Gothard's Game of Grace: An Exemplar of Externally-Pursued Sanctification

The discussion of the external works as a saving power presents an excellent opportunity to review Bill Gothard's redefinition of grace, as he ends up remerging justification and sanctification to turn the Christian life into salvation by works. 

We've already established that justification as an external and alien declaration defines Protestant belief, and sanctification that follows in a Believer comes about by God's work in them from the inside out. 

Luther resisted the idea of participation in sanctification altogether, and Calvin defined it as cultivating obedience. Both men stated emphatically that all holiness arises from union with Christ which begins in the inner spiritual life of a Believer which eventually results in good works. "Not of works lest any man should boast.”

Tweet

Bill Gothard's Novel Redefinition of Grace

View the original video in its entirety HERE.

Tweet

Luther and Calvin on the Three Uses of the Law

Luther and Calvin differed on little, but as previously stated, Luther's different experiences and circumstances gave him a different perspective. To avoid a return to the ideas of Rome's synergistic works and faith, he focused on the daily reckoning of the Law and Gospel. Finding union with Christ came through a full comprehension of justification, and he saw that union as the source of obedience and good works.

Tweet

Hirelings and Their Deceptive Theology of Glory

Another way to understand Luther's view of the Law comes by considering what it is not. 

He sees the Law as nothing but the source of condemnation and death for the Christian, and it is not something that humans can harness for their use. Luther shares with Calvin the view of the total depravity of human beings who are unable to sanctify themselves (Gen 6:5, Jer 17:9, Rom 3:10). 

Tweet

The Cause of Luther's Sober View of the Law

Tweet

Sanctification: from Luther's Cross to Calvin's Union

Luther's Theology of the Cross and Calvin's Union with Christ motifs are different exegetical or theological tools to use as a key to studying the Bible. For both Luther and Calvin, the Epistle to the Romans serves as the basis for understanding what salvation entails. Both men's concepts depend upon an intimate experience of reconciliation. They also emphasize the critical understanding of justification, sanctification's absolute dependence on it, and the Holy Spirit's sovereign work in our inner being to transform us in holiness as we grow in Christ.

Tweet

RC Sproul, Sr: A Brief Description of Justification

I think that RC had a firmly developed concept of Justification and Sanctification

long before the New Calvinists came around.  I've never heard him teach anything questionable on this subject.  ;)

Tweet

Luther on the Righteousness of Faith

Late Edit: [I don't know how well it conveys, but I chose the statue of Hamlet at Stratford on Avon to illustrate how I think of Luther's contemplation of the Law. Because our efforts to keep it prove futile, I had it drilled into me at a young age that “all we get from the law is sin and death.” My mind locked it into auditory memory so clearly because I spent so much time and effort thinking about the paradox of Paul's writing in Romans that we do nothing to merit or receive salvation that becomes an admonishment to go forward and walk into the future with our weapons of righteousness.

We are amazing creatures, and I think twice of Hamlet. First, comes the soliloquy of “what a piece of work is man!” How noble in reason; infinite in faculty; in form, in action, in apprehension, in beauty, the paragon of animals, yet a quintessence of dust. And in contemplating sin, death and dust do follow. And so I chose the image of Hamlet holding Yorick's skull as he realizes all too painfully that life is so short. I imagine that Luther held that same kind of expression as did so many thespians in their portrayal of the sweet prince.]

Tweet

How Martin Luther Understood Justification

We noted that Martin Luther began to understand the writings of the Apostle Paul differently that he had in the past. He held a very pessimistic view about his own ability to grow in his faithfulness to keep the law, and while studying Romans 1:17 realizes that only faith could justify the believer in God's sight. But why did he find that distinction so significant?

I see my issue with the Young, Restless and Reformed as quite similar to how Martin Luther felt about how the Catholic Church relied upon good works and upon a mediator to obtain sanctification. (We hear the language of marriage as a sanctifying element in the life of the Christian in the Complementarian View of gender hierarchy where husbands claim that they can make their wives and children holy.) 

I pose the same question that Calvin did: If we are sinful, how can we go about making ourselves holy if it is something that we do not possess? How can sinful flesh cleanse and purify their own sinful flesh? Today, I question how a Christian who still strives to mortify their own sin daily has the ability to do it for someone else, too? Only a Holy God can purify an individual of their sin. Why is this even an issue for Protestants today, especially those who claim the name “Reformed” to describe their faith?

Tweet

Understanding the History of the Priesthood in Justification and Sanctification

The terms of Justification (right-standing with God) and Sanctification (to be free from sin) emerge as primary themes in the Protestant Reformation from the Roman Catholic Church as separate components of forgiveness from sin. Today, we hear them used by Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and others who argue for Calvinism as the true way to comprehend how God confers forgiveness as an act which depends on God's sovereign act alone (monergism).

Tweet

Towards Understanding New Calvinism's Other Gospel

I have pended this material concerning New Calvinism until I have time to further develop my thesis  I realized that I have failed to describe Calvin's core belief in Union with Christ which does a great disservice to what he believed and wrote.  And without a core understanding of Calvin's orthodox understanding of such matters, we cannot put any modern iterations of Sonship Theology (and any errors to which it disposes modern adherents) into proper perspective.  

Tweet

Holiness at the Expense of Kindness?

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, 

To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,

 and to keep … unspotted from the world.”

 (James 1:27)

Tweet

Gothard on Grace in his Thanksgiving Letter to Alumni

  

In a recent letter to alumni of his Advanced Training Institute (ATI, the homeschooling program offered by Gothard since the early eighties), Gothard gives out a personal phone number and an email, inviting students to contact him directly. He states at the close of the letter:

“I rejoice in all that God has taught us since ATI began twenty-six years ago. However, in the process I know various ones have been offended in different ways. Over the years, I have made my personal contacts or phone calls to ask forgiveness, yet I know there are others whom I have missed. Therefore, I would be extremely grateful if you would contact me directly if you have been offended."

There's no note about specific factors that prompted this letter. Some have suggested that shootings in recent years by ATI alumni like Michael Murray needed to be addressed. Others have suggested that Gothard feels quite threatened by the Recovering Grace website in particular and other such support groups and resources that offer help to those who have suffered because of his teachings and advice. It sounds as though Gothard wants to strengthen his reputation in the eyes of those who he views as his most devoted and most elite of students. I'm an IBLP alumna, but I received no letter in the mail.

Tweet

Converging Thoughts and Divergent Thinking (Speculations on the Tension Between Divine and Human Agency)

My husband and I think in different ways, but we often come to so many same conclusions independently and even say the same things at the same time. If a week goes by when we fail to utter the same unexpected comment simultaneously, I wonder if there is trouble in our relationship. So it's odd to consider how I comprehend things in terms of global perspective (borrowing a term from Cynthia Ulrich Tobias – Remember her of FoF fame, Moms?) and he comprehends best by looking at the finer details first. I quickly become uncomfortable without the overview when I am handed too many fine details, not knowing where to put them.

He needs the specific, objective details first, as they help orient him. I'm all about framing out the house and getting the plywood on the roof before I can begin to worry about shingles, and he is all about the shingles and the budget. So far, we have been a wonderful match for one another, showing complementary strengths.

When it comes to this discussion of faith and works in the circles of all those claiming Reformed Christianity, the general overview provides me with comfort. For that, I believe that certain writers appeal to me more than others. Throw in the changes in Reformed Theology, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction that have occurred over the past 15 years. Greg Bahnsen and Rousas Rushdoony graduate to Glory. Those men commanded much due respect that others don't seem to carry in the ways that they did, and in their absence, many different groups of folks lay what often seems like exclusive claim to their ideas. Throw in N.T. Wright, Norm Shepherd, New Perspectives on Paul, John Robbins, things Westminster (both East and West coast), the ever-growing Federal Vision weirdness and what Karen Campbell calls “patriocentric voodoo” that comes out of those who profess things patriarchal and family integrated. The regulatory principle of worship is another detail rich conundrum for me that does not hold my interest, though I also know some details people who become bogged down in what seems like minutiae. Many varieties and numbers of unique and common shingles lay in bundles and in the fray, many of which do not interest me. I'm concerned about where the shingles go, not the fine details of the specifics unless it is vital to my faith and worship. Thus far, it has not been too critical, though it seems those who are interested in these issues tend to be detail oriented as opposed to the over-view-type of thinker.

Human agency versus “faith alone” also confronts me as I write more about the similarities between the patriocentric and the Roman Catholic view of infused grace through ongoing works as a means of ongoing sanctification. As stated many times before, if you are Roman Catholic, the idea that patriocentrics believe that every household creates what is, effectively, an autonomous priest, creating sacraments out of wholesome agrarian living, ought to be offensive. Reformed Protestants should be offended because the patriocentrists (Federal Vision followers included) claim staunchly to be Reformed when they follow a Catholic-like form of government (via their patriarchal priesthood) and a view that differs little from the sanctification process of infused righteousness that Aquinas described. 

This denies the central tenets of all things Protestant and Reformed Christianity in particular. Roman Catholics should be offended because their view of priesthood becomes diminished, particularly when there are so few available priests worldwide. They should also take issue with patriocentricity's creation of countless family-oriented sacraments of wholesome living because they cheapen the significance of the seven sacraments established by the Roman Catholic Church. And as I've stated before, if you want to be Roman Catholic, that is your decision and we still have fellowship in Christ, just not in the specific mechanics of the mediation of justification and sanctification, etc. as it relates to patriarchy. My personal issue concerns these who claim a Reformed faith and Theonomy when they are actually closer to Roman Catholic Theology in their beliefs regarding sanctification. Create a new label, but be honest. Do not claim the Reformation (and likewise, do not claim Roman Catholicism, as they would not readily lay claim to these beliefs either).

Within the realm and ranks of Reformed Protestantism, I also contend personally, practically, and theoretically with what seems to be the natural and inevitable tension between faith and works in the Christian life. I inadvertently stumbled upon another discussion of this on a blog, all while Sandlin's “Faith That Is Never Alone” along side Elliott's “Christianity and Neo-Liberalism” stare at me from my bedside. They lay beside a copy of “Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment.” I also think of those who clearly follow Theonomy with grace and balanced Christian love in the Spirit of the Law as they pose a striking contrast against the “other supposed Theonomists” who I imagine Robbins would call the ersatz Calvinists. I've been using this term recently because it is shorter than “brave, new angry Calvinists” who recommend stoning of wayward teens and legalism the likes of which seem could only come from one who has never been to the Cross of Calvary. These are those who turn Calvinism into pagan karma through their works-based love of the letter of the law, as if their TULIP was short at least one petal (as if total depravity really never applied to them personally).

I inadvertently wandered into another minefield of what seemed like thousands of individual shingles laying around when I found “Professor Clark's” recent blog post about Theonomy and Federal Vision being identical twins that were separated at birth. Many single details presented there seemed quite valid and reasonable, and other conclusions regarding those and other facts presented seemed either murky or like minutiae. I lack the specific knowledge of those individual shingles that would enable me to rightly lay them in the right place in the right way so as to make a water-tight theological roof. From my global perspective style, the conclusions seemed off even though I did recognize the truth in some observations and facts.

Within a few hours after commenting there (which went unrecognized), many ready answers came to me with both completed framing and shingles in place for me from a source that I don't always agree with implicitly on all matters, but one I hold as most trustworthy and faithful. I am also aware that these are matters that he has studied at great length and one who actually had personal relationships and direct knowledge of the views of others referenced [in the blog theory of the supposed displaced theological twins]. This, Sandlin's response, adds more confidence to my speculations that the discontinuities between the Shepherd and Robbins camps are issues of articulating unique perspectives. But that's a Right-brained thinker with good Right-Left Integration at work, and the Lefties may not “get it,” even if I've articulated this all well. That's okay, as I am comfortable to leave some things obscured through the glass we see through darkly. I'll see it clearly one day when we shall be changed and be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is – the ultimate goal behind and bearing up the purpose for all of these debates.

Here is a portion of Andrew Sandlin's response to Clark, “Reversing Revisionism (on Theonomy, Shepherd and Federal Vision)":

Contrary to what we read on Professor Clark’s blog, I do not support and have never supported the FV. It’s odd that the critics of the FV do not grasp this readily documentable fact, because the FV’ers themselves do. They all know that I cannot agree with and in fact criticize their ecclesiology, their sacramentalism, their liturgy, their covenantalism and much else besides. The fact that I have defended — and will defend — them against historically misguided charges of heresy and “denying the Gospel” no more suggests that I embrace the FV than the fact that R. C. Sproul may defend John MacArthur against charges of heresy and “denying the Gospel” for being premillennial makes Sproul a premillennialist. Such (il)logic is just plain silly, as any thoughtful, dispassionate person must acknowledge.

I embrace the doctrine of justification precisely as it appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The exclusive instrumental cause of justification is faith. That faith rests entirely on the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross and from the empty tomb and grasps hard on Jesus as Savior and Lord. The issue is not sola fide, which Scott and I both heartily affirm, but the nature of saving faith. Scott, like his colleague Mike Horton, has made clear his position that justifying faith is exclusively passive (trusting in and resting on Jesus) and never active (submitting to Jesus as Lord and as his disciple). I affirm that it is both simultaneously (in the distinct senses I have stated), and that a faith that is merely active is moralistic while a faith that is merely passive is antinomian. On this point, I dissent from Clark and Horton and I agree with J. I. Packer in Evangelical Affirmations:

There is an evident confusion here between faith as a psychological act, that is, something that you do (in this case, “closing with Christ” as the Puritans used to put it), and faith as a meritorious work, that is, a means of earning God’s favor and inducing his acceptance. When it is argued that to call for active commitment to discipleship as a response to the gospel is to teach works-righteousness, the confusion is clear. The truth is that every act of faith, psychologically regarded, is a matter of doing something (knowing, receiving, and trusting are as much acts in the psychological sense as is resolving to obey); yet no act of faith ever presents itself to its doer as other than a means of receiving undeserved mercy in some shape or form. This is as true of a trustful commitment to follow Christ as it is of a trustful resting on the Saviour’s [sic] promise of pardon. There is no need to restrict faith to passive reliance without active devotion in order to keep works-righteousness and legalism out of the picture.

Packer believes what Clark and Horton do not: a saving faith defined only passively lends aid and comfort to antinomianism, and a saving faith defined both passively and actively does not lend aid and comfort to a moralistic works-righteousness and legalism. Justifying faith is both passive and active, and this is precisely what James denotes when he demands justification by works, which in no way violates sola fide but, rather, protects it.

This also is what NS believes and teaches, but agreeing with NS on this issue is not tantamount to support for the FV, just as RJR and GLB agreed with NS on this issue, and did not agree with JBJ’s views that eventually became known as the FV.

Reversal
This account, all-too-brief, is an accurate summary of the genealogy of the FV. One hopes that it will help to reverse some of the historical revisionism (or just plain ignorance) parading under the guise of thoughtful commentary.

Read the whole post HERE.

Tweet

Christ As Our Sanctification: The Meaning of Ephesians 5:22 - 32 ("The Jewish Way")

Concluding the comparison to and contrast of patriocentricity with the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage


In previous posts in the blog series, I've provided quotes from Rabbi Lamm's book demonstrating many beliefs and practices in traditional, orthodox Judaism that actually contrast if not denounce many of the submission doctrines taught by Bill Gothard, the Shepherding/Discipleship movement (Christian Growth Ministries, New Wine Magazine, Sovereign Grace Ministries, etc.) and the so-called “Biblical patriarchy movement.”

From Lamm's writing, we established the following:

Tweet

Marriage Is Sanctified From Concubinage Through the Law, Not the Bride and Groom ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In this post, I would like to lay the groundwork for the understanding of Ephesians chapter 5 and what Paul's language meant, based upon the significant similarities between “sanctify” and “marriage” within the Hebrew language. In the post that follows this one, I will explain why I believe Paul teaches and uses the language that he does to explain how Christ takes His Church Bride and sanctifies her to present her holy to God the Father. Paul, as an expert in the Jewish law and all things Jewish, once the Jewish legalist who demanded Steven's death to further the purification of Judaism, held nearly unrivaled academic expertise in the Jewish Law in his day. He was a “Pharisee's Pharisee.”

Tweet

A Man Does Not Answer For The Sins Of His Wife: She Is Her Own Moral Agent and Her Own Possession ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

One of the most disturbing things that I’ve heard in recent years is this whole idea that men somehow atone for their sins of their wives or will somehow answer for his wife’s shortcomings before God. I believed that this odd belief was just confined within the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement and patriocentricity, but when I lectured at a Southern Baptist Seminary a few months ago, I had several young men approach me to explain why I believed that they would not stand before God to give an account for their wives’ actions when they themselves one day stand before God to give an account of their lives. I never dreamed that anyone outside of this aberrant, spiritually abusive belief system would embrace such an idea. One can even easily find an example of this at Homeschooling Today Magazine concerning the editor and his wife. The editor declares that his responsibilities include “sanctifying his wife.”

Tweet

A Deeper Understanding of Sanctification

More on my ongoing vacation in Lutheranism,

a place that I do like to visit,

through Eric's shared links posted at

"On the Wittenberg Trail"

Here's a topic that I always assume needs no explanation for the Protestant and the Reformed, and, then, I realize that this is a false assumption. This is a subject of great debate within many circles in Evangelical Christianity, far beyond my wildest imagination. Though I rejoice in our commonalities in Christ and know many Catholic brethren that share a deep love for Jesus and the deep love of Jesus in their hearts, on the topic of sanctification, we do not agree.

From my traditional understanding, it was just this issue of justification and sanctification that moved Martin Luther to hang his famed Ninety-Five Theses on that famed door in Wittenberg in protest of Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic church essentially sold salvation through indulgences and works, teaching that sanctification was a process of "infusion" of grace into the life of the believer over the course of his life through compliance with the law and through obedience to the clergy. Salvation depended more upon compliance with standards and works than it did with faith, but one day, Luther had an epiphany. Reading that we were saved by grace through faith and not by works or PIETY in Ephesians chapter 2, Luther realized that salvation was of God and not through man's merit nor through the merit of his works.

This is truly a miraculous thing to understand, because I believe that comprehending this in our human understanding is truly impossible. Salvation by grace through faith is impossible, and God works this miracle of impossiblity into our hearts through faith in Him! Not of works do we boast, and we don't maintain our sanctification or the process of being made holy in Christ through our own effort but by the inner work of the Holy Spirit.

I was overjoyed to read the following. I will hope that you will click on the link and read the entire passage because it is wonderful, though I especially loved the lyrical statement, copied here from that blog entry on Weedon's Blog:

On Sanctification The danger is in thinking that the holiness given you in Christ is not whole, perfect, complete. * It IS. *
It is not at all so much the case that holiness grows in you, but that you grow in holiness.
The gift is given: now we make progress in learning to live from it, so that love becomes ever more our life.

Tweet

The Family Integrated Church Model and Spiritual Abuse

In prior posts, we've defined spiritual abuse as "the misuse of a position of power, leadership, or influence to further the selfish interests of someone other than the individual who needs help. Sometimes abuse arises out of a doctrinal position. At other times it occurs because of legitimate personal needs of a leader that are being met by illegitimate means." (David Henke: Watchman Fellowship, Inc.) We've also defined the hallmarks of spiritual abuse: authoritarianism, image consciousness, supression of criticism, perfectionistic demands, and unbalanced views (clearer and truer grasp of truth than other groups).

The Family Integrated Church (FIC) model represents the practices of many within the patriarchy movement such as presented by Vision Forum and those who participate with its family centered mission. A growing number of Evangelical Christian denominations include patriarchy as a central practice and model for their affiliates. Consider this example from the website of one such denomination, the Covenant Presbyterian Church:

It is in such a place that God chose to reveal Himself in the hearts of men and fathers. Our founding churches formed as God opened the truth of the Scriptures to elders who up to that point had been held in sway by modernity and compromise. God showed this group of men that victorious Christian living can come when the Bible is embraced in its fullness. This includes a trust in the historic faith, presbyterian polity, a commitment to the Biblical Creation model, biblical gender roles, and family-integrated worship.

Take special note of the phrase "God opened the truth of the Scriptures to elders..." This statement does not state that their insights are the only possible insights as the only insights that transcend "modernity and compromise," however, the means by which many "patriarchalists" carry out their convictions suggests otherwise. They are intolerant of other interpretations, declaring that their interpretation is the only possible conclusion concerning the meaning of Scriptures pertaining to gender roles, family and implications for conducting corporate worship. Bear this in mind when considering this element of spiritual abuse (per Henke), considering the addition of patriarchy as an additional example of "majoring in minor issues":

Unbalanced: Abusive religions must distinguish themselves from all other religions so they can claim to be distinctive and therefore special to God. This is usually done by majoring on minor issues such as prophecy, carrying biblical law to extremes, or using strange methods of biblical interpretation. The imbalanced spiritual hobby-horse thus produced represents unique knowledge or practices which seem to validate the group's claim to special status with God.

Could this "opening of the truth" to the elders and founders of the Covenant Presbyterian Church Presbytery possibly be an example of "unique knowledge and practice" giving this group a "special status with God" that typifies spiritual abuse?

The examples of their interpretation of biblical gender roles and family-integrated worship do give us some cause.

As an example of those who take issue with the FIC model, consider the 2006 Resolution of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International which declares the FIC "errant and schismatic":

• It encourages schisms in local church bodies by encouraging its adherents to change the theology and philosophy of the churches of which they are members.
• It does violence to local church authority, calling on local church members to leave their churches when the church does not bow to the philosophical demands of the movement.
• It espouses an ecclesiology based upon the family that is not based upon the New Testament but rather is an adaptation of Old Testament patriarchy.
• It falsely lays the claim that the destruction of the family in the U.S. is solely the fault of age-graded ministries in local churches. We contend that this is a simplistic and therefore false accusation.
• It espouses a postmillennial theology that is contradictory to a dispensational understanding of Scripture.
• It is oddly inclusive, basing fellowship on a particular philosophy of ministry rather than on the great fundamentals of the faith.

Consider also, the realted controversy regarding gender roles as a matter of Biblical Authority:

Vision Forum’s endorsed non-optional moral which defines their specific view of complementarianism and family, including concepts pertaining to the FIC:

Keep in mind that “non-normative” connotes sin

and compromise of God’s Holy Word

• Homeschooling only (Once stated to be sin, now is a strong recommendation as "normative") "Tenets"
• No secular curriculum for children “Tenets”
• Women are to function only within the sphere of home unless at the workplace of and with the patriarch (Once stated to be sin, now is a strong recommendation as “normative”) (“Tenets," McDonalds, Bodkins)
• Women to remain under the roof of the father or husband (or family home) at all times (in compliance with the concept of the sphere of home which makes attendance of a school outside of God’s “normative order”) (“Tenets,” McDonalds, Bodkins)
• No education of women outside the home (Once stated to be sin, now is a strong recommendation as “normative” and suggested to be a poor investment because of no chance of return on money spent on education because of work limited to the sphere of the home) (“Tenets,” Bodkins)
• Sons bear the duty of spreading the glory and fame of the father (Brown)
• Daughters are the helpmeet of the father and remain in his service until marriage ("Tenets," McDonalds, Bodkins)
• Father is keeper of his daughter’s heart until marriage (Phillips, McDonalds, Bodkins)
• Militant fecundity (evangelism preferred via godly seed/womb versus the lost) (Phillips and Brown)
• Christian complementarians are essentially egalitarians which makes them feminists which makes them open theists (Russell Moore and Roy Moore)
• Non patriarchal complementarians compromise the Bible as "white washed feminists" and "unruly and filthy stray dogs on washday" (Stacy McDonald)
• Patriarchy and complemenatianism as a “plumb line” for determining that which is truly Christian (and other views as less or possibly sub-Christian) (Commonly held belief)
• Non-VF homeschoolers are "Canaanites" (Commonly held belief)
• “Multi-generational” worship setting, etc. (family remains together during worship and vilifies segregated, age-appropriate groups) (BCUCF)
• Pessimistic view of leadership within the church (vilification of group leaders and pastors that usurp the patriarch) (BCUCF)

These matters are widely debated issues of controversy within and among Evangelical Christians and groups. However, it is important to note that many Christians believe that the debate regarding gender is inseparable from the doctrine of God and is thus a matter of sola scriptura or Biblical Authority. They assert that those who view gender as an intramural debate are critically compromising the Word of God and thus, by extention deny, God's lordship over all creation. It appears that groups that do not advocate subordinationism of Christ as related to gender still carry over the same zeal and emotional engagement conscerning this issue as those who share their view of gender.

Tweet