# How much can you debate with liberals?



## ExGentibus (May 9, 2009)

Last week I had a very unpleasant conversation on my forum with a person who turned out to be very liberal. The topic was about the ordination of women ministers: she began by asking what protestant churches, if any, and why, do still forbid the ordination of women to the pastoral ministry, claiming that she was "new to all this reformed stuff." I answered by summing up the differences between orthodox, conservative denominations, and those that have adopted the liberal theology, pointing out that the basic problem is not in the biblical text not being clear about the matter, but in the different hermeneutics and their rejection of biblical inerrancy. After a couple more exchanges, seeing that she continued to argue that the Scripture is not clear about this and that it is a "cultural matter" because Galatians 3.28 tells us that there is neither male nor female, I replied by presenting, to the best of my ability, the two main passages in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians and answered the common objections.

She replied very aggressively, saying that while she was in no way a feminist, nonetheless she thought that Paul or whoever wrote those epistles clearly did not construct "well-thought-out theological expressions;" that those verses were "incoherent, illogical, absurd;" that the four Gospels have greater authority than the Pauline epistles which are "the product of men of their time;" that Paul's interpretation of the creation was "twisted and inept," because he had "a patriarchal prejudice" against women. She did not spare questions about my intelligence and conscience.

At that point I ended the conversation, pointing out that our presuppositions about the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible were incompatible, because her rejection of the biblical doctrine of plenary inspiration defied any attempt at dialogue.

In the last few days, however, I have thought about all this and wondered whether I handled the situation in the correct way. Was I right to end the conversation there? Or should I have moved the discussion to her presuppositions and her view of the Bible, ignoring her insults and aggressive language against me and the historic reformed faith I was trying to defend?

More in general, when the discussion reveals that the basic presuppositions of the two sides are diametrically opposed, as in the case of liberal theology, how much space is left for the discussion to continue, and in what direction?


----------



## Whitefield (May 9, 2009)

I think Van Til and Clark would have passed over the presenting arguments and attacked the presuppositions. Both were good at bypassing the "we all know" part of the discussion and going straight to the "how do YOU know?"


----------



## Marrow Man (May 9, 2009)

ExGentibus said:


> ... she began by asking what protestant churches, if any, and why, do still forbid the ordination of women to the pastoral ministry...



Yes, challenging her presuppositions probably was the way to go, but it's easy to play "Monday morning quarterback" (or to beat ourselves up in hindsight). The statement above is an indication of those presuppositions; perhaps you could have challenged the way she expressed this -- i.e., it is the Scriptures that forbid the ordination of women and these churches are simply submissive to that. You could then turn the conversation around and ask what churches permit such, and why; why such interpretations are only confined to pet issues like this; how man is able to speak authoritatively on such issues apart from special revelation; how one who is not an apostle can speak more authoritatively than an apostle; how, if Paul was somehow a prisoner of his own patriarchal culture, she is somehow free of her own feminist culture, etc.

But you are correct to note that the conversation hinges on the authority of Scripture. She rejects that (except where convenient and palatable) and she must be challenged why that is the case.


----------



## Hippo (May 9, 2009)

I think that an interesting angle is to ask the person why it is so important to her and lead on to Chritianity being a revelation from God. We either accept the revelation or we do not.

It is possible to argue and discuss many aspects of the faith, after all the dividing line between custom (i.e. long hair) and created order (i.e. female preachers) is not sometimes obvious if it has not been considered in its proper context. What is not possible is to discuss these points if "human dignity" is seen as central to the faith, Christianity is not about us, it is about God.

From then on an explanation of the created order mirrorring the redemptive plan shows the full glory and logic of the Christian revelation.

Women preachers are a side issue here, it is the position of mena nad women before God that has to be studied, after that everything else follows.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 9, 2009)

It doesn't sound like she was consciously rejecting the authority of Scripture from what you posted. It sounds like she had just never actually thought through the implications of what she was saying. Many professing Christians today think in a fractured or compartmentalized way like that. 

So I would try to build on common ground (along with challenging her presuppositions). Does God have a right to speak for himself? If so, then does he have the right to ensure his Word is communicated accurately through his prophets and apostles? And further, if you claim to be in a relationship with him, does he have the right to contradict and correct you as your God? Either God has spoken clearly or he has not. If you truly claim to love him, then your must examine your life to bring it in line with what he says, not judge him by your arbitrary personal or cultural standards. Otherwise, you are the god, not Him.


----------



## Casey (May 9, 2009)

I had a similar discussion once with a co-worker. He asked me why I believed women are forbidden from the ministerial office so I showed him 1 Tim. 2. He was struck by its clarity (at least, that was the expression on his face). A few hours later he had garnered a liberal paper presenting an alternate (fallacious) exegesis and saw that exegesis confirmed in IVP's _New Bible Commentary_. Thus his position was proved by the "experts" in print and he himself was incapable of understanding any arguments against those "experts" (the arguments rested in part on the Greek). Liberal scholarship presents itself as sophisticated so it gives people an easy place to stop their search for the truth. James 3:1 comes to mind.


----------



## Rich Koster (May 9, 2009)

I find it frustrating to argue with liberals. They usually have a system of beliefs that suit themselves and when you pry into them, it rarely comes to a point of scripture. When it does come to scripture, it is usually one verse out of proper context and the bang your head against the wall session begins. Usually I try to leave them with a probing question coupled to a statement that comes out to "if you explain away or ignore one piece of scripture, it makes it easier to compromise on the next".


----------



## calgal (May 9, 2009)

Liberals tend to argue emotionally and the story they use is Deborah and they twist it to justify women in office,


----------



## Marrow Man (May 9, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> When it does come to scripture, it is usually one verse out of proper context and the bang your head against the wall session begins.



Absolutely, and the OP shows such a case. Using Galatians 3:28 as a proof text for women's ordination ignores the context and turns the gospel and theology itself on its ear. The context is justification by faith alone, not ecclesiology. It is just irresponsible for a supposed Christian to misuse Scripture in that way.

Here's something I've never understood about liberals using this text. Many (such as the person mentioned in the OP) will contend that Paul was a product of his culture, etc., and they will even use slavery as "proof" of this. Yet if an egalitarian view of women in ministry is indicated in this verse, would that not mean that slavery is abolished by the verse as well?


----------



## Rich Koster (May 9, 2009)

calgal said:


> Liberals tend to argue emotionally and the s


----------



## Rich Koster (May 9, 2009)

It's frustrating when you are adding to a post and your ISP goes on vacation.................see the above botched post.

I commented that Deborah was a political, not a Levitical servant.

Also, The cultural thing is also how they undermine I Tim3 and Titus 1 concerning eldership. They will also not want to address the Greek text which contains masculine and feminine words or any commentary addressing it. The commentary is brushed aside as "a man's opinion".


----------



## Hippo (May 9, 2009)

My parents are shocked that I do not believe that women should be ministers, they are just speechless at the very concept.

I am going up to see them in a few weeks and the church that they go to (and in which I grew up) has a women minister. I am mindfull not to go to Church with them because I do not believe that it is right to attend such a service.

This question is therefore much on my mind.


----------



## Idelette (May 9, 2009)

Hi Andrea, 

I've been in so many similar situations.....and I think you handled it well! I would have probably done something similar, and yes, challenged some of her presuppositions as well. I think what I've learned most is to let Scripture speak for itself......and I think you did give her some Scriptures to think about. From what you stated above, she was clearly offended and reacting emotionally at the notion that only men can be preachers! When dealing with such people, I think there is a point where you have to draw the line and end arguing.....it just becomes a "casting your pearls before swine"! So, I wouldn't worry that you ended the conversation too soon. I would just pray for her, and pray that the Lord would use your conversation to really challenge her and seek God's Word!


----------



## ExGentibus (May 9, 2009)

Thanks for all your replies.
In an ideal situation, challenging the presuppositions would probably be the best thing to do. That was no ideal situation though. The more I talked about the authority and inspiration of the whole Scripture and about reformed confessional history, the more she became upset and offensive, and frankly, when a discussion leaves the realm of civility, I tend to leave the conversation.

I agree she did not think she was rejecting the authority of Scripture, but then again, who does? Excluding the most blatant false teachers, it seems that whoever holds unorthodox positions thinks he is moderate, biblical, and respectful of the true meaning of the text.

She stated that she believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures; the problem is that she gives the word "inspiration" a totally different meaning than that of the Scripture. I quoted 2 Pet. 1.21, and privately asked her on what basis she judges that one passage of the epistles is to be received as authoritative and another to be rejected as cultural and local. All to no avail. It was exactly the "bang-your-head-against-the-wall session" (great definition, by the way!)

I suspect that presuppositional apologetics are more effective with atheists or charismatics rather than liberals. The charismatics too become very emotional, but when (and if) one manages to take them to the text of Scripture, they usually respect its authority. That is the best common ground one could hope for. But with liberals


----------

