Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Jesse and Tony answer listener questions.

Listener Name: Jimmy
What of the language “curse” in Genesis 11 account of the Tower of Babel?  Is this a “curse” that is not reversed in the eschaton?

Listener Name: Adam
What passages from the Bible specifically refute the concept of the eternal functional subordination of the Son?

Jesse Schwamb 0:10
Welcome to Episode 159 of the reformed brotherhood. I'm Jesse.

Tony Arsenal 0:16
And I'm Tony and we are proud members of the Society of reformed podcasters.

Hey, brother.

Jesse Schwamb 0:30
Hey, brother. What's going on?

Tony Arsenal 0:33
Man? I feel like I just talked to you yesterday.

Jesse Schwamb 0:37
I think you did. We did just do this. Nobody else knows is our own little inside joke.

Tony Arsenal 0:42
Yeah, so I am. I'm traveling to Minnesota this week. So in order to enjoy a little time with my family, Jesse and I have recorded a doubleheader. So we're going to stretch out the posting dates here. But we are back at the mics and we're ready to rock and roll. So we didn't make Any content for our reformed brotherhood family?

Jesse Schwamb 1:03
I love it when you say it like we're MCs

Tony Arsenal 1:05
we are back behind the max we got we got two turntables and a microphone

Jesse Schwamb 1:10
is a super tones reference right there.

Tony Arsenal 1:12
Is it super tones? I don't know. I don't think it's super tones

Jesse Schwamb 1:16
what they definitely use that in their first album

Tony Arsenal 1:18
I use that language but I don't think that the music I don't think the original is from Super tones is

Jesse Schwamb 1:23
no no no it's just two speakers in a microphone but I was I thought you were dropping a Scott reference on me right off the top and I was blown away.

Tony Arsenal 1:31
Little known fact I actually fell asleep at a super cheap car concert one time like right next to the big giant speakers. It was at acquire the fire and it was like day two and I hadn't slept and I literally like speakers next to my head that I probably should not have been sitting next to in the first place because of the the sound like the decibel level. And I just slept right through the whole concert was amazing.

Jesse Schwamb 1:55
I'm going to ask the question that everybody wants to ask you right now having heard that. Did you in fact acquire some fire at that concert.

Tony Arsenal 2:02
Not at that one. I have acquired fire at other acquire the fire conferences.

Jesse Schwamb 2:10
And that's where another podcast Yes,

Unknown Speaker 2:12
yeah.

Jesse Schwamb 2:14
So let's get into and do some affirmations and denials unless that's what you were talking about right there.

Tony Arsenal 2:21
Yeah, I'm definitely not affirming super chick. Wow. I think the only song I can even remember is just the title hero, but I don't even remember the song itself.

Jesse Schwamb 2:31
I think they were song called anthem, which was pretty good. But I haven't even thought about super chicken years. Like that is a reference from the past. Right there.

Tony Arsenal 2:39
It is. By definition, it has to be a reference from the past can't be okay. In the future. Fine. technicality, technicality? Yeah, I'll start so i'm i've been on like this new podcast kick, as you may know, and I'm affirming a podcast called the undying light podcast. So it's another just you know, you're cutting Standard couple of guys talking about theology podcast, but they're just really thoughtful about what they do. They did a series on the five solos, they've done a lot of different things. Check it out the undying light podcast.

Jesse Schwamb 3:15
You know, you're not the only one who's reached out recently and asked for some new podcasts. So, you may have seen this online. My wife apparently went to Facebook, she crowd sourced and said, I love podcasts. I listened to a lot of them, but you get that it's really like, I want some new podcasts. Yeah. So what's great is she asked all of her people to respond. And what cracks me up is she doesn't regularly listen to this podcast right because she just hears my voice all the time. It's true but so many people either because they want to be funny or because they were legitimate just responded. You should listen to the reform bro.

Tony Arsenal 3:50
Yeah, I didn't see that. I thought it was funny. You know, that's one of the best things about finding a new podcast is you know the the podcast Discovery engines that are built into like iTunes or pocket casts. Once you discover a new podcast, it kind of opens you up to this whole new like orbit of podcasts that you maybe haven't been exposed to before. So I'm excited because I found steady anchor podcasts. And then he was on a couple of these other shows. So it kind of opened me up to some of these other shows. So I'm pretty excited to check out more of what these shows have. There's a couple more that it's been recommending that I haven't quite gotten to there's one called Christ is the gear that I'm pretty excited to listen to. So check it out. undying light podcast, you can get it on podcast, podcasters anywhere, iTunes, anywhere you can find podcasts

Jesse Schwamb 4:39
that we call it these days now is the official term pod catcher.

Tony Arsenal 4:42
Yeah, you know, I'm not sure why anybody ever says where you can find podcasts because it's that's got to be like a super rare thing where someone is listening to a podcast like on the website, and has no idea where to find a podcast. I mean, I guess won't happen but it's

Jesse Schwamb 4:59
funny. funny you say that I just had a conversation this morning about somebody was like, Can you send me a link to the podcast? I was like a link, like, what do you want to do with that link? I was kind of confused. I was like you doing something weird? Why would you want to live? Next? I can listen to it. I was like, What about what do you use as like a your app for your podcast? And they were just like, What?

Tony Arsenal 5:19
My what i what i was like,

Jesse Schwamb 5:21
how would you recommend listening to it? And I was like, well, like with an app, like on your phone. And they were like, so you'll send me the link. And I was like, so it happens. I get it. Everybody's comfortable with a certain type of technology and how you interface with technology is always different than somebody else. So I'm down. That's fine. It's true.

Tony Arsenal 5:39
What are you sounds like dream catcher. dream catcher. Yeah,

Jesse Schwamb 5:43
just as a dream catcher, and we started with that. So we're recording this May to October. So I don't know exactly when this will drop precisely, but I'm affirming that people should get together this year, and have a little celebration for reformation day. 31st or there abouts. And I'm affirming the idea because I've just recently every, every time in October, I kind of fall in love again with thinking about the great lineage, the great those of faith who have come before us. And I love the fact that we can kind of celebrate, you know, this is the time of year that Luther, you know, nailed his 95 theses. And though there's like a lot of anecdotal stuff around that is a lot of it is blown out completely. There's just this wonderful truth in the way that God works through his church. And just think of where we are right now. There's so much that we are in terms of our theological traditions comes out of that environment comes out of those really processing. And it was for some of these for many of these reformers It was not necessarily just about like big ideas, it was about trying to understand how we're really reconciled with God, and about making the gospel The centerpiece. That is really good news. And so I just thought, you know what, this year then we're gonna get some friends together. And just celebrate that a little bit. Talk about what God is doing in our lives, make the actual The centerpiece, use it as an excuse to get together and have fun conversations of testimony about what God is doing in our lives and how we're thankful for the way that he's led us in our nation and our churches, in our communities, in our relationships, and try to, honestly that discussion will probably happen around some beers, because there's a great tradition there of the reformers, imbibing and responsibly enjoying some beer, especially was thinking recently about how I just find it. So funny. There's so many anecdotes about the Reformation. And here's one that I love, which is more likely not true. But one of the alleged things that the Pope said when he became aware and looked through his 95 theses is that he said something to the extent of well, he's just a drunk German, and he'll feel better once he sobers up.

Unknown Speaker 7:43
feel differently.

Tony Arsenal 7:44
Yeah, you know, what would be a great addition to your reformation Day celebration? What a beer Stein.

Jesse Schwamb 7:53
You know what? That would be a great addition. Do you know a place where I get like an authentic looking beer Stein.

Tony Arsenal 7:59
It's true. It's true. I do so we on the reform brotherhood are running a very special limited time only 2019 reformation Day Special on reformed brotherhood beer steins. So our friend rafaelle over at confessional were who puts together all of our merge put together a sweet looking beer Stein that holds 22 ounces of glorious brewed beverage. how big it is, well, I'm looking at the website it says 22 ounce beer style. I I didn't

Jesse Schwamb 8:29
I wasn't sure if there's like a standard like by law, it has to be 22 ounces. So we're just subscribing.

Tony Arsenal 8:34
I actually assumed it was a pint and then I poured a pint into it. And I was like there's a lot more space in here. So it's a 22 ounce beer Stein. It's got our faces emblazoned right across the front. So pick up a beer Stein. Join your friends, pour some beers and celebrate the reformation, reformation brotherhood style, so we'll we'll probably keep those up on the site for sale probably through like mid November. But then they're gone forever done Oh, go get them get them quick and enjoy your beer Stein

Jesse Schwamb 9:07
so what's the website again so people can find it.

Tony Arsenal 9:09
It is confessional where.com slash collections slash reformed dash brotherhood

Jesse Schwamb 9:17
and you'll find it if you just go to confessional where you can surf to our page and find all that stuff. And we should say that this is not like you're just little like chintzy glass. You know, like Stein This is like a ceramic it authentic looking, gold rimmed. It's got the trim on it. It really is a beautiful Stein. So this is gonna I know everybody wants to Stein's going to turn some heads. This is that Stein

Tony Arsenal 9:44
it is you can bring it to work and drink your coffee out of it. It'd be like the most me like the most epic looking coffee mug ever. But yeah, it's pretty sweet. I'm pretty good about them. So limited time only. Supplies are not limited. But time is so go get them right now.

Jesse Schwamb 10:03
I love it. Alright, so let's kick it back to you for denial.

Tony Arsenal 10:06
So, you know, yes. Yesterday when we recorded you were worried a little bit about triggering people. I'm a little worried about triggering people because I don't think there's a lot of Doug Wilson fans in our audience, but there might be a few. And I'm just denying Doug Wilson in general. Straight up. I think he's a dangerous teacher. I think he has really dangerous theology both practically and theologically. But specifically, I'm denying him in a recent video that was posted to the cannon press website or the Facebook. And in this video, there was kind of a dialogue between him and someone who works with canon press. And the question more or less was from someone who had written in that basically said, like, Well, I was raised in a way that kind of suppress my masculinity. What do I do to become more masculine in a healthy way? And you know, Doug's answer, I actually had to play back a couple times to make sure I wasn't hearing it wrong or like he was Miss speaking. And it was clear as day and I'm just gonna, I'm just going to quote it and then I think I'm just gonna leave it there, although I'm probably not going to just leave it there because we never leave anything there. But here's what he says. He says, he needs to self consciously study, read and lean against most of what he is taught at church, by example, precepts and sermons. So in this video he is he's saying that women, when they're exercising piety in a feminine way are quote, institution friendly, meaning that like, they don't, they don't cause problems. They're not difficult for the institution, whatever that institution is to manage. And so men, when they're acting masculine, are not institution friendly. So right there he's basically saying like men are going to make it difficult to be in an institution like they're not good for an institution. And then he straight out says that if a person wants to be masculine, he should study read and lean against most of what he's taught at church by example, precepts and sermons presumably because he's saying the church that most people are under the church that this person is in kind of suppresses masculinity by encouraging them to like be institution friendly so it's it's just ridiculous like he can't sustain this kind of thing. If the people in his church were studying reading and leaning against most of what is being taught by church at church by example precepts and sermon he would be bringing them up on like church discipline charges because they're ignoring pastoral command so he's literally like encouraging this person if you want to be masculine ignore what the church's teaching you.

Jesse Schwamb 12:45
At the very least, it's just super poor advice, isn't it?

Tony Arsenal 12:48
Yeah, it's poor advice. It's it's irresponsible advice to put out on the internet for a bunch of, I mean, real so so Doug Wilson's primary red meat demographic is like 22 year old guys. You already want to do this, they already want to ignore what the church has to say. Because they're convinced that they know better than everyone else. And so he's basically now giving them a license to ignore what the church has to say, with little or no guidance about what aspects of of what the Church says to ignore. So when this guy who's 23 years old and wants to go sleep with his girlfriend exactly wants to do that. All he's got to do is like, well, Doug Wilson said, I should ignore what the Church teaches me. So you know, I should I should be forward thinking and I should be assertive and I should go get what I want, and ignore the church. It's just dangerous, irresponsible, like pastor morally negligent advice to give indiscriminately. It might be one thing, in a one on one pastoral situation, to observe the church that a person's at and to identify that there are certain teachings that should be ignored and give this advice, but to indiscriminately give it out to the internet. It's just irresponsible. And I'm going to make a strong statement, but for a number of reasons, not just this, but but this includes looted. Doug Wilson is not qualified for ministry he never has been. He's never been properly, duly qualified by an ordaining body. He kind of made his own denomination up. And he teaches an errant tributary in theology. He teaches theology that that legitimately and concretely Not only does lead to abuse, but has led to abuse, just on every level. Doug Wilson is a dangerous false teacher he should be, he should be disregarded and ignored and fled from.

Jesse Schwamb 14:30
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, this is the kind of thing that I really pains me because even those who are great teachers, sometimes the internet trips them up because of this indiscriminate type of advice. Yeah. And yeah, it's just it is really dangerous. I'm not sure what is accomplished by it. You certainly did not make it specific enough. And even then you might question what exactly he's saying and why he's proposing that right. But you're right, it's too much license. It brings in too much liberty and this is the kind of thing I put under the auspice of Just no better. Yeah, I mean, we're in a position like this even regardless of what type of leader you are, you should just know better that this is not helpful. And then in the end, it's going to actually cause somebody to hurt themselves. Yeah. So I hope that that advice is not follow it. I hope people can see it for what it is, but that's a good denial.

Tony Arsenal 15:15
Yeah. And you know, like, just on a practical level, if you're in a church where you feel like you need to ignore most of what's being taught to you by the church, then go to a different like, find a different church. If your church is that bad, then you should be going somewhere where you're getting good teaching that you don't have to disregard or or buck against. And what he's doing is he's just creating a whole generation of this weird hyper like hyper macho, young white guys, and I don't say white guys, because there's any, any specific thing about being white thats related. That's just the demographic that's drawn to him. That all they're doing is like building these schismatic people that want to flee from the church and sort of start their own little fiefdoms like Doug Wilson has,

Jesse Schwamb 15:57
right? Yeah, it's just not anything. That's going to bring about the unification of the body of Christ. Yeah. What's funny is like, here's a pastor who's basically undermining his own ministry in a sense, because again, by opening that door, he makes it permissible, at least by way of his advice to ignore the leadership of your church, which could presumably include his own. I mean, one might say, what is to stop that advice being applied against you? Like you're saying,

Tony Arsenal 16:20
Yeah, well, and this is part of the patriarchy, like the the unbiblical patriarchy movement, is that the father and husband is the priest of the home. And so they're the ones that mitigate and mediate what is appropriate teaching and what's not. And so one of the main critiques of the patriarchy movement is that it takes ecclesiastical authority and it kind of runs it away from the church and invests it in the husband and father of the home. And this is just an example of it. And you know what, like, this would apply to everybody except Doug Wilson's church, like he wouldn't apply this on the church. So it really is a schismatic perspective, and I just, it's indefensible, and the only reason people defend it is because he's Kind of like pithy and witty and he like, turns a clever phrase and he says some occasionally insightful things about cultural analysis. But apart from that there's really nothing of value in Doug Wilson that is unique to Doug Wilson. In any sense, anything that he says that is valuable. You can find 100 different places with more Orthodox and more reliable and more consistent teachers.

Unknown Speaker 17:23
Right on.

Tony Arsenal 17:24
What do you got for a denial?

Jesse Schwamb 17:26
Certainly not something that's serious.

Tony Arsenal 17:29
Let's do it. Bring us back up Jesse.

Jesse Schwamb 17:31
I just I just got Jesus dude. But that was a really strong denial. So here's what I'm denying. I'm actually denying against the vitriol on the pumpkin spice. No, cut to like, all the people who are screaming right now like is out of control. We have pumpkin spice. You know, dog food. We cannot go any further. Listen, I hear you. I agree with you. Here's where the dial comes into play. I think what we're inadvertently doing is we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We're throwing a pumpkin with the spice. The problem people is the spice aisle pumpkin fan. I'm actually enjoying right now a chocolate pumpkin Porter. And the beauty of this is that it is an actual pumpkin taste as opposed to just like all clover all spice or salmon or nutmeg. So I want to get the love for like the real pumpkin back into our lives. So I just feel like we've gone too far now with pushing against the pumpkin spice stuff, because the spice is the thing that we should kick out of our lives and instead just embrace the pumpkin. I don't know. We I know we've talked about this at some point. Do you like pumpkin though? Like squashes? Are you I like squash?

Tony Arsenal 18:42
Yeah, I like real pumpkin. The pumpkin spice thing is where it does get a little weird. I mean, I like a pumpkin spice latte. Like once in a while, but like the everything pumpkin spice is just it's too much. It's too much. It's too much.

Jesse Schwamb 18:59
It is Too much I agree with that. Like there's certain things that should be sacrosanct like Do not touch this with that pumpkin spice. Yeah, but again, it's like the pumpkin is become the adjective. And really, we're not talking about pumpkin flavored things. We're just talking about like, blow your palate away with that weird kind of spiciness. Do you partake of the pumpkin pie?

Tony Arsenal 19:19
I do like pumpkin pie. I do like pumpkin pie a lot.

Jesse Schwamb 19:22
Yeah, cuz pumpkin pie is delicious. We we unfortunately my wife is not a big squash fan. So have you ever had sometimes I'll make just like a just like squash bites is basically pumpkin pie. But instead of pumpkin like just actual squash, also delicious.

Tony Arsenal 19:36
I've never had that. We should make that when you're here for Christmas time.

Jesse Schwamb 19:39
Yeah, like an acorn squash pie where it's just like it actually I think it tastes in some ways better because yeah, all you're getting is just that lovely. Who would turn down sweet vegetables actually, that sounds crazy. Now I say it but it's really, really, really good. So please, please embrace the pumpkin. Just give it a give it another chance. Give me a chance.

Tony Arsenal 20:01
Yeah, this just turned into the weirdest baking show I've ever heard.

Jesse Schwamb 20:07
You know what my wife again is watching the new episode of that Britain baking contest, which is like the amateur bakers in Britain who are in Yeah, and and they bake. Man I know I'm a firm that before and I just need to say it is a hilarious show because it's unlike any other American cooking competition because it's so chill, and so nice to each other. And they use all these strange words or they use the same words we do, but they pronounce them completely differently, man, it is so entertaining. It's like entertaining in a way that's like inconceivable to me cuz I'm like, this sounds super boring. Like, who wants to watch people bake because a lot of the show be like, now it has to prove. So it's like, you know, clips of them watching it proof and it's like that's the big like, it's not like baking is like particularly exciting. It's not like a Rambo's baking. It's just, you know, throwing stuff together and then most of time it's sitting around and waiting for God to do his amazing work through his creation, yeast and all this other stuff. So, yeah, sorry, I don't know why I can just get super stoked about pumpkin and baking.

Tony Arsenal 21:06
I just think it's funny how it's like the bell goes off and it's like they slowly walk to their I mean, they slowly start to need their dough versus like the Iron Chef where the bell goes off and they're like grabbing knives and like trying to fight each other.

Jesse Schwamb 21:18
Yeah, they're like, you know, like hauling giant swordfish away like they're trying to edge each other out for bok choy or something that you're right that's what's hilarious is it's like like ready said bake. And then it's like, Oh, where's where's my measuring cup?

Tony Arsenal 21:31
Can you please this flower? Can you please

Unknown Speaker 21:34
the flower?

Jesse Schwamb 21:35
so polite,

Tony Arsenal 21:36
potted me? The flower. That was my, that was the closest thing I could do to a British accent.

Jesse Schwamb 21:42
Meanwhile, and now I know they exist because we've gotten some comments on this. Meanwhile, all of our lovely British brothers and sisters are turning off this podcast because we just destroyed a butchered the Queen's English.

Tony Arsenal 21:57
It's all right. It's all right. They'll come back It's all good.

Jesse Schwamb 22:00
How many um so today we got a little bit of question cast going on and I love a good question can we add the best listeners who are part of the Brotherhood and so we've got a couple of questions that we need to throw out for discussion today.

Tony Arsenal 22:18
Yeah, yeah let's do it go ahead with the first one

Unknown Speaker 22:20
was on series to Philadelphia. I'm question regarding the curse and how certain things play out Yes, the time. So Tower of Babel story depicts the multitude of languages as a storm, as a form of a curse own humanity causes confusion causes breakdown in the humans are unable to plot against God as they were when they had one language, which, let's be honest, is King James only English. That being said, in multiple times of revelation after returns us and all things made right, it's made the point is made that every hung tribe nation is present. Particularly every tongue as my question to teens that this aspect of the curse is not to be reversed. And I wondered what that what that means in that article flames not necessarily curses are different interpretations, our battle What is it? What is the effect of the curse on languages?

Unknown Speaker 23:27
Yeah. Thanks, Christian.

Jesse Schwamb 23:30
So our brother Jimmy brings what I think is actually really interesting question here. And what I like about Jimmy's question is he's reading the Bible in this comprehensive way. So he's, he's hearing something spoken about language and the Old Testament, and he's trying to bridge it with what the New Testament is saying. So really, I think the question boils down to what of the language curse in Genesis 11 that is referencing the Tower of Babel is this curse that is something that is not reversed and ESCA, Don. So to set the stage Let me read from chapter 11. In Genesis, a couple verses the full account of what he's talking about, and we can go from there. So this is from the NSP. This is Genesis 11, beginning of verse one. Now the whole earth use the same language and the same words. It came about as they journeyed. He said they found a plane Atlanta of shiner and settled there, they said to one another, come let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly. And they use the brick for stone and they use tire for mortar. They said, Come, let us build for ourselves a city and a tower whose top will reach into heaven and let us make a name for ourselves otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth. The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The Lord said, Behold, there one people and they all have the same language. And this is what they begin to do and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come let us go down there and confuse their language. So they will not only Stand one another speech. So Lord scattered them abroad, and they're over the face of the whole earth and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel because the Lord confused the language of the whole earth. And from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. So let's start there with this idea, because I think what's important at the beginning of this question is Jimmy introduces the idea of a language curse happening here. What we see is this word confuse. So what do you think about those two ideas that confuse versus curse?

Tony Arsenal 25:31
Yeah, well, you know, it's not the case that just because the word curse doesn't appear in a given chapter, that it isn't a curse of sorts. So we, we probably have to talk a little bit about what it what a biblical curse even is. So when we think about a curse, we think usually our minds go to some sort of like, magic spell kind of a situation right there's, there's some sort of supernatural reality that's imposed upon a group of people or a person that defies kind of like natural explanations. That's not at all what a biblical curses. So when a curse happens in Scripture, it's God imposing a state of reality in a judicial sense upon a person or a group of people. And so the word curse in Hebrew doesn't necessarily need to be present for that to be true. But we should be cautious of thinking of things as curses without a really good reason to that, that said, I'm not sure it actually matters all that much whether we parse this out as a curse, or whether we parse this out, not as a curse. But what is clear to me from the text is that the the presence of multiple languages is not the judicial curse or punishment that's imposed here. It's the confusion of languages and the reason I say that is because if you go back, just a chapter, even if you go just to verse 31, Right, verse chapter, chapter 10 is sometimes called the table of nations. It's a genealogy that talks about all the different people groups that sort of spread out after the flood subsides from Noah's lineage. But if you look, there's this repeated profane, and it says here in 31, it says, These are the sons of shim by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations. And so even though verse, verse one of chapter 11, says the whole earth had one language and the same words, we have to remember, sometimes the text is using the same kind of concept in different ways. So unless we want to postulate that there's some sort of incoherent see in the text, or without a lot of technical justification, have this idea that verse 11, actually starts, or chapter 11 actually comes chronologically before chapter 10, which some people do. We have to say that when it says the whole earth had one language in The same words that that does not preclude multiple languages being in existence. What it means at the very least, is that at some point, everyone on earth had the ability to communicate with everyone else on Earth. Even if there were multiple languages, there may have been like a prime language that everybody knew. Or it could have been that the languages were similar enough that they were able to communicate, whatever it was, everyone was able to communicate with everyone else. But then by the time we get to the end of End of Chapter 11, and again, it's not necessarily everyone on earth at this is talking about, because we're talking about specifically the people in the land of Scheider. Well, the the land, the way that chapter 10 unfolds, there's people that are traveling self into Africa, there's people that are traveling West, there's people that are traveling east and north. So so people already start to spread out in chapter 10. As we see different nations come about right We see Egypt reference we see earlier, which is in in Babylon or the Babylon area that's kind of this people in China that we're talking about. We see the Land of Oz mentioned, which is in in around Israel where Israel is, we see Cush, which is Egypt mentioned. So we see that there are, which is Ethiopia. So we see this spreading out of people in chapter 10. But the whole earth had one language. So even though there's these different languages, there's the ability to communicate across the board. So what happens here in chapter 11, is that ability to communicate is removed because the language is the words are confused, right? So it's not the case, necessarily that this is exclusively a judicial punishment, because it seems like whatever God's doing in this, that it applies to the whole earth, even though it is only this subset of people in the land of shiner that are sinning against God, this consequence or curse or whatever you want to call it, it seems impact the entire Earth. So it's important for us the reason I say all that is just so we can kind of get our heads around what exactly happened? Because if we don't understand what happened, we can't really understand the second part of Jimmy's question which has to do with kind of eschatological Lee, does this get resolved somehow either in the askatasuna at some other point in history,

Jesse Schwamb 30:21
right. We need to pay attention to what guy was purchasing here, in descending and confusing the language because I think you're exactly right. We're not seeing here punishment writ large, and certainly not against the language. In fact, there's like a lot of irony even in the way it's described. Here, you have these people who are essentially building a tower so that they can communicate with God and God is about to undo their own communication with each other. And then part of the heart of the matter is that it's made clear in the words, let us make a name for ourselves. Right Of course, here you have them trying to make a name for themselves, which again, is the use of language and understanding cognizance and communication and expression, which God is about to undo or confuse and So you have this tower being built, which is certainly a modification of religious concept is built to make a name for themselves for man. It's also in some ways, I think, to acknowledge God, but it's clearly what they're trying to do here is to acknowledge God in a way under which he is controlled by them. And so language is just a part of that. I think it's very clever. That's In fact, what God uses to create this insurmountable hurdle for the creation of this tower in the city. But I also do not perceive this as a curse. Now, it is interesting getting in like you said that the second part of Jimmy's question about well what about in the ESCA time because he references something from Revelation seven, which were most people are familiar with this idea of many tribes and nations. So let me just read Revelation seven, nine. After these things I looked and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne before the lamb clothed in white robes and palm branches were in their hands and they were crying out with a loud voice saying salvation to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb. So I think actually, what we're seeing here is, first of all, we have this kind of unique parlance of the the thrice repetition of something. So I would say the interpretation here of the tongues in the midst of the tribes and the peoples is emphasizing that in the ESCA time, we're going to have this complete unification of God's people that already present there. And it will be the full spectrum of the creation that God has ordained in its expression of diversified human beings from different cultures from different tribes, who spoke different languages. And united kind of tease this a bit with our ourselves. We're talking this out. And I think we both it sounds like we're both on the same page of what we don't understand what heaven is going to be like in respect with our communication that we will have no problem understanding each other. Right. And so I don't think there's, I think what you find here is, is redemption, the sense of the confusion that God brought about for period of time is now I'm confused is now reunited. Now, whether that's because we have this massive, epic, ubiquitous translator, or because we just for some reason all understand each other we have no issue. It's it's almost six of one half dozen of the other. But I think we're emphasizing here in particular is just the enormity of the unification is going to happen. In other words, all of our lives, all of humanity is always sought to find unity and diversity. That's the university's that's the E Pluribus Unum represents, and we're only going to find that in the eschatology. And here, I think that's what john is trying to emphasize. And he does it by way of referencing language because that is one of the very common places where we find diversity in our own world. So it makes sense that he would reference that, but I don't think he's saying that there was a curse against the language that has now been reversed.

Tony Arsenal 33:46
Yeah, yeah. And one of the things we have to remember right this, this Genesis and revelation were not written in, you know, 20th century, Google Translate accessible worlds. And, you know, we don't tend to place our cultural identity in the language that we speak. But if you think about it, you know, there are there are those sort of I don't really know how to say this without potentially being offensive, but there are certain sectors of the the American culture that want to say something like in America we speak English, right? Well, right. That's not really true. Like America doesn't have a legal language. It's always been a mixed bag. There's always been a plurality of languages but but that concept of Americans speak English at particularly as Americans who don't have a legal language. And as people who speak not it not British English, but American English, which is already kind of like this weird amalgamation of things. Our identity is not that wrapped up in the language we speak. But if you go to somewhere like France, and you suggest to them that they should no longer speak French but you know, if you order your food speaking English when you're visiting France, they'll become deeply offended because you're, you're kind of violating their cultural identity. Or the fact that you know, we referenced earlier the fact that we call it the Queen's English. Well, there's, there's a certain kind of cultural identity that's associated with British English that we don't understand necessarily as American English speakers. And when you go back into history, that's even more more pronounced. So when we talk about every tribe, tongue and nation, and and we talk about every tribe and tongue, we're actually that's actually a figure of speech called a hidden hidden try this or a hidden diatribe. What it is, is it's it's, you know, when we say certain kinds of things, and we say this, this and this, it's actually a way of kind of like saying the same thing repetitive like repeatedly. And so when we're talking about every tribe, tongue and nation we're talking about is the discrete people groups that are are present before the throne. There is no people group that is excluded. There's no, there's no people defined by tried. There's no people defined by language, there's no people defined by nation that is excluded from being present at the throne of the land. That does not mean that there will be discrete nations or discrete tribes or discrete languages. Maybe there will be right there's references to the nations in the book of Revelation even after kind of the consummation of all things. So maybe there will be discrete languages, but somewhere along the line will be able to understand each other in a way that this always has resolved. For me in my mind, because I've asked this question to, is when we look at the day of Pentecost, when you read the text carefully, the miracle at Pentecost actually appears to be a miracle in hearing not necessarily a miracle and speaking, right so the text the text doesn't necessarily indicate that Peter was speaking or or any of the disciples are speaking a different language, but that the heroes were hearing the sermon in their own language right? So we've only got Peters only saying one link, one sermon. But somehow people are hearing it in multiple languages in their own language. And so we see that there's this miracle of hearing that's happening where everybody can understand what's being said by Peter, despite the fact that they each speak their own discrete language. And this is one of the things you know, there's that weird, weird segment in Matthew where like the dead people come out of their graves and walk around the city of Jerusalem right after the resurrection. And, and what it seems to be at least if you read the text carefully, there seems to be like Christ's resurrection, Usher's fourth, this resurrection power that actually kind of spills over to other people in in Jerusalem. And there's this sort of like, like, sneak peek of the general resurrection of the dead. And the day of Pentecost actually is a similar kind of sneak peek. And that's a sneak peek of the day where all of God's people will be united and unified not only in that they follow Christ, but even in things like their ability to hear and understand each other, there will be unity there will no longer be Jew or Gentile. Even though all those people were Jews. There's still this pre figuring of the fact that in the coming Kingdom, these distinctions that we find so much meaning in on earth will be obliterated, in some sense, in order to create a single unified people.

Jesse Schwamb 38:23
Pentecost was like, the original fire fest that actually worked. It was awesome. Yeah, that

Tony Arsenal 38:28
was that was acquired the fire right there. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 38:33
All right. Let's do one more question. Let's do it. Hey, guys, this is Adam from Colorado. just had a question for you guys. I have I'm in a discussion with somebody regarding the eternal submission issue. Christ submitting to are the son submitting to the Father is he from an eternity past? And what I'm finding is is when I'm trying to pull up recently sources for, to show the position against into that. There's a lot of appealing to, you know, older, older writers and confessions increase but I'm not filing anybody commenting on scriptural passages that show that show against it. Whereas the person in the discussion, it is giving me resources that are full of scriptural passages. So I'm just really having a hard time sorting out this issue. So if you guys are aware that any scriptural passages that would show that the eternal submission of the Sun is is wrong or if you know of any resources that that would address that issue scripture, Lee, I'd appreciate it. love what you're doing, guys. Sorry for the rambling thanks.

Jesse Schwamb 39:56
So this is also another good question in one which We could honestly spend an entire podcast talking about we love to reprise the FS controversy to talk about it continues to pop up. And what I like about Adams question is he's kind of coming at it from a perspective that I realized we haven't actually addressed not at least with a lot of nuance. And so he's asking specifically, what passages from the Bible specifically refute the concept of the eternal functional coordination of the sun. And I know that we've gone back we have lots of episodes, or at least a couple, we talked about GFS. We talked about some of the passages that those who are supporting the doctrine us. But I realized that we haven't really perhaps given a lot of resource to saying, Well, if you had a conversation with somebody, and you have to get the sense that this is not a biblical doctrine, well, we're going to go in the scriptures to really draw some of that out. And so before we get to that, and I'll have you go first and kind of share some of where you would go, how you would approach it, because again, this is a I want to say it's a complex question to answer but it is complicated in the sense that We have to synthesize some of the scriptures in order to understand it. In other words, is as a Peter was like, hey, let me just anticipate this thing called FS. I'm going to write a couple things down for you. And you can quote these right out. And it'll be very clear because I've addressed it with the same words. But this is a good time real quick to just, this is my quick summary of what this doctrine says. For those who might be jumping into the midsummer like what why do they keep talking so much about GFS? Was that even stand for? So? If A stands for eternal functional subordination, or sometimes you'll see it referred to as eternal relations of authority and submission? I like that one better when people are like, What about? What about Eros? Not just sounds cool. So if you're familiar with this, if it rings a bell a little bit it might be because some of the doctrinal proponents of this include people like Bruce Wayne Wayne Gruden, which we spoke about before, but the basic definition is using human or human relationship of father and son as a model for the relationship between God the Father, and God the Son what EFSTG Is that the Son because he's a son submits to the Father from all eternity and for all eternity. And so FS purports that the Son submission to the Father is here the fancy words ontological and not merely a function of the kind of metric Trinity. So what we mean by that is, this eminence or ontological Trinity are first to the nature of something the being or the essence of God, the econometric Trinity or first the way in which the persons of the Godhead relate to one another, for example, like in the work of creation, salvation. So basically what it comes down to this is discussion of over who God is versus what God does and how he does it. So if this is not promoting functional subordination, and equality of essence, nature, it's, it makes arguments for authority submission as inherent in the nature of God as Father and Son. So we're talking about the nature of the Godhead, the nature of the person's, that's the center of this doctrine. It's parsing out and trying to define that and saying There is a hierarchy. So that being said, When somebody comes to us having a casual, super chill conversation about EFS Where do you go in the scriptures or movies better say it this way. What What do you use from the scriptures? To explain the error of the FS position?

Tony Arsenal 43:20
Well, I'll just say this that nobody who knows me has ever seen me have a super chill conversation? fast because there's, there's not a lot that gets me going but gets my blood boiling and in a potentially negative way faster than the EFS controversy. So let me add a couple quick points of clarification or refinement to what you just said before we jump into what the scripture says here is the most most of the the proponents or advocates of FS would deny that the subordination is actually ontological, but the entanglement of their position necessitates that it is to be, right. So here's, here's the example is the word functional is in the name of the doctrine, right? The eternal functional subordination. But the problem is that when you push things back to prior to, prior to the creation or or irrespective of creation, there really is nothing besides ontological. So as soon as we talk about God, God creating or purposes to create, we're talking about the economy of redemption. We're talking about the economic Trinity. If we're talking about God in himself, prior to or apart from that consideration, there is nothing but ontological to talk about. So when someone like Bruce were says, Well, I'm not talking about the economic Trinity. I'm talking about how God is apart from the economy. But I'm not talking about ontology, that itself reveals a misunderstanding in the terms of systematic theology and what we're talking about. So, just a tiny bit of clarification what you said? Because if you do if you go up to a DFS advocate or whatever, and you say like, Well, why are you saying that the sun is ontological, subordinate to the Father, they're going to start screaming straw man until their head blows off. Even though the entitlement of their position does result in this, this ontological distinction, some of them like Doug Wilson, who I referenced earlier, does actually affirmed, I think they're actually more honest with themselves or exact or more likely, they actually understand the implications more. Doug Wilson says that, that the sun is submission. So the fundamental constitution or makeup of the Sun is submission itself and the fundamental constitution of the father is authority itself. The Bailey brothers, I think it's Tim Bailey, but it might be David Bailey, I don't remember he actually uses the word ontological in reference to this. So there are EFS advocates that would use that language but the vast majority, I think, because they're not very good. systematic theologians, they don't even realize that they're talking about ontology. So that's

Jesse Schwamb 46:04
what we do on this. That's why we're doing this podcast. We just have to the quick, you just got the summary. Exactly what the actual position that's being taken.

Tony Arsenal 46:12
Yeah. So let me let me preface this with you know, not every dispute this actually happened during the area and controversy and although DFS shares some some features with areas and it's not Aaron is improper, right? They don't argue that the sun is actually a creature, but in the area and controversy in the three hundreds, both the areas and the, the Orthodox or the Catholic Christians are utilizing scripture in order to articulate their position. And so sometimes when we go to a dispute like this, we have to be able to explain the scriptures. And my my tactic or my strategy, in situations like this is actually to start on certain levels of Common Ground So depending on who you're talking to, I don't know any of the DFS advocates who would say, Yeah, I deny. I deny the nicea and creed or right, I argue or I articulate that there actually is a plurality of wills in the Trinity. So we're not going to go through all of like the details of it, go back and listen to our episodes, I want to say it was like 4846 and 48, or something in the 40s or 50s. You can find them there.

So I tried to start where there's common ground. So so all of the CFS advocates that I have interacted with, would agree with the fact that there is a single will in the Trinity, and and the single will in the Trinity is a result of the fact that there's a single nature in the Trinity. And so when you start with this common ground that you no longer really have to prove, right, we're talking about like strategies if I was to build a comprehensive argument in favor of Orthodox communitarianism. I would have to say would have to articulate and and make the argument for this singular will in the Trinity. But because your interlocutor the person you're talking to already agrees with you on that you don't necessarily need to pave over all background and when once you've already agreed that there's a single will in the Divinity in the divine nature and thus the Father the Son in the spirit each share this singular will because they each fully possess and are the single divine nature their their greatest proof text for their for their position actually refutes their position itself and that actually happens anytime you have an inconsistent position right the single best proof text to refute Aryan ism is actually the passage in first current Aaron collections one that talks about Christ being the first part overall creation even though they use that passage to support their theology. So when I when I get to that point, we've already agreed that there's a singular will in the Trinity that there's no There's no ontological distinction or difference between what the way that the Father is God and the way that the sun is God. Once we've agreed to that, it's very easy to take them to First Corinthians 11, which is where they probably want to go anyways. So if you're talking about like a formal debate, this is actually a really great tactic because it kind of trips them up because you let them go to the passage, they're really interested in going to anyways, if you're talking about a more informal kind of situation, this is great because it continues to build that common ground, which gives you a place to launch off of, so I just want to read here starting in verse two, it says, Now I commend you because you remember me and everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. So we're talking about the common apostolic tradition that was common in the early church. It says, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. So they clue into that last little claws here that says, the head of Christ is God. Right, so they're saying, we'll see right here, Christ is submissive to the Father, the same way that a human is submissive to Christ, and the same way thus that a wife should be submissive to her husband. Well, the problem with this, and the way that you articulate the doctrine correctly from this year if the the doctrine of the Incarnation actually here is what we have is we have a three part analogy. And analogy is work on the principle of a common theme or a common feature. That is true across all all components of the analogy, but in various ways. So if I say that my bed is hard as a rock, well, it's not really hard as a rock because a rock has a much higher degree of hardness than my bed does. But what I'm saying is that a rock is hard, and my bed is hard. And there's some point of comparison, because both of them are hard in their own particular way. So in this passage, what we see is We see the head of every man is Christ. So we have two persons, two natures, to two distinct wills, right? There's the will of a particular man, there's the will of Christ. And then we go to the next one, there's the head of a wife, the head of a wife is her husband. So we have two particular persons, two particular nature's two particular wills, there's the will of the wife and the will of the husband. And then we get to the third portion here. And if the ETFs advocate is correct, then we're no longer talking about two distinct persons with two distinct wills. We're talking about two distinct persons with one singular will. Well, now the analogy breaks down because this last this last coupling, no longer has a point of comparison with the other two. Because what this is teaching is that the same way that Christ submits to God that is taking his will and submitting it to the will of the Father. So also, the man submits his will to Christ and the wife submits her will to her husband. So if we are in this third clause, and each person does not have their own distinct wills, then we're no longer in an analogy that functions correctly. Now we have this weird third part that doesn't have any point of reference or connection to the first two, which means it no longer can tell us anything about the first two. So when I say this, this, my bed is as hard as a rock, I'm talking about physical hardness. But if I were to say, Man, that test I just took is as hard as a rock. that analogy doesn't work. Because the way that a test is hard, meaning difficult, is different entirely than the way a rock is hard, meaning dense or physically hard. So that's what we have is a living analogy that would break down at the CFS advocate is correct. However, if the Orthodox classic trend Attarian is correct, and what we're talking about here is Christ in His incarnate state, according to his humanity in the economy of redemption, then we're talking about the human will of Christ being submitted to God in the same way That though the wife is submitted to her husband, and the man is submitted to Christ. So what we have now is we have two different options. And we have to ask which one is consistent with the rest of the passage. And when you when you look at it in this way, and you understand systematically what's going on, the GFS articulation of this doctrine is not consistent, and it causes the text to become incoherent.

Jesse Schwamb 53:23
That's good. I think that's a helpful way to break it down. What's interesting is how you can approach this from different perspectives. And I think that depending on with whom you're speaking, you might want to engage them in kind of a different way because of either their theological knowledge or their ability to want to kind of interface with the material in a more deep way or more way that's on the surface. And so one of the conversations I often have with people is very different from the one you just described, because I think that is really great, because you're parsing out, you're undermining the argument by using the same scriptures. Yeah, one of the things I like to focus on because my conversations probably are a little bit more chill because people are not asking like the kind of like the sometimes I think people hear this stuff and they want to talk about it. And that's generally the conversations more than I have is what do you think about this? What do you think about couple materialism. And so where I usually start is on a with a conversation about deity. And again, I like your idea of finding this common ground because we both deny the doctrine of FS. And the idea that the Father eternally has this greater authority than the sun. If you start there, it makes that may sound a little bit funky to some people's ears, especially if they're on the other side of this debate. But we start with this idea of Well, let's talk about can we affirm the deity of Christ? And I think like you're saying most would say yes. unequivocably. Yes. And so the Bible clearly teaches the deity of Christ. And when we start to look at passages, explain the deity of Christ, it becomes clear to us that there are no degrees of deity right? So all the attributes of God belong equally to all three persons of the Trinity Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Most I think, would agree with this. So if you start going and just really spending some time looking at verses, ones that are familiar even like john one one In the beginning was the word that's really helpful. Going to Romans nine five which is to them belong the patriarchs and from their race according to the flesh is the Christ who is God overall, bless it forever. Amen. Or Titus to 11 through 14, for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people, training us to announce on godliness and worldly possessions and to live self controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed at hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Hebrews one eight and nine, same type of thing. So when we find peppered throughout the scriptures, this goes back to I said at the beginning about we have to kind of synthesizes a bit, just like we're not going to find the word Trinity. And any descriptors explicitly, we find it's far easy to Intuit that that's exactly what we're talking about here. And if you I think you begin your conversation by focusing On the deity of Christ, and the understanding that all the attributes of God belong equally to all three persons, you will inevitably end up in a place where there is no hierarchy in the essence of who God is right? And once you start looking at these verses, and you see how clearly the text makes it that Jesus is God has all the same authority as God all the same attributes, it actually becomes uncomfortable to start to make the case that he is somehow subordinate to God the Father in that way. Yeah. And so I think even just on the face, that's a good place to start in the place that I often start.

Tony Arsenal 56:35
Yeah, and you know, this is this is along that same line. If it's true, that the Bible presents both the sun and the spirit as the absolute sovereign over all the universe. If that's true, then EFS is false. And here's why exactly is that EFS requires sovereignty to become a relative attribute of the father of the Son and the spirit. So in in EFS, and Bruce were actually says this, actually, I believe he says it pretty much explicitly, I don't have it in front of me. So don't quote me on that. But people like Bruce were actually want to say that the only absolute sovereign in the universe, who is unequivocally sovereign, who has no other sovereign above him, is the Father. Because the sun in the spirit have the father, according to people like were as sovereign over them. And so the sun in the Spirit are only sovereign in relation to creation, whereas the father is sovereign in relation to both creation and to the father or the son in the spirit. And so any and this is what we said the last time this question came up is, in reality, because EFS is not a biblical doctrine. Any scripture that you can put together that actually argues for the biblical doctrine is an argument against EFS. I know that's not the most satisfying answer, and it doesn't score you a lot of points in a debate. But that's the reality. So if you can find any passage and you can justify saying that the sun is the absolute sovereign over the universe, or that the Spirit is the absolute sovereign over the universe, then you you have now refuted DFS, because the sun in the spirit, according to, according to Fs, are only at best relative sovereigns, where the father is an absolute sovereign. And so you have to be careful because there are some texts that actually you could use to support that, that idea, right? But that's where you have to parse out carefully and you have to understand the difference in a text that's referring to the economy of salvation of the economy, the economic Trinity, and that isn't just the incarnation. So sometimes I think well, meaning people want to say that the sun is only subordinate to the Father, in the incarnation, and that's not actually a correct the sun is supported. It takes on a subordinate role in the economy of, of reality, the economic action of the Trinity, the sun takes on a subordinate role. And that's where we get some confusion where people start to pull quotes out of Bob bank or Calvin or Voss, some classic reform thinkers, where they pull these quotes out, which will articulate that the sun is actually subordinate to the Father prior to the incarnation. But if you read them carefully, they're not talking about the ontological or the Add intro there toward the inside Trinity. They're always talking about the Christ role as mediator, which starts prior to the incarnation, but actually is a function anticipating the incarnation. Right, so let's go back to a hypothetical scenario, right. a hypothetical scenario which was possible but not actual, with the Father, Son and Spirit in eternity past did not decree to create anything, right. In that scenario, this is The difference between GFS and an Orthodox Christianity or Catholic Christianity is in that scenario, FS would say even in that situation where all that ever existed was the father son in the spirit, the son would still be subordinate to the Father because the subordination of the son is an eternal reality. Whereas the Catholic Christian or the Orthodox Christian or the traditional Christian, whatever you want to call it, classic Christian would say, only in a situation only in a reality where God chooses to create, does the sun and spirit become economically subordinate? And that's the difference and that's why we say that's why we end up saying that the ETFs advocate, only only even though they realize it, they end up saying that there's an ontological submission or an ontological subordination because in that hypothetical scenario, we're God is the only thing that exists and no creation ever comes to be. There's nothing but the ontology, ontological Trinity even In that situation, the sun would still be subordinate as with the spirit in that in that theology,

Jesse Schwamb 1:01:06
right? Yeah, basically, there can be no more levels of authority within the one divine being, then there can be levels of deity,

Tony Arsenal 1:01:13
right. And so I

Jesse Schwamb 1:01:14
know that out of it asked explicitly for some scriptures and I hope that will be provided has been helpful. One ways to one of the ways to kind of back into some scriptures that would also be helpful by way of proof texting is again, to go back to the confession. So if you look at that Westminster Confession, and you look at eight two is going to speak about the sun being equal with the Father, you'll find lots of proof texts there that support what we're talking about. If you go to the Westminster larger catechism, question 11 speaks about the Holy Spirit's being equal with God, you'll find lots of wonderful support there. And then lastly, even the Belgian confessional, Article eight speaks very explicit about Father, Son, Holy Spirit all equal from eternity. So I would also point to those types of resources, which again, will push you back into the scriptures. But this is the kind of thing that I think we I think part of what we've been dancing around is that you have to we all have to get better at talking about this because we need to lead people through the arguments, what they're actually saying and what they actually mean. And what the Scriptures say about it. There's not a lot of low hanging fruit, we can just point to chapter and verse and say, Well, here's the exact place in which we find definitive proof. I think the first Corinthians passages is closest we get to it, but still requires explanation, which is another good reminder that we need to be constantly in the scriptures being taught by it, being informed by the Holy Spirit, sitting under good preaching, so that we get as we've talked about before, that really strong and good theological muscle memory, or I guess, theological hearing, so to speak, where we hear something like that doesn't sound quite right. I'm not sure I understand why it doesn't sound quite right at the moment. But I know there's something about it that puts me on edge. And I think a lot of people are hearing this and thinking that very same thing. And so one of the last things I want to touch on because this is very relevant. It's actually just happened is somebody The comments that dr. john MacArthur has made in reference to Beth Moore because a lot of the same argumentation that's used for a couple materialism or other things in terms of like, roles of women and men in the church is sometimes uses the same basis or is at least tangent or overlapping for arguments for DFS. So you real quick, we just address that because it's very contemporary. You're familiar with some of the comments that he made at the recent conference, right? Yep. Yep. Yeah. What do you think? What do you think people are dying to know, Tony, what do you think?

Tony Arsenal 1:03:30
Well, before I say that, I want to share one more scripture that I actually think,

Jesse Schwamb 1:03:34
no, we're done with Scripture not allowed.

Tony Arsenal 1:03:36
The question I think, more or less was looking for explicit scriptures that refute GFS and we took the more systematic approach, which I actually think is the better approach because it builds the whole foundation. If you look at Hebrews one and the whole point of Hebrews one is to argue for positively for the divinity of Scripture from the Old Testament, and one of the main things that the FS editor Because it's going to say is that the Father, the Son is said to worship the Father. But the father is never said to worship the sun. And the reality of that is, is if you read Hebrews one carefully, that's actually not the case. So what he says here, verse five, it says to which of the angels there he's, the author is proving the superiority of the son of the angels. He says, for which of the angels did God ever say, and then he goes through a series of things. And then it says, And then again, when he brings the firstborn, speaking of Christ into the world, he says, Let all God's angels worship Him. And then if you get out and he says, This is what he says, The angels he says something and he says, but of the sun, he says, Your throne, O God is forever and ever. The center of it of uprightness is the center of your kingdom. So what we have here this is this is astounding, to me is absolutely remarkable. Is the father is praising the sun, using the language of the Psalms, that's what's happening Hebrews one right and then here it says, You are laid the foundations of the earth and the beginning of the heavens are the work of your hand. So it is absolutely 100% not the case that we have zero scriptural evidence of the Father worshiping the sun, the Father, the Son in the spirit in, in the ontological Trinity, all worship and glorify each other. The father praises the sun, using the Psalms. I mean, it's, it's remarkable. It's absolutely astounding. So, when they say that when they when they say, well, there's nowhere in this in the Bible that the sun is praised by the father's worship by the Father. It's just, it's just not true at all true. All throughout the scriptures. We see all three persons worshiping and glorifying the others. That's just the way that it is. So in reference to john MacArthur though, and this most illustration conference, you know, most of the comments that I've seen and you can tell me if this rings true in your experience to most of the the comments have boiled down to man, john MacArthur is so mean. Right and You know this this might sound almost a little bit pejorative or sexist. But there's this weird phenomenon that happens sometimes in conservative Christianity where certain sectors of, of egalitarianism, what men to handle women as though they were men, right? Beth Moore, in a lot of ways, wants to be treated. Like just one of the guys. She wants to have all the same rights and privileges of the guys. She wants to preach like the guy she wants to be able to publish and to be able to speak at conferences like the guys. But then as soon as the guys respond to her like she's one of the guys, which involves a little bit of ribbing and involves a little bit of, you know, a little bit of aggression, sometimes a little bit of fighting. As soon as someone actually responds to one of these women, like one of the guys, all of a sudden they're being to mean, so that's kind of my first thought is like, let's all grow up a little bit. They use a little bit of humor. They were making some jokes, they were kind of like, they were kind of ribbing her a little bit. But at the end of the day, like they were making a serious theological argument and they were making a significant point. And and I actually 100% agree with their point that at the end of the day, I really think that Beth Moore needs to just shut her mouth. Like that might sound like a really like a really firm or strict way to say it. But there are a lot of like straight out accusations that she's making about the logical outcomes of complimentary aneurysm or, yeah, a couple of terrorism, right. I saw a video where she basically said like, well, compliment terrorism doesn't necessarily lead to abuse, but look at how much it's been used to abuse people. And and the reality of it is, is that a biblical complementarity in Islam doesn't lead to abuse. unbiblical complementarity in Islam leads to abuse. But biblical complementarity aneurysm leads to the increased dignity of women and men, protecting Women not abusing them. So anyone who's utilizing complementarity and ism to abuse women and I would actually say people like Doug Wilson fall into this camp. Anyone who's using complementarity and ism to abuse women is actually doing it wrong. They're getting compliments Marion ism, that one of the whole points of complementarity in Islam is that part of the purpose of man is to protect women. That's, that's part of our fundamental constitutional makeup is to have this desire and drive to protect the women in our lives. And and you're doing it wrong if you actually use it to, to suppress and to abuse them.

Jesse Schwamb 1:08:37
Right. I agree with that. I want to be a little bit measured in my comments, because so just in case anybody has no idea what we're talking about. I'm sure by now most people do but john MacArthur's conference, he was part of a panel and they were doing a word association exercise. And the first words that he were given was given was Beth Moore. And so there was some good natured joking about how you know, wow, what a way to start a off. And basically his response to that was in terms of word association was go home. So that's now been oft quoted as his response to her right. And I think part of that is tongue in cheek in a sense that he's, he's being humorous, but there is a very serious subtext there. And I want to say this like, for, for what I understand about Beth Moore, I think that her teaching has been incredibly impactful for many, many women, including my wife, she regularly leads a Bible study and often that involves materials that living proof ministries has produced which is Beth Moore. But what I find interesting is that my wife is very discerning about the use the resources that she uses, and I what we found recently is that she exclusively relies on what would be called like best older stuff, a lot of like her, her ministry, her series from like several years ago, a lot of her thinking has evolved over that time. And I think because she is a very strong personality because she's an outspoken person, and because in some ways There is like many leaders we talked about this whether it's Beth Moore, or whether whether it's john Calvin for that Bruce purpose or whether it's man why I just totally forgot Marcell sola, guys, Mark Driscoll, Mark Driscoll

Tony Arsenal 1:10:14
was just gonna make the same comparison.

Jesse Schwamb 1:10:15
Yeah, great. There's a cult of personality. And so I think a lot of this is she's been brought into argumentation that would be not may not be fair to represent her with, but at the same time she's definitely made very, I'd say she's been very outspoken about the role of women in the church and I certainly does border on the edge of preaching and a lot of times so I think that some reviews are very problematic. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater completely, but you should know that this is not like an unqualified endorsement. I'm not condoning what Beth Moore speaking now I just want to say I think there is some value in a lot of the previous work that she's produced and especially, I think there was a time because my wife just reminded me of this. We were talking about it were in many of her previous Video Series she's saying things like, women should not preach women should be per the scriptures that this is very, very clear that women should sit under places of authority when it comes to teaching and preaching in the church. And so I think that there is there was a very much a time in her ministry, when she was feeling this very appropriate, loving, incredible space where she was teaching women. And by default, I think there's things that wouldn't men could get out of her video series. But I think it's what's happened since that time and kind of this modern, more contemporary movement. That gives me a lot of pause for concern. So I don't want to sound like an unqualified endorsement, if that makes sense.

Tony Arsenal 1:11:38
Yeah, it does. And, you know, we did an episode on complementarity and ism a little bit back. And one of the things that, you know, you and I are on the same page that the biblical prohibition against women teaching is a prohibition primarily, if not exclusively of women, assuming the role of elder or five shunning as elders, teaching authoritatively the creation from the Word of God. So I do not believe personally and I think you're on the same, I know you're on the same page, I do not believe that there is, is never a context in which which is okay for a woman, a woman to teach theological concepts to an audience, including men. So we have to be very careful. And there's a whole different discussion that's go into that. But, you know, a small group that is teaching a Bible study that is going through like a book or a Bible study material that is not authoritative ecclesiastical teaching, right. So, so whether it is my wife leading a small group discussion about the book of Ruth, that includes men or whether it is me leading a small group about the book of Ruth that includes men and women, there's really not in terms of my view of the Scripture, there's not that much difference between the two of us. We're not a teaching authoritatively. It's a very casual conversation. where it becomes a problem. And this is where Beth more recently has crossed the line is in assuming the authoritative role of preaching to the congregation from the scriptures on the Lord's day, in the presence of God's people from behind the pulpit. And that's where she's crossed the line. And, you know, I agree with you that some of Beth Moore's particularly her early material, it was maybe a little bit fluffy. I was maybe a little bit, it wasn't something I would enjoy. But there were certainly a lot of women that learned from learned the scriptures from Beth Moore and her earlier teachings. But as she's begun to sort of like key into this, honestly, what I think happened is she has always wanted to be in a role that she was not permitted by scripture. And now that that the tides have changed a little bit, I think that she has seized an opportunity that she's kind of always wanted to seize, because now she's in pulpits on Sundays. She's preaching from the scriptures in authoritative senses. She's calling people to a account for the fact that they don't allow women to be pastors. So she's she's in a very different place than she was maybe five or 10 years ago. I've always thought she was a little fluffy. I've always thought there was better material out there. But there are a lot of people that that learned good solid biblical teaching from her prior to this weird transition I'm not 100% sure when this transition happened, but even beyond the gala Terry and element of it she's also been associated with Word of Faith teaching prosperity gospel teaching, so she definitely right she's definitely gone off of the reservation here. But that has not always been the case. And this is where I think the association with Mark Driscoll comes in and and then we can we should wrap this up because we're already way past our time is you know, they make the point in this video with john MacArthur makes that this is really a narcissistic situation, right. Beth Moore is essentially preaching herself. She's elevated herself into a position she shouldn't hold. She spends a lot Lot of her time recounting stories or her own experience about having this burden to preach. And she's she's essentially ordained herself to the office of elder when she does not have a right to it and Mark Driscoll to intimidate others who have fall who may or may not have been qualified. You know, Doug Wilson is the same sense, may or may not have been qualified at one point, but we're qualifier bowl, they no longer all qualify are qualified, but they have still thrust themselves into this position of elder, which the Bible has very strict regulations about who can fill the Office of elder. And so there is this element of self focus, right? If you listen to Doug Wilson's ministry, it is very much Doug Wilson centric, right. It's very much this is the way I'm being persecuted. This is the way people are going to malign my words. Julian civilly to Vivian is all about, you know, this was my sin and my sin uniquely qualifies me Martin. School is very much about. This is a church that I founded, you know, out of this adversity. It's very much a self centered ministry and joy. Beth Moore is very much in the same vein. So I just think people need to be cautious. And yeah, like maybe they could have been a little bit more serious or a little bit more reserved about their their wholesale disdain and disregard for Joyce Meyer but, or for Beth Moore. I keep on saying Joyce Meyer. But at the end, at the end of the day, if I'm being brutally and transparently honest, Beth Moore deserves to be disregarded at this point. She deserves to be treated like a false teacher who is usurped the role of elder illegitimately, which is exactly what Paul forbids a woman to do. So no matter what we want to say about how Beth Moore got to where she is, she has now done exactly and precisely explicitly what Paul forbids, we can have a disagreement about whether informal, non authoritative teaching is something that a woman can do you and I think that that it can there are good biblical arguments that she can't. But the one thing that everyone agrees who's reading the scriptures honestly can say is that a woman cannot usurp authority a legitimately obtain authority over a man. And that's exactly what Beth Moore, in many senses has sought to do. And it's exactly what she has done.

Jesse Schwamb 1:17:27
Right on. So in the final analysis, where these two things converge, is the fact that I believe that in terms of trying to support this argument, that women may preach on the Lord's day in that kind of formal capacity, and that there is some kind of eternal function of ordination of the sun, that in both cases, the onus is on the person making those arguments to actually prove them from the scriptures because the scriptures are very clear against both of those things. So I think that that's why it came to my mind. And because they use oftentimes many of the same argumentation and in some ways, the dismantling One is the dismantling of the other. So that's why I think it's important for us to address that. So they thanks for being willing to go there, Tony.

Tony Arsenal 1:18:08
Yeah, I'm always willing to go there. You know, you know, I do want to say one thing, because I just picked up my phone because I saw a notification. And I want to extend my condolences to you that me without you is residing as a band. And I want to just share this, this chat thread here. So, so embarrassing. We begun podcasting today at 3pm. Eastern Standard Time. And my wife actually sends it we have this group text message sends a notice that me without you is no longer going to be a band after this year. And Jesse responds to it at 3:31pm. And my wife actually says, are you texting while recording a podcast? To which Jesse says in more or less words? Yes, yes, I am. So I just want you to is an audience to know that Jesse was focused the entire time except for a short period between three and

Jesse Schwamb 1:19:06
I was tracking with you hardcore stuff this just I just happened to see this because on my screen yeah also on the internet here and I was like this is too sad not to respond to real time me with I use my favorite band The fact that they're not going to be an active bands I have to mourn over that. And you also just took away like my denial for the next time

Tony Arsenal 1:19:28
so it's okay it's big enough news that you can deny it next time

Jesse Schwamb 1:19:31
anyways. I feel like that is my denial. But for you and for my wife that might be your affirmation. No,

Tony Arsenal 1:19:38
no, no, no, even though like that, even though I do not like and they do not appreciate me without you. I know that there is a whole group of people that do so I can appreciate the amazing the sadness that comes with recognizing that they're no longer going to be

Jesse Schwamb 1:19:51
active. They're amazing. Well, this might be a record on the longest cast we've ever done to date.

Tony Arsenal 1:19:57
Yeah. Oh yeah, for sure.

Jesse Schwamb 1:19:59
I don't think I It helps us so if you stuck with us the entire time, thank you. Yes, you win a prize. You're a champ.

Tony Arsenal 1:20:06
The prizes that you stuck with us there's no other prize.

Jesse Schwamb 1:20:09
Exactly. The prize actually is that you go to confessional calm and by

Tony Arsenal 1:20:17
the prizes that you get to buy something everyone else can buy good work. Yes. All right. Let's not drag it out any longer. No, please. Until next time, honor everyone. Love the Brotherhood.