Written by Kevin T. Bauder |
Tuesday, July 4, 2023
Jesus’s promise is not that the Holy Spirit would help the disciples to understand truth they had already received. Rather, the Spirit would guide them into the truth—all of it—that Jesus wanted them to have but that they were not yet ready to bear. In other words, these verses are about receiving truth (new revelation) and not about understanding truth already given (illumination).

Jesus cited, used, and endorsed every section of the Old Testament, whether law, prophets, or writings. Consequently, the Old Testament stands as a unit with His stamp of approval upon it. To reject its authority is to assail the authority of Christ Himself.
The authors of the New Testament had a very high view of their own writings. They asserted the authority of what they wrote, comparing it to the authority of recognized biblical texts and of the Lord’s own words. They also endorsed each other’s writings. To accept apostolic authority is necessarily to accept the authority of the New Testament.
A question arises, however, and it is an important question. Did Jesus ever endorse the New Testament? Does it stand beside the Old Testament with His stamp of approval upon it?
To discover Jesus’s opinion of the New Testament will require a different kind of evidence than His explicit endorsement of the Old Testament. By the time Jesus was born, the most recent document from the Old Testament was several hundred years old, widely distributed, and well known. Yet not one book of the New Testament was written during the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. If Jesus endorsed the New Testament at all, then He had to do it before it was written. His words about the New Testament would have to take the form of foretelling a later event.
Such words can be found in Jesus’s discourse on the night before He died, which appears in John 13–17. This discourse is divided by the departure of Judas in John 13:31. After Judas had gone, Jesus addressed the eleven remaining apostles. Most of what He said was directed specifically to them. When Jesus meant to include other believers, He either used indefinite language, such as when He referred to “every branch in me” (15:2) or broadened His reference with some phrase such as “them also which shall believe on me through their word” (17:20). In this discourse, when Jesus used the plural “you,” He usually meant specifically, “you apostles.”
He certainly meant the apostles when He said, “I have yet many things to say to you” (16:12). Throughout His ministry Jesus had been revealing new truth to His disciples. Here, on the last night before the cross, He told them that He had more to say to them. This was an intimation that His revelation to the disciples remained incomplete.
The reason it was incomplete is because the disciples were “not yet able to bear it” (16:12). They lacked some capacity for bearing up under the weight of the truth that Jesus wanted to communicate to them.
Read More
Related Posts:

Did God actually say, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man?” Or is this verse the invention of a man, trying to deceive women? When Paul disallowed women from teaching or exercising oversight in the house of God, and he grounded his argument in the Garden of Eden, what part is he playing? Is Paul deceived like Eve, trying to win one for Adam? Or, is Paul the serpent, deceiving the female pastor, telling her that the fruit she wants is not good? Or is Paul speaking for the Lord when he tells the woman to put down the pulpit?
This month at Christ Over All, we will consider these questions as they relate to the church in the twenty-first century. And more, we will put these questions to the test, as they relate to the rise of female pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Why the SBC? Keep reading, and you’ll find out.
Trouble in America’s Largest Protestant Denomination
In the 1980s, a “Conservative Resurgence” swept through the SBC. And if we boiled that movement down into two theological issues, they were the inerrancy of Scripture and egalitarianism, an idea that includes women serving as pastors. In those days, Bible-believing Baptists stood up to say that God’s Word is inspired, authoritative, and inerrant. This movement followed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and galvanized the SBC to stand on God’s written revelation—all of it, including the parts that spoke about women and preaching. Returning to its biblical roots, the SBC moved away from being a denomination that accepted women as pastors and preachers to a denomination that believed that Paul spoke for God when he wrote, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12).
This recovery of biblical orthodoxy and Baptist ecclesiology took place more than two decades ago, and yet in recent years, the debate about women serving as pastors has returned.[1] Presumably, the questions about the inerrancy of the Word of God have not returned, but the question of the hour is this: Has God really said that women cannot preach or be pastors?
Infamously, Beth Moore, before departing for the Anglican Church, celebrated her preaching in Southern Baptist pulpits. Likewise, another Moore, former ERLC President Russell Moore, renounced his previous patriarchal convictions when he wrote for Christianity Today.[2] More to the point, in response to recent events in the SBC, SBC President Bart Barber has promised to bring this question of women pastors to the 2023 SBC Convention. And accordingly, Christ Over All wants to return to the Bible to see what it says about men and women serving in the church.
Most specifically, we will consider the arguments in favor of women preaching and pastoring in local churches—arguments that have come to us from dozens of SBC pastors. These Southern Baptist pastors, both men and women, have voiced their opposition to a proposed amendment to the SBC Constitution that disallows women from preaching or pastoring in accordance with 1 Timothy 2–3. That amendment will be introduced below, but first let me get to the data, and also to the “Egalitarian Beachball.”
The Egalitarian Beachball
Mike Law, an SBC pastor in Virginia, is the author of this constitutional amendment. And in response to his amendment, over thirty ministry leaders of SBC-affiliated churches sent him emails condemning his proposal and arguing in various ways why women should be pastors and preachers. And by sifting through these negative responses, we saw seven different arguments for women in the pulpit, as you’ll see in a graphic further below.[3] Keep in mind, since the year 2000 the SBC has held to a view that states, “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
This view is found in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (BFM2000), which is the document revised and ratified in 2000 that outlines the doctrinal beliefs of the SBC. While this document affirms the myriad of ways women can and do serve in the church, it also made the clear statement above about who may serve in the office of pastor. Yet, as becomes the plasticity of our postmodern world, it is not surprising that the egalitarian spirit of our age has formed the hearts and minds of many in and around the SBC. As a result, this new amendment has driven out into the open many who are abiding by egalitarian principles, even as they inhabit an SBC, which affirms biblical complementarianism. Complementarianism is the view that men and women share the same dignity, value, and worth before God, but that God has created men and women with distinct and complementary roles in the church and home. For the church, this means that only qualified men may serve as pastor/elders. In the home, this looks like men leading their families in a Christ-like way while women graciously follow their husband’s leadership.
Now, were the issue of egalitarianism a tertiary matter (e.g., taking the Lord’s supper once a month or once a week, or preaching topical sermons instead of expository) it would not be a matter for breaking fellowship. Certainly, the frequency of the Lord’s Supper and the style of sermon are matters related to Scripture and church health, but they are not matters that rise to the level of denominational agreement in the SBC. The qualifications for the pastoral office, however, are explicated in the BFM2000 as a necessary marker for the churches who are in “friendly cooperation” within the SBC. With that in mind, Christ Over All is looking to call Southern Baptists—and all Bible-believing Christians—to abide by the Scriptures, and to exercise integrity with respect to their ministerial allegiances.
To this end, we put forward the Egalitarian Beachball as a graphic that captures seven of the main arguments in favor of female pastors made by SBC-affiliated church leaders. While this is not an exhaustive catalogue of arguments and is anecdotal in nature, it represents a cross-section of popular reasoning used to advocate for women pastors. Many advocates of this position use more than one argument to advance their reasoning, as reflected below. The first six arguments often come from those who self-identify as egalitarian, while the seventh argument usually comes from those who self-identify as “thin” or “narrow” complementarians (which is a type of functional egalitarianism).[4]
Over the course of this month, we will be addressing these points and more. Indeed, these are arguments swimming in the larger culture today and in churches throughout the Southern Baptist Convention and beyond. Because it’s important to give biblical arguments, not just hasty tweets, we will go back to Scripture and see what it says.
In truth, we will go back to ground already tilled by faithful pastors and teachers in previous generations. But as Paul says in Philippians 3:1, “To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.” Indeed, if the church needs to find a safe space, it is found in God’s Word. And so, with Mike Law, we are calling the church back to the Bible. And what follows is a bit of recent history to explain why this is necessary.
The Need of the Hour
Recently, I attended an Evangelical conference in sunny Florida, and as I walked outside beside the conference bookstore, two young seminarians bounced a conversation in front of me. At the conference, Crossway had given more than 2000 copies of their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to registered guests, and these two young men were quite impressed. Here’s a summary of their conversation:
Student #1: Hey, did you see this giveaway book? It’s called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Ever heard of it?
Student #2: No, never heard of it. Is it new? It must be.
Student #1: Yeah, I think so.
Student #2: I bet it is a response to the SBC debate about women preaching.
Me: Well, actually, let me tell you about the 1980s and something called the Danvers Statement . . .
As Solomon once said, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and this was especially true on that sunny day in January, when the beachball of egalitarianism was at issue.
As readers of this website may know already, the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is not new, nor is it a response to the recent questions about women preaching in pulpits or serving as pastors in the SBC. Rather, this is the book which defined biblical complementarianism in the 1980s after a group of pastors and scholars penned the Danver’s Statement in 1987.
Indeed, for most of church history, there was no question that the office of pastor—whatever it was called (bishop, elder, overseer)—was for qualified men only.
Read More

Probably the most wicked lie of all is that children stand in the way of a woman’s purpose and self-satisfaction. There is no doubt that our culture holds children in derision, for they are literally sacrificed through abortion in the name of self-advancement. Children bear the brunt of “progressive ideas” that disrupt the pattern that God has designed. We tell ourselves that they are resilient, too young to notice, or they need to be conditioned away from societal norms that are outdated and too restrictive. The truth is that our homes are meant to be a haven, a place of protection and stability from the outside storms. 

Who would have expected that a little college in Kansas could be the source of such cultural outrage? On May 11th, 2024, Harrison Butker, Superbowl champ and an unapologetic Catholic man, delivered the commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas.  In his speech, he spoke boldly about his convictions rooted in his Catholic faith.  Butker addressed or alluded to many moral hot topics in our culture today, but the one that is getting the most visceral attention are the comments he made about the value of women choosing, as a primary vocation, the role of a homemaker.
I have to admit, Butker’s remarks on the value of homemaking is not what you would typically expect in a commencement address to a graduating class in 2024.  The backlash has been vicious outside this small Catholic community.  His remarks clearly hit a primal nerve.  The response reveals how little value our culture places on motherhood, children and home life.  Being a homemaker as a primary vocation is seen as outdated – even demeaning – and unfulfilling for a woman.  This attitude makes me grieve for the next generation.
As I attend multiple graduation ceremonies this season, I wonder if our young Christian women are prepared for the onslaught of subtle and not so subtle messages that will pull their hearts away from building a Christian home as a primary vocation.  As Christian women, many of us homemakers, how do we prepare our daughters and granddaughters so that they see the significance and beauty of our design and purpose as it is displayed in our vocation as homemakers? 
“Diabolical Lies”
In his speech, Butker says to the women in the audience, “I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you.”  I would summarize his comments in this way: These “diabolical lies” are rooted in the disregard of the value of being a wife and mother as a primary vocation.  To pull back the curtain further, there are deeper lies that have led to that disregard:

Women are interchangeable to men and that the distinctions between men and women are unimportant,
The home is a secondary pursuit,
Self-fulfillment is the highest moral goal, and
Children get in the way of a woman’s success.

Before a lie can exist, truth must exist.  The Scriptures direct us to what is true about who we are as women.  We must start with what God says about the value of women; we do not need to cobble together a “modern” sort of category that helps us navigate who we are in the 21st century.  God’s word is sufficient for us to gain a clear, foundational understanding of who we are as women even as the world is changing all around us. 
Truth Defines Lies
Honestly, I wonder how many of us who claim to be Christians truly look to the Scriptures to understand our value.  I’ve read and heard many messages about Creation and fall of man and woman in the Garden as recorded in Genesis 1-3.  It grieves me that the familiarity of that passage can breed ennui or how I so quickly forget who God says I am.  But we must go back to the beginning – we must!  Before we examine the lie, we must first see the truth. 
So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:27-28)
God created man and woman in His own image.  He imprinted upon us the image of His character, to reflect His glory and be His representatives in the world He created.  Being made in His image gives all humans worth, dignity, and value.  God gave to both men and women a purpose to steward all the splendors of His creation and the means to subdue it.  It needs to be said again: God’s design for women was never of less value, dignity or purpose than men.
That does not mean we were made without distinctions.  God made man both male and female.  In His wisdom, He made His most marvelous creation – human beings – in two distinct categories, and together, male and female best reflect the fullness of the image of God.  He gave man the primary role of provider and protector.  He gave to the woman the primary role of life bearer and helper.  This is the pattern that He established at the beginning.  It was “very good” and afterwards, God rested from all His work (Gen 2:2).  He was satisfied. 
Yet, are we?  As Christian women, do we draw our identity from this truth? 
Read More
Related Posts: