but rather to modify it, and quite... (02/02/2012 - 08:14)
John Doyle replied to Andrew on A helper fit for him: I do read Genesis 2-3 as a “just so story” intended to explain, among other things, women’s subservience to men in general. Still, the enmity between serpent and woman is the only part of the curse that is explicitly extended to future generations. The text doesn’t seem to... (02/01/2012 - 19:03)
Larry Chouinard on Adam was formed first, then Eve: Andrew— The logic of the order of creation argument for the subjugation of women to males has always baffled me (see also 1Cor. 11:7-12).  How does the fact that “Adam was created first then Eve” lead naturally to the conclusion that “a woman should not teach a man... (02/01/2012 - 18:44)
Paul on He shall rule over you: This is complex. You are conflating “now” and “not yet”, and you’re also omitting a key part of the verse. This is part of the curse, correct. And Jesus came to undo the effects of the curse, correct. However, the effects of the curse are not undone this side of... (02/01/2012 - 15:51)
Andrew replied to John Doyle on A helper fit for him: Hi, John, nice to hear from you. I agree that the order of creation remains important for Paul. But 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 seems to offset that somewhat. I’ve put forward my understanding of the 1 Timothy passage here. I think you’d have a hard time claiming... (02/01/2012 - 15:28)
Mark Hunter replied to Nigel Dutson on He shall rule over you: Nigel, the same word for “helper” is used in describing God’s role to us. Is God under us, lesser than us, subservient to us…? (02/01/2012 - 14:23)
John Doyle on A helper fit for him: Hi Andrew, it’s been awhile. I hope all is well. In the Old Testament text the man’s rule over the woman is not intrinsic to their natures but is a consequence of disobedience. However, twice Paul predicates man’s authority over woman not on the Fall but on the Creation. In... (02/01/2012 - 01:01)
Maim replied to Doug in CO on The fault line between the Reformed and the... er, post-Reformed?: Agreed! Thanks for mentioning Brondos’ book.  As far as I can tell, he reminds me of Scot McKnight who, while he rails against caricatures of the Reformed gospel reduced to a sinner’s prayer/plan of salvation, has no problem with “covenant soterians” like Horton who... (01/31/2012 - 21:14)
Andrew replied to Nigel Dutson on He shall rule over you: Hopefully this goes some way towards answering your question. Thanks for asking it. (01/31/2012 - 19:57)
Nigel Dutson on He shall rule over you: Andrew, you say that “Nothing is said prior to the expulsion from the garden about the subordination of the woman to the man” How then would you interpret Gen 2:18?  Woman created as a “helper”, “just right” for man. No mention of domineering... (01/31/2012 - 12:20)
peter wilkinson on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: Back to the drawing board for the non-multi-taskers amongst us. Re the numerology of the 144,000 (Revelation 7), points made so far: AP: This (preceding argument resting on OT imagery of idolatrous Israel v. non-idolatrous Israel and the six seals of Revelation points to the conclusion that... (01/29/2012 - 14:03)
Roberto replied to peter wilkinson on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: “I was making a detailed case…” My point exactly! (01/28/2012 - 16:30)
peter wilkinson replied to Roberto on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: Well, actually, there was only one point in my comment, not multiple points, which was addressing the question: Who are the 144,000? I was making a detailed case for saying that both Kevin De Young and Andrew are mistaken. Rich too (and pf) are, I believe, mistaken. Rich has misinterpreted me at... (01/26/2012 - 19:41)
Andrew replied to Roberto on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: Amen. (01/26/2012 - 04:50)
Roberto replied to Rich on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: Rich and Peter, The ‘uber’ comments make it difficult to keep up on this blog. I would recommend comments that focus on a paricular point of investigation. Sometimes the comments are longer than the posts! Anyway, I often am inclined to agree on some aspects of Peter’s... (01/26/2012 - 00:45)
pf replied to peter wilkinson on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: Revelation “telescopes” time? What is your evidence of that? Revelation was written to comfort persecuted believers and send a coded message at a time when free speech didn’t exist and the punishment for dissent was certain, painful death. We don’t know the exact... (01/25/2012 - 18:43)
Doug in CO on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: I enjoyed the first 2/3’s of this article enough that I’m looking forward to passing it on.  Though I know you don’t care what the preterists say, I think you would get something out of “Who is this Babylon” by Don Preston.  I’m between the two of you... (01/23/2012 - 22:42)
Rich replied to peter wilkinson on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: Peter, “Who are the 144,000 in Revelation 7:4-8? The context would seem to make it obvious - Jewish believers in contrast with Gentile believers - “a great multitude that no-one could count from every nation” - 7:9-10.” Yes the context is obvious.  They were Jewish ... (01/23/2012 - 22:33)
peter wilkinson on Who are the 144,000 in Revelation, historically speaking?: This interpretation implies to me that part of the purpose of Revelation is to stimulate enquiry rather than present definitive conclusions. Who are the 144,000 in Revelation 7:4-8? The context would seem to make it obvious - Jewish believers in contrast with Gentile believers - “a... (01/23/2012 - 16:27)
Andrew replied to Daniel on The light of the world: Daniel, I’m not sure I should risk trying to answer this off the top of my head—in fact, I’ve been scratching my head over it for some time—but surely the main point is that freedom from Law does not mean freedom from good works. The problem with the Law was that it now condemned a... (01/23/2012 - 16:08)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew on The parable of the two houses and the apocalyptic storm: Is Jesus’s teaching then only of historic interest? Likewise the teaching of the letters? Only applicable to 1st/2nd century readers? This is a huge problem in a radical apocalyptic/historical/narrative interpretation. Why should we be interested in this teaching if it is only of... (01/19/2012 - 10:34)
Neil replied to Andrew on The fault line between the Reformed and the... er, post-Reformed?: Thanks for the response, I see what you are getting at.  Neil  (01/19/2012 - 00:30)
Daniel on The light of the world: Andrew, I dunno if you see comments on four-year old posts. But here’s a question: You say, “My argument would be that he expressly sets this requirement of ‘good works’ in accordance with the Jewish law in a restricted eschatological framework: the law will be in force for the... (01/18/2012 - 21:30)
Andrew replied to Neil on The fault line between the Reformed and the... er, post-Reformed?: Neil, that was a little tongue in cheek—the dance metaphor suggested a male and female partnership, and the new Reformed crowd are heavy on male leadership. Having said that, is there not something masculine about theology or dogmatics as a controlling, directive discipline, and something feminine... (01/18/2012 - 07:02)
Daniel replied to peter wilkinson on The parable of the two houses and the apocalyptic storm: Peter, Confucious say, “They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it, and those who love it are not equal to those who delight in it” Confucious say, “When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are to be ashamed of. When a country is ill... (01/17/2012 - 22:47)
all content © Andrew Perriman 2003-2011 | theme adapted from Minimalist for Drupal by Danang Probo Sayekti