Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden

[RamiC]

As evidenced by our avoidance or twisting of these scriptures and our prevailing progressive theology to varying degrees, woke Westerners are more concerned about DEI than loving Christ.

I am not sure where "progressive theology" is prevailing, except in specifically "progressive Christian" groups, where it would by by definition. Globally the faith seems to be expanding, that is the gospel is progressing, mostly in countries where Christians are persecuted, and in central Africa, neither refers to an area of the world to which the words "woke Westerners" could viably apply.

Christ opens the door to paradise for His Bride - and I point to this every time I open the door for my wife.

On the theology here I disagree with you, you cannot point to Jesus' agony on the cross, His prophecied, proven ressurrection, or His world changing reversal of the Genesis curse, by opening a literal door yourself, even if you are a husband and even if the door is for your wife.

Although, you go ahead and continue both enjoying your lifesyle choices regarding doors however you please.

And she points to the Bride loving Christ every time she covers her head to prophesy & pray in church and obeys the headship verses.

I headcover in church, but I happen to know of Roman Catholic, Orthodox and conservative Anglican church gatherings near me where most women do not, and no one is saying anything. So I cannot tell who is more concerned about DEI from that one. It also does not mean that I am better at loving Christ, purely because I can tie a scarf to my head, or don a hat, and still be in need of confession.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not sure where "progressive theology" is prevailing,

Well it has taken over most of the major Protestant denominations with the exception of a few which explicitly opted to reject it (such as the LCMS and SBC, but in the SBC lately it has been making something of a comeback and the response of the Convention, to the frustration of Dr. A;bert Mohler, who I greatly admire, has been less than adequate). Also it is trying to take over the Roman Catholic Church, and progressives would take over the Orthodox in a heartbeat if they thought they had any chance of succeeding.

As it was, a group of charismatic Protestants nearly took over much of the Coptic Orthodox church in the extra-diocesan areas, but the “Return to Orthodoxy” movement prompted Pope Tawadros II to appoint diocesan bishops such as HG Abanoub of Muqattam.

 

[Ohorseman]

I do believe Ephesians 5;25 is true, in original language and accurately understood in any language, it is infallably true. However, it cannot mean that husbands can replicate the salvation of humankind as Jesus did, because there is only one Jesus Christ.

Of course, I am not the salvation of humankind. Our parents in Eden show us clearly that no man or woman can crush the head of the serpent. Only Christ.

If I die while protecting my wife it does not save her mortal soul but it might save her life. And in such a case, since I died in obedience to Christ… well, there is this:

Rev. 12:11​

And they have conquered him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.​

 

[Ohorseman]

I am not sure where "progressive theology" is prevailing, except in specifically "progressive Christian" groups, where it would by by definition. Globally the faith seems to be expanding, that is the gospel is progressing, mostly in countries where Christians are persecuted, and in central Africa, neither refers to an area of the world to which the words "woke Westerners" could viably apply.

I disagree. Indeed, progressive theology prevails in the West. All Christian churches follow progressive theology when they do not have men as leaders and women or wives that cover their heads in the assembly when they prophesy and pray. Perhaps they do not fly a rainbow flag in the church, but their systematic compromise on all the headship scriptures creates the very foundation on which gay pride stands, whether they fly the rainbow flag or not - that foundation is made up of compromises on the Bible.

This issue of gender and sexuality go together, and it is the heresy of our times.

But we can’t see it because of our woke context. If you read the church fathers and even the protestant founders, and study church history (and you don’t have to go back too far), you will see it.

On the theology here I disagree with you, you cannot point to Jesus' agony on the cross, His prophecied, proven ressurrection, or His world changing reversal of the Genesis curse, by opening a literal door yourself, even if you are a husband and even if the door is for your wife.

Although, you go ahead and continue both enjoying your lifesyle choices regarding doors however you please.

When a Christian wears a cross it points to Christ. But for a non-believer wearing a cross is just fashion. Likewise, when I open the door for my wife, it means what I say it means, and I declare that it points to Christ opening the door for HIs Bride to paradise. When a non-believer opens the door he is just being nice, or sexist, depending on the perspective. But this is not something that is explicit in the Bible.

I headcover in church, but I happen to know of Roman Catholic, Orthodox and conservative Anglican church gatherings near me where most women do not, and no one is saying anything. So I cannot tell who is more concerned about DEI from that one. It also does not mean that I am better at loving Christ, purely because I can tie a scarf to my head, or don a hat, and still be in need of confession.

You help me make my point, that all denominations participate in DEI, to varying degrees.

You being humble about head covering is an encouragement. But unlike my door opening, the head covering liturgy IS explicitly in the Bible. It is true the covering liturgy involves more theology than we can comprehend, and the scriptures show this. For Paul wrote that it also has to do with the angels, but he does not explain it. Clearly you stand with the angels of light, Christ, Mary, and all those that obey God when you do this. Clearly you declare that the scriptures nor the teachings of the church are in vain. Clearly you embody obedience and love to Christ. Clearly you present the image of God, for male and female He created us. Clearly you call men to be better men. In covering, you testify before God, the angels light & dark, men, women, and children. And, it seems to be the proper way to come to the Eucharist, because the covering instructions are immediately before the Communion instructions. I want to write more, but sometimes it is better to restrain words when referring to holy things, for I have unclean lips. And, as you pointed out, we all are in need of confession.

RamiC, I dedicate this art to you.

I point to these things with my art and posts. Satan left his original identity as the Anointed Cherub and fell from heaven. And following the voice of the serpent, Adam left his identity as worker and keeper while Woman deceived left her identity as helper, and they fell. And today the church still listens to the echo of the serpent saying, “Did God really say…?” - and we do this every time we question and disobey the scriptures.

 

[RamiC]

All Christian churches follow progressive theology when they do not have men as leaders and women or wives that cover their heads in the assembly when they prophesy and pray

I believe in fallible churches, who need to correct, that is to say, improve over time, because while God is perfect, we are not. Improving our understanding of what the Bible directs us to do, because we have more time and knowledge in the contemporary context, honours the martyrs who died to bring us all the Bible in our own language, and the Christians who campaigned for universal literacy after them.

even the protestant founders, and study church history (and you don’t have to go back too far), you will see it.

They made a heroic point that the church is fallible. They were great people, but not better than anyone alive now just because they launched and were in the Reformation. The fact that in my country now, and in yours appropriately educated and inspired people can translate the Bible, read it in their own language and apply some context to our knowledge of it's God breathed words without being burned alive, drowned, or being beheaded does not mean they were infallible.

When a Christian wears a cross it points to Christ. But for a non-believer wearing a cross is just fashion. Likewise, when I open the door for my wife, it means what I say it means, and I declare that it points to Christ opening the door for HIs Bride to paradise. When a non-believer opens the door he is just being nice, or sexist, depending on the perspective. But this is not something that is explicit in the Bible.

By this logic, if someone says that they believe banning the Bible serves God's purpose, then it does, if someone says opening their window saves a soul, then that does. Otherwise you are just living by a certain standard of good manners, not pointing to anything.

You help me make my point, that all denominations participate in DEI, to varying degrees.

In some cases I think they are just being slack, or not wanting to dictate or be legalistic. It is not DEI because women teach or do not wear a scarf. Incidentally the universal nature of God's love and salvation via the gospel is diverse, equal and all encompassingly inclusive.

You being humble about head covering is an encouragement. But unlike my door opening, the head covering liturgy IS explicitly in the Bible. It is true the covering liturgy involves more theology than we can comprehend, and the scriptures show this. For Paul wrote that it also has to do with the angels, but he does not explain it.

So maybe the fact it refers to a verse we do not fully comprehend is how come some women do not do it, rather than DEI?

When you think you are recognising my choice to wear a scarf in church, you seem to super-impose onto me making a public display of my humility. I wonder if a desire not to be seen as piously showing off how devout they are is why some of my sisters in Christ do not do it?

And today the church still listens to the echo of the serpent saying, “Did God really say…?” - and we do this every time we question and disobey the scriptures.

Assumptions made by fallible people in the past are not Scripture, exposing their error is not disobedience to anything.

Link here to an article which explores Scripture, and questions how it applies, "Moreover, the traditional interpretation must consider the gravity of whether or not they are wrong in their view. If they are, they would have effectively cut their work force in half, because of misinterpreting a single verse of Scripture. This would mean that God’s church would be benching half of its gifting and talent, because of a misinterpretation of a single biblical passage. As Keener observes, “Perhaps if we do not know for certain whether we are right or wrong, we ought to give the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to those who claim that God called them and who evidence the fruits of that call in their lives, rather than passing judgment on them.” The motive is to understand it accurately, not disobey.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." Ephesians 2:14-16 NIV

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's nice to see that a TT section is here now. I go into theology with both words & art. This is part of the art that I named Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden, which is about the Fall in heaven and on earth.

We see the forbidden fruit being taken by Woman in Eden. In accordance with our culture, the rainbow colors represent the rejection of our God-given identities as man and woman - and this was very much embodied in Eden, as well as when angels fell. There is much that can be said about this.

View attachment 360134
Genesis 3
And the serpent said to Woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And Woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 Then the serpent said to Woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when Woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked....

She unwittingly usurped authority and became the first pagan priestess when she mediated between earth and serpent. Then she ate and shared the bread of death, an unholy communion. We should not make a liturgy out of that, yet some do when a woman leads the Lord’s Supper, going against holy scriptures and church tradition.

Deut. 22:5 teaches us that a woman should not “wear that which pertaineth unto a man”, and that includes the robes and position of the priest or pastor - and there is plenty in the New Testament that backs this up. Holding to traditional theology, you can see that women’s ordination is a type of transgenderism that is practiced in the church, if the woman steps into the position of headship, going against many scriptures that instruct otherwise.

All denominations, the church as a whole, should return to a more traditional understanding & practice of the faith. We should move away from the progressive, post 1960’s understanding and practice of the scriptures, where feminist pride and gay pride have colored and corrupted people’s understanding.

Those that follow a progressive, post 1960’s theology may not like this... but what do you think about it from the true traditional position?

For my part, I'm going to suggest we don't create and define a category of some thing called "Post-1960s Theology" since the actual landscape, from whichever of the past several decades you want to point to as the catalyst for corruption, can't be simply identified with what is known today as "P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E," as if it's just one singular set of new ideas or interpretations of the Bible.

Yeah..................I don't accept that designation. It's way, way too easy, simplistic and unaware of the various other positions in the entire **cough** spectrum of today's Christian Theology.

 

[Ohorseman]

I believe in fallible churches, who need to correct, that is to say, improve over time, because while God is perfect, we are not. Improving our understanding of what the Bible directs us to do, because we have more time and knowledge in the contemporary context, honours the martyrs who died to bring us all the Bible in our own language, and the Christians who campaigned for universal literacy after them.


They made a heroic point that the church is fallible. They were great people, but not better than anyone alive now just because they launched and were in the Reformation. The fact that in my country now, and in yours appropriately educated and inspired people can translate the Bible, read it in their own language and apply some context to our knowledge of it's God breathed words without being burned alive, drowned, or being beheaded does not mean they were infallible.


By this logic, if someone says that they believe banning the Bible serves God's purpose, then it does, if someone says opening their window saves a soul, then that does. Otherwise you are just living by a certain standard of good manners, not pointing to anything.


In some cases I think they are just being slack, or not wanting to dictate or be legalistic. It is not DEI because women teach or do not wear a scarf. Incidentally the universal nature of God's love and salvation via the gospel is diverse, equal and all encompassingly inclusive.


So maybe the fact it refers to a verse we do not fully comprehend is how come some women do not do it, rather than DEI?

When you think you are recognising my choice to wear a scarf in church, you seem to super-impose onto me making a public display of my humility. I wonder if a desire not to be seen as piously showing off how devout they are is why some of my sisters in Christ do not do it?


Assumptions made by fallible people in the past are not Scripture, exposing their error is not disobedience to anything.

Link here to an article which explores Scripture, and questions how it applies, "Moreover, the traditional interpretation must consider the gravity of whether or not they are wrong in their view. If they are, they would have effectively cut their work force in half, because of misinterpreting a single verse of Scripture. This would mean that God’s church would be benching half of its gifting and talent, because of a misinterpretation of a single biblical passage. As Keener observes, “Perhaps if we do not know for certain whether we are right or wrong, we ought to give the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to those who claim that God called them and who evidence the fruits of that call in their lives, rather than passing judgment on them.” The motive is to understand it accurately, not disobey.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." Ephesians 2:14-16 NIV

You often mention that those before us were “fallible”. Apply that to us, here and now, rather than participate in what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery”. You call it “improving our understanding of the Bible”. But, it’s actually more like the serpent corrupting what God said in Eden. It’s arrogant for us to think that we understand what the Bible is actually saying in our times, whereas the saints before us did not. It’s like the Ethiopian eunuch telling deacon Phillip that he is wrong in explaining to him Isaiah 53. The things progressives teach are contradictory to what the church has traditionally taught and therefore dishonors the martyrs. Don’t get it twisted.

That progressive article you provided is an example of getting things twisted. At least the author DID tell the truth about ONE thing: with his own words he called his view “The Alternative View”. When I was growing up, what we now call LGBT was commonly referred to as an “alternative lifestyle”. The progressive article and LGBT are alternatives to what is true and holy. That progressive article also proves my point, that most Christians in the West are progressive, and they don’t even realize it.

I tried to read the progressive article that you provided but I found it hard to get past his list of so-called “Further Difficulties for the Traditional Interpretation”. All 7 are weak. It looks like he is trying to use tai chi to win a MMA match. It’s all itchy ear talk. He makes false claims about the traditional view. His interpretation is loaded with conjecture and references to historical claims that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, rather than referring to other God-breathed scriptures that relate. He pretends that all the other scriptures that instruct us about headship do not exist and overlap - those are listed below:

Matthew 19:4-6
1 Peter 3: 1-6
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
1 Corinthians 14:31-38
1 Timothy 3:1-12
Titus 1:5-9
Titus 2:2-5
Ephesians 5:22-33
Colossians 3:18-21

He claims that Paul was referring ONLY to the situation in Ephesus, and it is not a universal instruction. Other progressives say the same thing about the Corinthian passages, claiming those scriptures were only for Corinth, and Titus was only for the Cretes back in those times. Thinking this way is a grave error. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, Paul clearly points out that “no churches of God” have the practice where women pray UNCOVERED, and so this involved a vast area. It’s plainly there. Yet, some claim that the head covering liturgy was only for Corinth.

Here is the important thing to see: if we confine the scriptures only to their time and place in this manner, then we must accept gay people that claim that Christ’s definition of marriage between one man and one woman in Mathew 19:4-6 is something that ONLY applies to Jews, because Jesus was talking to Jews, and it does not apply to Gentiles. So two dudes can marry. Is that where you want to land?

On top of that, if we follow that flawed way of understanding scripture, then why celebrate Communion with bread and wine. That was for that time and place. So, today we can use donuts and coffee. Mexican people can use corn chips and tequila. Asian people can use rice balls and green tea, etc. etc.

But the scriptures should be more sacred to us than this.

You wrote that you practice head covering in church, obeying 1 Cor. 11:1-16. Given that, I trust that you accept the full meaning of those scriptures. Therefore, if you are married, trust your husband to lead you. It is on your husband to avoid being taught by a woman, or having his prophecy judged by a woman (1 Cor. 14), or submitting to female leadership that goes against the scriptures (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 1 Timothy 3:8-12, & Titus 1:5-9 , as well as the pattern of male leadership set in the OT and Jesus Christ when he chose the 12). To understand this, your husband needs to stay away from corrupted theology and “alternative views”, which prevail in the Western church. And if you do not have a husband, a woman can still cover, but it is a slightly different expression of the liturgy if this is the case.

 

[The Liturgist]

On top of that, if we follow that flawed way of understanding scripture, then why celebrate Communion with bread and wine. That was for that time and place. So, today we can use donuts and coffee. Mexican people can use corn chips and tequila. Asian people can use rice balls and green tea, etc. etc.

Ancient canon law that is still valid in the Eastern Orthodox church requires that the Eucharist be celebrated with a mixed chalice of water and wine (the water, called xenon, is boiling hot; it serves to symbolize the water that poured from the side of Christ our True God along with His sacred blood, and it makes the Blood warm), and with leavened bread (this is rite-specific and was initially anti-Armenian, since of the ancient churches only the Armenian Orthodox used an unmixed chalice; they also used unleavened bread, but its not clear when the process started, but this was part of a canon of the Quinisext Council which really irritated the Church of Rome at a time when that church was still Orthodox according to EO standards, so it should be regarded as rite-specific), but other more general canons not specific to the Quinisext Council in Trullo absolutely prohibit celebrating the Eucharist with water (this was the practice of a heresy, a cult known as the Hydroparastae, or “water-lovers” which has been revived in recent time by the Mormons), or with fish, or with milk and honey. That last canon was intentionally violated by a feminist liturgy at the “ReImagine!” conference put on by members of several liberal denominations. Also, the use of bread made from grains other than wheat was prohibited, and the bread was not to be what one would buy from what in England were known as “Brownbakers” who specialized in brown bread.

Regarding the wine itself, due to Islamic prohibitions on wine, some churches in Islamic areas were forced to take raisins and soak them in water so as to extract the juice, or to dilute wine to an extreme extent (specifically this happened with the Assyrians and also in Ethiopia, which, while not a Muslim country was unable to trade for wine, since there were no viable winegrowing regions in close proximity not under Muslim control (and the use of port or sherry even if it were canonical, or could be justified on the principle of canonical oikonomia (relaxation rather than strictness, or akrivia), was not possible since this technique was unknown to the Ethiopians at the time, having only been recently developed by the British during periods of war with France (French Claret traditionally being the preferred wine of the British) in order to obtain Spanish and Portuguese wine without it spoiling while sailing round the Bay of Biscay), whereas the Copts, Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, Alexandrian Greeks, Hagiopolitan Greeks (of Jerusalem) Armenians and Antiochians were able to source wine from Asia Minor and Lebanon and Greece.

The Ethiopians always take communion in both kinds, but the Assyrians do not require this, however, the fact that they still could not get wine despite it being used only in very small quantities is one of several vicissitudes visited by Islam upon the Church of the East, not the least of which was killing most of their members (all members of the Church of the East in Yemen, Central Asia, China, Mongolia and Tibet were killed by Tamerlane and his sons starting in the 12th century, leaving only those populations in the Fertile Crescent and in India). Likewise the other churches I experienced all have suffered Islamic persecution to varying extents (the Maronites have fared the best, due to securing mountain forts in Lebanon, which was also how the Druze, who are viewed as apostate by most Muslims, avoided extermination).

While the Orthodox Church is not legalistic, I regard the celebration of the Eucharist with anything other than bread and wine (or some credible grape product such as described above in the event wine cannot be obtained) and water as a great affront, since I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which was celebrated with bread and wine, and the early church had major qualms about using anything else in the Eucharist.

 

[The Liturgist]

You often mention that those before us were “fallible”.

Indeed, I agree with your remarks and those with CS Lewis about “Chronological Snobbery.”

Specifically, the idea that the New Testament is in error concerning homosexuality and related issues is untenable, and so is the idea that the early church was mistaken. At a minimum, the first three ecumenical councils which addressed the grave heresies of non-Trinitarianism such as Arianism and Macedonianism (the Pneumatomachians who denied the person or deity of the Holy Spirit), and anti-Incarnational heresies including Arianism, Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, along with the soteriological heresy of Pelagianism, must be regarded as ecumenical, since these three councils produced the Nicene Creed in 325 AD at Nicaea, refined it in 381 AD in Constantinople, and prohibited replacing it in 433 AD in Ephesus, and the Nicene Creed is the definitive symbol of our faith (all other creedal material such as the Apostle’s Creed or the canticles Quincunque Vult (the Athanasian Creed), Te Deum Laudamus (which I always loved, but did not realize was creedal until @MarkRohfrietsch pointed it out to me), the Greek hymns known as the Trisagion (which is used in the West, mainly on Good Friday), Phos Hilarion (which has been added to Evensong by Anglicans in North America but is lacking in musical settings), and Ho Monogenes (Only Begotten Son) composed by Mor Severus of Antioch and used in all Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, which deserves more use in the West, and various Eucharistic hymns such as Agnus Dei and the Syriac hymn Haw Nurone by Mor Jacob of Sarugh, all rely on the Nicene Creed in terms of establishing their central doctrinal part.*

* The Apostles’ Creed is actually believed to be derived from an ancient Roman baptismal liturgy, traces of which remain in the Roman Rite, which dated from the third century, which is reflected in how it very aggressively precludes Gnosticism, but does not address Arianism insofar as Arianism had not yet appeared - it therefore depends on the Nicene Creed since if used by itself can lead to people developing Arian notions or being crypto-Arian or even openly Arian - i have seen this in a major Protestant denomination that uses it, but seldom uses the Nicene Creed and does not use the other creedal material I have enumerated).

 

[The Liturgist]

They made a heroic point that the church is fallible.

That’s a false dichotomy, since the Reformers were responding to problems in the Roman Church which were specific to the Roman church. Had the Great Schism not occurred, there would have been no Reformation, because the Orthodox do not believe in purgatory, do not sell indulgences, do not celebrate the Eucharist in one kind, and actively continued to embrace vernacular languages, which the Romans ceased doing (after participating actively in the development of Cyrillic and Galgolithic for purposes of converting the Slavs, and having also translated the Bible and their liturgy from Greek into Latin in order to serve the non-Equestrian Plebeians and enslaved people of Rome who were not literate in Greek, unlike the wealthy Patricians and Equestrian Plebeians who could afford to send their sons to a grammaticus and a rhaetor, where Greek was taught at a high level). Thus all of the issues that St. Jan Hus, St. Jerome of Prague (the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates them as martyrs) and Martin Luther were complete non-issues in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches and in the Church of the East.

Insofar as there are no substantial differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and the differences with the Church of the East had also disappeared by the 16th century, we can assert that these churches possessed a level of authority on the basis of Patristic continuity that was lacking in the West due to the radical change of Roman Catholic theology owing to Scholasticism.

 

[Ohorseman]

For my part, I'm going to suggest we don't create and define a category of some thing called "Post-1960s Theology" since the actual landscape, from whichever of the past several decades you want to point to as the catalyst for corruption, can't be simply identified with what is known today as "P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E," as if it's just one singular set of new ideas or interpretations of the Bible.

Yeah..................I don't accept that designation. It's way, way too easy, simplistic and unaware of the various other positions in the entire **cough** spectrum of today's Christian Theology.

Fair point. It’s just a starting point for a discussion, but indeed it stretches further back than the post 1960’s. That is the time when feminist pride and gay pride began entering the mainstream, according to observations in my lifetime. But certainly it goes further back, much further, all the way back to Satan being cast out of heaven. You could look at it this way: he was the first liberal, the first to rebel against the traditions and hierarchy of heaven.

I’m not a wordsmith, and this is a little tongue-and-cheek. Maybe we can call it:

LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY

-Pastel purple is a mixing or blurring of boy blue and girl pink
-Rainbow colors representing the gay pride that results

In Heaven, the Anointed Cherub rejected his God-given identity and in his pride wanted more (Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:11-15). In Eden, the serpent led our parents to do likewise and they followed him in that same sin. Adam was effeminate when he failed to keep the garden. Woman was deceived when she unwittingly usurped authority and mediated between earth and serpent. Satan, Adam, and Woman were disobedient when they left their God-given identities. We rebel against our Creator when we reject His design for our lives, according to His Divine order. It is hard for us to see it in the case of an effeminate man or a woman participating in feminist pride (like when she is a female "priest" in the church), but when we have gay pride, trans, and kids are having their bodies altered with surgery and medicine, then we can more easily see it. We can see our disorder, the disorder that started with Satan and was copied by Adam and Woman in the garden. Those that celebrate feminist pride are hypocrites when they do not support gay pride, for both stand on corrupting or changing God’s word.

We should follow what the Holy Scriptures actually teach us about the image of God here on earth. God created us in His image, male and female. We deface that image to the delight of demons. According to unaltered scriptures, when a woman preaches to men, she is what we call in our times a transgender. I do not say this. The scriptures do. But the serpent twists the scriptures, or the words of God, and we are beguiled by his craftiness. He did it in the garden, and he now does it in the church.

The cornerstone of the house of progressive theology is the liberalization of what the Bible defines as true manhood and true womanhood. And when the gender lines have been erased or blurred, perversion follows.

But if Christ is our cornerstone, we listen to His voice and obey what He says in Matthew 19:4-6. This shows us our place, our identity. The gender lines are drawn or flow out from here. And Christ also includes the eunuch in Matthew 19:12, who unfortunately are now being ensnared by LGBT, because the church now minimizes the once honored places for such people (the monks, the nuns, etc.).

 

[BobRyan]

It's nice to see that a TT section is here now. I go into theology with both words & art. This is part of the art that I named Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden, which is about the Fall in heaven and on earth.

We see the forbidden fruit being taken by Woman in Eden. In accordance with our culture, the rainbow colors represent the rejection of our God-given identities as man and woman - and this was very much embodied in Eden, as well as when angels fell. There is much that can be said about this.

View attachment 360134
Genesis 3
And the serpent said to Woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And Woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 Then the serpent said to Woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when Woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked....

She unwittingly usurped authority and became the first pagan priestess when she mediated between earth and serpent. Then she ate and shared the bread of death, an unholy communion. We should not make a liturgy out of that, yet some do when a woman leads the Lord’s Supper, going against holy scriptures and church tradition.

Genesis 3 is not even remotely a case of a woman leading worship. IT is a case of the woman debating what Rev 12 calls the devil "the serpent of old"

Deut. 22:5 teaches us that a woman should not “wear that which pertaineth unto a man”,

That text seems to be more in line with what appears to be your preferred subject.

Holding to traditional theology, you can see that women’s ordination is a type of transgenderism

Which is a far cry from Genesis 2 and 3.

 

[RamiC]

You often mention that those before us were “fallible”. Apply that to us, here and now, rather than participate in what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery”. You call it “improving our understanding of the Bible”.

I do say the church is fallible now. What I call improvement to our understanding of the Bible is that does not constitute "question and disobey the scriptures."

Definition of “chronological snobbery” from CS Lewis:
“the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate of our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.” https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp...-C.S.-Lewis-on-Chronological-Snobbery-596.pdf

The article that I linked to in #25 does not say a single thing about how 1 Tim. 2:12 is out of date, every point it makes is about context, and I believe it all applies still now, because it is about what was being taught, not when!

But, it’s actually more like the serpent corrupting what God said in Eden. It’s arrogant for us to think that we understand what the Bible is actually saying in our times, whereas the saints before us did not.

St Paul who wrote 1 Timothy did not understand what he meant by it?

That progressive article you provided is an example of getting things twisted. At least the author DID tell the truth about ONE thing: with his own words he called his view “The Alternative View”.

Understanding 1st Century Ephesus is the precise point of historic context in which the Saint who wrote 1 Timothy wrote it.

It is an alternative to your understanding. Yours is not coming from a perfect being, you are not sinless.

When I was growing up, what we now call LGBT was commonly referred to as an “alternative lifestyle”. The progressive article and LGBT are alternatives to what is true and holy.

This is bait and switch. You have built a whole argument based on the word "alternative", to try to make like the article and me both say something neither is saying.

I intend to continue owning the word alternative. No way does the use of the word alternative constitute support of same sex marriage.

I tried to read the progressive article that you provided but I found it hard to get past his list of so-called “Further Difficulties for the Traditional Interpretation”.

Yes, I can see why you would. It is always hard to keep reading when we do not want to see the words.

You wrote that you practice head covering in church, obeying 1 Cor. 11:1-16. Given that, I trust that you accept the full meaning of those scriptures.

No, I wrote that I headcover, not that I do it to obey a specific verse, or my husband. I see no reason to think you understand the full meaning of those Scriptures. You never asked me why I do it, and if you bother to now, I will not respond. You clearly would not ask, because I am a woman and if you now ask, you would have allowed yourself to be lead by a woman.

Therefore, if you are married, trust your husband to lead you. It is on your husband to avoid being taught by a woman, or having his prophecy judged by a woman

Jesus Christ, is the true head of the true church, and He is the authority that my husband does accept. Neither my husband, nor I, require your help with following Our Lord and Saviour, or God's word, written, thank you.

 

[RamiC]

That’s a false dichotomy, since the Reformers were responding to problems in the Roman Church which were specific to the Roman church. Had the Great Schism not occurred, there would have been no Reformation, because the Orthodox do not believe in purgatory, do not sell indulgences, do not celebrate the Eucharist in one kind, and actively continued to embrace vernacular languages, which the Romans ceased doing (after participating actively in the development of Cyrillic and Galgolithic for purposes of converting the Slavs, and having also translated the Bible and their liturgy from Greek into Latin in order to serve the non-Equestrian Plebeians and enslaved people of Rome who were not literate in Greek, unlike the wealthy Patricians and Equestrian Plebeians who could afford to send their sons to a grammaticus and a rhaetor, where Greek was taught at a high level). Thus all of the issues that St. Jan Hus, St. Jerome of Prague (the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates them as martyrs) and Martin Luther were complete non-issues in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches and in the Church of the East.

Insofar as there are no substantial differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and the differences with the Church of the East had also disappeared by the 16th century, we can assert that these churches possessed a level of authority on the basis of Patristic continuity that was lacking in the West due to the radical change of Roman Catholic theology owing to Scholasticism.

I was replying to a specific point about the protestant founders.

You are absolutely correct to point out that they were protesting Roman Catholicism and their objections do not apply to the Orthodox Church.

 

[Ohorseman]

Ancient canon law that is still valid in the Eastern Orthodox church requires that the Eucharist be celebrated with a mixed chalice of water and wine (the water, called xenon, is boiling hot; it serves to symbolize the water that poured from the side of Christ our True God along with His sacred blood, and it makes the Blood warm), and with leavened bread (this is rite-specific and was initially anti-Armenian, since of the ancient churches only the Armenian Orthodox used an unmixed chalice; they also used unleavened bread, but its not clear when the process started, but this was part of a canon of the Quinisext Council which really irritated the Church of Rome at a time when that church was still Orthodox according to EO standards, so it should be regarded as rite-specific), but other more general canons not specific to the Quinisext Council in Trullo absolutely prohibit celebrating the Eucharist with water (this was the practice of a heresy, a cult known as the Hydroparastae, or “water-lovers” which has been revived in recent time by the Mormons), or with fish, or with milk and honey. That last canon was intentionally violated by a feminist liturgy at the “ReImagine!” conference put on by members of several liberal denominations. Also, the use of bread made from grains other than wheat was prohibited, and the bread was not to be what one would buy from what in England were known as “Brownbakers” who specialized in brown bread.

Regarding the wine itself, due to Islamic prohibitions on wine, some churches in Islamic areas were forced to take raisins and soak them in water so as to extract the juice, or to dilute wine to an extreme extent (specifically this happened with the Assyrians and also in Ethiopia, which, while not a Muslim country was unable to trade for wine, since there were no viable winegrowing regions in close proximity not under Muslim control (and the use of port or sherry even if it were canonical, or could be justified on the principle of canonical oikonomia (relaxation rather than strictness, or akrivia), was not possible since this technique was unknown to the Ethiopians at the time, having only been recently developed by the British during periods of war with France (French Claret traditionally being the preferred wine of the British) in order to obtain Spanish and Portuguese wine without it spoiling while sailing round the Bay of Biscay), whereas the Copts, Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, Alexandrian Greeks, Hagiopolitan Greeks (of Jerusalem) Armenians and Antiochians were able to source wine from Asia Minor and Lebanon and Greece.

The Ethiopians always take communion in both kinds, but the Assyrians do not require this, however, the fact that they still could not get wine despite it being used only in very small quantities is one of several vicissitudes visited by Islam upon the Church of the East, not the least of which was killing most of their members (all members of the Church of the East in Yemen, Central Asia, China, Mongolia and Tibet were killed by Tamerlane and his sons starting in the 12th century, leaving only those populations in the Fertile Crescent and in India). Likewise the other churches I experienced all have suffered Islamic persecution to varying extents (the Maronites have fared the best, due to securing mountain forts in Lebanon, which was also how the Druze, who are viewed as apostate by most Muslims, avoided extermination).

While the Orthodox Church is not legalistic, I regard the celebration of the Eucharist with anything other than bread and wine (or some credible grape product such as described above in the event wine cannot be obtained) and water as a great affront, since I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which was celebrated with bread and wine, and the early church had major qualms about using anything else in the Eucharist.

That is interesting. I read somewhere that wine was hard to come by in the Middle Ages in certain parts of Europe, and that was the reason the Roman Catholic Church came up with receiving one kind (bread) and developed the relevant theology.

And, yes, it has to remain bread, nothing else. To do otherwise renders the words of Christ to common chatter, to follow or not, depending on personal preferences. Progressive types do that, perhaps unwittingly.

Progressive types reduce the words of Paul and sometimes Peter, often rejecting the idea that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now, if the instruction is something they don’t care about, then they follow it. Like, using bread. However, if it involves something that offends them, like a woman should not preach to men, they begin to find ways to alter the original meaning of the text. Sometimes they will agree that the words of Paul are inspired, but we just do not understand them. They think only they do. They ignore early church writings and what the early church fathers wrote about the scriptures, even though these authorities oftentimes were living in the very context of the scriptures. Sometimes the progressive types will claim, just as we have seen here, that they are coming to a better understanding of the text. Anything but submit.

Unfortunately, they do not recognize that they have itchy ears that yearn to be scratched by the teachings of a misinformed person or liar. Itchy ears buy a lot of books. And, they mistakenly think that they are not progressive merely because they might oppose gay pride, without realizing that they are gay pride’s best friend and comrade.

 

[RamiC]

They ignore early church writings and what the early church fathers wrote about the scriptures, even though these authorities oftentimes were living in the very context of the scriptures. Sometimes the progressive types will claim, just as we have seen here, that they are coming to a better understanding of the text.

I really do not think there is a better authority on St Paul's meaning, than St Paul. He was much nearer to the text of 1 Timothy than any "early church father", what with the writing it thing.

I am not a "progressive type". I am neither progressive nor a type.

Anything but submit.

To you? Yes, absolutely, I denounce any requirement to submit to someone who is not God, not my Priest, not another Priest of my church, nor as far as I can find out any kind of leader in any kind of church. You are not my husband, you are not above Priest in my church, nor as far as I know any other. I am under no duty to submit to you.

If you are a leader of Christians, of any tradition of the faith acknowledged by CF, I apologise, but you do not appear to have made the information available.

 

[Ohorseman]

Genesis 3 is not even remotely a case of a woman leading worship. IT is a case of the woman debating what Rev 12 calls the devil "the serpent of old"

That text seems to be more in line with what appears to be your preferred subject.


Which is a far cry from Genesis 2 and 3.

It is so much more than a mere debate. If Woman had just debated the serpent, perhaps we would still be in Eden. But she obeyed the serpent, rather than God and her husband. She followed the serpent. You could even say she worshiped the serpent, for when she obeyed the serpent she placed the serpent in a place more exalted than God and her husband.

But, trust me, it is not my preferred subject.

Transgenderism indeed manifests in Genesis 2 and 3, though no such modern term was used in the text. But it is in the narrative to plainly see.

Transgender - an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex.​

God called Adam to be “worker and keeper” of the garden, and Woman was his helper. When the serpent came, their identity, expression and behavior swapped. God had given Adam his commands, but Adam was disobedient, while Woman was deceived in trying to be "keeper".

 

[Ohorseman]

I really do not think there is a better authority on St Paul's meaning, than St Paul. He was much nearer to the text of 1 Timothy than any "early church father", what with the writing it thing.

I am not a "progressive type". I am neither progressive nor a type.


To you? Yes, absolutely, I denounce any requirement to submit to someone who is not God, not my Priest, not another Priest of my church, nor as far as I can find out any kind of leader in any kind of church. You are not my husband, you are not above Priest in my church, nor as far as I know any other. I am under no duty to submit to you.

If you are a leader of Christians, of any tradition of the faith acknowledged by CF, I apologise, but you do not appear to have made the information available.

No, sister. Certainly I am not suggesting that you need to submit to me. This has never been about me nor have I claimed it to be about me. Please don't shadow box or try to make a straw man.

You wrote some interesting things before and I would like to respond to them later when I have time. I just wanted to clear up your confusion.

And you are right about what you wrote concerning Paul. So, let's let Paul's other writings help us interpret Paul, rather than what modern people may say about what Paul wrote (which is what that article does that you like). Paul wrote many letters, and they fit together in an amazing way. And they match what Peter wrote, as well as things that Christ said, and even things in the OT.

 

[timewerx]

Genesis 3
And the serpent said to Woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And Woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 Then the serpent said to Woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when Woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked....

She unwittingly usurped authority and became the first pagan priestess when she mediated between earth and serpent. Then she ate and shared the bread of death, an unholy communion. We should not make a liturgy out of that, yet some do when a woman leads the Lord’s Supper, going against holy scriptures and church tradition.

Deut. 22:5 teaches us that a woman should not “wear that which pertaineth unto a man”, and that includes the robes and position of the priest or pastor - and there is plenty in the New Testament that backs this up. Holding to traditional theology, you can see that women’s ordination is a type of transgenderism that is practiced in the church, if the woman steps into the position of headship, going against many scriptures that instruct otherwise.

All denominations, the church as a whole, should return to a more traditional understanding & practice of the faith. We should move away from the progressive, post 1960’s understanding and practice of the scriptures, where feminist pride and gay pride have colored and corrupted people’s understanding.

Those that follow a progressive, post 1960’s theology may not like this... but what do you think about it from the true traditional position?

I think you're over stretching its meaning towards the LGBTQ movement when Eve actually shares many qualities of Mary Magdalene in that moment.

Genesis is mired in deep mysteries can't can correctly interpreted plainly.

It would have made a lot more sense if you titled your thread so the topic is clearly about the problem LGBTQ.

 

[RamiC]

And you are right about what you wrote concerning Paul. So, let's let Paul's other writings help us interpret Paul, rather than what modern people may say about what Paul wrote (which is what that article does that you like). Paul wrote many letters, and they fit together in an amazing way. And they match what Peter wrote, as well as things that Christ said, and even things in the OT.

The evidence to support the article that I linked to is all over Ephesus now in 2025...it is in the ancient ruins. You do not need to limit understanding of the Bible to just the Bible itself when you can stand in the places where the real events actually happened, or at least see what is there from your own living space through documentaries and books, look at what was there - Ephesus played a vital role in the spread of Christianity. Starting in the first century A.D., notable Christians such as Saint Paul and Saint John visited and rebuked the cults of Artemis, winning many Christian converts in the process. - that is where the letters to Timothy were sent, the place to which Ephesians was sent. The cult of Artemis was everywhere there.

And the Bible says so, in the very book that records the birthday of the church - here it is -

23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24 A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. 25 He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. 26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. 27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty. 28 When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and all of them rushed into the theater together. 30 Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. 31 Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater. 32 The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. 33 The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. 34 But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Fellow Ephesians, doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36 Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to calm down and not do anything rash. 37 You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. 38 If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. 39 If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. 40 As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.” 41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly." Acts 19 NIV

Recognition of the context of the very city Paul's letters were sent to is not "modern". Those ruins which can be seen in the link in this very post, they were not built in the 1960's by 20th century feminsts. Please, go to Turkey and ask an Ephesus tour guide! Failing that, just please respect God's word about it, that is a riot in Acts 19.