What is the story?

Theological Treason youtu.be/juHiWHZkKTo?si=T_Ot… via @YouTube

This is so good podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…

The Real Context of 1 Corinthians 14 & "Silent Women" 🧵 When Paul told women to "keep silent" (1 Cor 14:34-35), he wasn't issuing a universal, permanent ban on women speaking. He was addressing a specific, localized crisis. Here is what was actually happening: 1/ The Core Issue: Chaos. The entire chapter is a corrective letter about disorderly, chaotic worship services. People were shouting, speaking in tongues simultaneously, and interrupting prophets. Paul actually commands three different groups to "be silent" at various points to restore order. 2/ The 1 Cor 11 Contradiction. Just three chapters earlier (1 Cor 11:5), Paul explicitly gives instructions on how women should dress when they publicly pray and prophesy in church. He clearly expected them to speak; 1 Cor 14 only targets a specific type of disruptive speech. 3/ Disruptive Questioning. In the Greco-Roman world, gatherings were often sex-segregated or rowdy. Newly converted, uneducated wives were calling across the room, interrupting the service to ask questions or challenge teachings. Paul tells them to pause the disruptions and "ask their husbands at home." 4/ The Culture Conflict. Corinth was a wild Roman colony heavily influenced by chaotic pagan cults (like Dionysus worship), where ecstatic screaming was normal. Paul wanted the Christian church to look decent, orderly, and distinct from the surrounding culture. The Takeaway: Paul was stopping a chaotic, rude disruption—not silencing women's ministry gifts. The goal was orderly worship so everyone could learn.

Revelation. Give this the 1 hour. It’s good podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…

Nature changed after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit? No verses state there is a nature change in humanity after Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad No verses explicitly state the words "human nature changed." That conclusion relies on theological deduction and systematic frameworks—such as Western doctrines of Original Sin or Reformed theology’s focus on Total Depravity—rather than a literal, explicit statement in the text itself. When looking strictly at the text without a later theological lens, the Bible describes changes in human behavior, environment, and status, rather than a literal re-engineering of human DNA or metaphysical nature. Here is a direct look at what the literal text actually says versus the philosophical assumptions often applied to it: What the Text Literally States - A change in status and environment: Genesis 3 explicitly details a change in relationship and scarcity. Humanity is barred from the Tree of Life, labor becomes painful, and the ground is cursed. - A change in awareness: Genesis 3:7 says their "eyes were opened" and they experienced shame (nakedness) and fear, which are psychological and emotional reactions to a broken boundary, not a stated change in their physical or spiritual design. —The introduction of death: Romans 5:12 states that death entered the world and spread to all men. Where the "Nature Changed" Philosophy Comes From: The idea of a fundamentally altered "sin nature" is a systematic framework developed centuries later (largely popularized in Western Christianity by Augustine and later heavily emphasized in Reformed theology). The Western/Reformed View: Interprets phrases like "were by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3) or "made sinners" (Romans 5:19) to mean that Adam's act fundamentally corrupted the human spiritual constitution, making it impossible for humans not to sin. The Eastern Orthodox / Alternative View: Rejects the idea that human nature itself was inherently corrupted or changed. Instead, this perspective argues that human nature remained fundamentally good (as God created it), but humans became trapped in a fractured, mortal world ruled by death and temptation. In this view, we inherit Adam's mortality and consequences, but not a fundamentally mutated "evil nature." Because the Bible itself does not explicitly define or use the term "human nature" in a modern philosophical sense, readers are left to interpret whether the post-Fall behavior of humanity is due to a changed internal nature or simply a changed environment and relationship with God.

John 3:14-16 •14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: •15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. •16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Meaning of the Passage •The Bronze Snake: Verse 14 looks back at an Old Testament story where looking at a raised snake healed the Israelites. •Jesus on the Cross: Verse 15 explains that Jesus was lifted up on a cross so people could look to him and live. •God's Love: Verse 16 states that God gave his Son out of love so that anyone who believes can live forever. [1]

“Spiritual Death and Regeneration Chris from Grand Rapids has a question about how regeneration fits with Mike's view on predestination, election and the fall. It would seem to me that a person's spiritually deadness cannot be explained simply as the product of making bad use of free will, or the commission of actual sins after the age of accountability. What gives rise to this universal hostility necessitating regeneration? I don't quite understand the last sentence, universal hostility. Hostility to what? But again, setting that aside, I wouldn't equate spiritual deadness with sinning. Sinning has to do with acts of sin. You're making decisions, and there's the free will element in there. So I don't make them synonyms. Spiritual deadness, in my view, is the condition of being estranged from God, the source of spiritual life. Calvinists, of course, make spiritual deadness about an inability to believe based on the idea that dead people can't do anything. They're dead. But that presses the focal point of the metaphor, a dead body, into an unnecessary service. That is, it takes all the aspects of the metaphor and then loads them into the discussion. Now, that's an intentional but unnecessary use of the[…]” From The Naked Bible Podcast: Naked Bible 208: Q&A 25, Mar 24, 2018 podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas… This material may be protected by copyright.