tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post7070728615272950951..comments2024-01-20T16:28:46.327-08:00Comments on Wordgazer's Words: N. T. Wright's ComplementarianismKristenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-41418087854159628452015-09-16T10:56:27.058-07:002015-09-16T10:56:27.058-07:00Thanks, QE2! The reference is Genesis 3:8.Thanks, QE2! The reference is Genesis 3:8.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-12941790025531898372015-09-16T04:44:58.365-07:002015-09-16T04:44:58.365-07:00Great post. Can you please give me a reference ...Great post. Can you please give me a reference to where God walks in the garden in the cool of the day? I hear that often, but can't find any scripture to back it up...QE2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-78065793487403168852014-06-29T10:45:20.171-07:002014-06-29T10:45:20.171-07:00Can't agree enough with your response to N.T. ...Can't agree enough with your response to N.T. Wright on this one. I, too, get uncomfortable when people try to make a pattern absolutely binding on all people, and I'd take it even further- when you make a symbol the most important thing, then you veer dangerously close to idolizing the symbol, rather than the truth it represents. Yes, the union of Christ and church is presented as per marriage, to get across the point in the poignant metaphor of the closest thing we humans have to that kind of union. But similar symbolism is used toward slavery, and we understand that the important point- absolute subservience to Christ- is true whether or not we continue to view the institution in the same way.<br /><br />That, and as you say, we know just from nature that there are people who are non-binary from birth. If binary is important, then marrying the person of the 'right' gender is a beautifully blessed thing, and marrying the person of the 'wrong' gender is worthy of hellfire. Even when there's nothing in themselves that would lend themselves to choosing one or the other. Surely, that can't be what God desires? <br /><br />I'd also raise an objection based on his understanding of circumcision. This wasn't just a matter of spiritual pride. This wasn't a bit of snobbery or legalism. Genesis 17 is where circumcision started, and the words there should be familiar to everyone. It is an "everlasting" covenant, for Abraham and ALL his descendants. It is binding to EVERYONE. Even servants bought or born into the house are to be circumcised. Those who don't are to be cut off from their people, period. <br /><br />The controversy was whether uncircumcised Gentiles could be 'children of Abraham.' Not snobbery, but salvation. After all, if Paul was right, he was breaking one of the oldest covenants that God had made, an everlasting one that predated the Law, even! And yet Paul was clear, not just here, but elsewhere- if you receive circumcision, Christ is of NO benefit to you. You are under the Law (even though circumcision preceded the Law!) and thus you are no longer under grace. <br /><br />All of that to say that the Holy Spirit, through Paul, did more than just bring unity, although He did certainly do that. He transformed everything. Transformed in ways that we are still trying to understand and unpack now, two thousand years later. It is why, in Galatians, He speaks and says that we are no longer under the Law, OR under the elementary principles of the world! We are free of all of the above! <br /><br />Thus, for me, it seems incredible that we would be made free of all sorts of things, from the oldest of the covenants of God to the newest refinements of the Law, and yet insist that we remain bound by our double helix shackles. That just doesn't click for me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03319494271024074214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-35728907925974730412014-06-28T22:03:26.322-07:002014-06-28T22:03:26.322-07:00Thanks for writing this. I, too, part ways with Wr...Thanks for writing this. I, too, part ways with Wright on this.EricWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008786460314263379noreply@blogger.com