44
" See Leon Podles, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Dallas: Spence, 1999), who notes that in 1952 the adult attenders on Sunday morning in typical Protestant churches were 53 percent female and 47 percent male, which was almost exactly the same as the proportion of women and men in the adult population in the U.S. But by 1986 (after several decades of feminist influence in liberal denominations) the ratios were closer to 60 percent female and 40 percent male, with many congregations reporting a ratio of 65 percent to 35 percent (11-12). Podles focuses primarily on Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant churches in his study, and he concludes that, if present trends continue, the “Protestant clergy will be characteristically a female occupation, like nursing, within a generation” (xiii). See also, Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005). Murrow describes in detail the increasing “feminization” of many churches, a trend that is driving men away. "
― Wayne Grudem , Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?
53
" Aunque esta definición incluye la palabra acuerdo a fin de mostrar que hay dos partes, Dios y el hombre, que deben entrar en las estipulaciones de esas relaciones, la frase «divinamente impuesto» aparece también para mostrar que el hombre nunca puede negociar con Dios o cambiar los términos del pacto. Él solo puede aceptar las obligaciones del pacto o rechazarlas. Probablemente por esta razón los traductores griegos del Antiguo Testamento (de la traducción conocida como la Septuaginta), y, siguiéndolos a ellos, los autores del Nuevo Testamento, no usaron la palabra griega común que denotaba contratos o acuerdos en los que ambas partes eran iguales (syntheke), sino que más bien eligieron una palabra menos común, diadsékh, que hace hincapié en que las provisiones del pacto fueron establecidas solo por una de las partes. (De hecho, la palabra diadsékh "
― Wayne Grudem , Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
56
" We spread the Gospel by the proclamation of the Word of God (see Rom. 10:17). But God has told us that we should restrain evil by the power of the sword and by the power of civil government (as in the teaching of Romans 13:1–6, quoted above, p. 37). If the power of government (such as a policeman) is not present in an emergency, when great harm is being done to another person, then my love for the victim should lead me to use physical force to prevent any further harm from occurring. If I found a criminal attacking my wife or children, I would use all my physical strength and all the physical force at my disposal against him, not to persuade him to trust in Christ as his Savior, but to immediately stop him from harming my wife and children! I would follow the command of Nehemiah, who told the men of Israel, “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes” (Neh. 4:14; see also Genesis 14:14–16, where Abraham rescued his kinsman Lot who had been taken captive by a raiding army). Boyd has wrongly taken one of the ways that God restrains evil in this world (changing hearts through the Gospel of Christ) and decided that it is the only way that God restrains evil (thus neglecting the valuable role of civil government). Both means are from God, both are good, and both should be used by Christians. This is why Boyd misunderstands Jesus’ statement, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). When this verse is rightly understood (see below, p. 82), we see that Jesus is telling individuals not to take revenge for a personal insult or a humiliating slap on the cheek.51 But this command for individual kindness is not the same as the instructions that the Bible gives to governments, who are to “bear the sword” and be a “terror” to bad conduct and are to carry out “God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:3–4). The verses must be understood rightly in their own contexts. One is talking about individual conduct and personal revenge. The other is talking about the responsibilities of government. We should not confuse the two passages. "
― Wayne Grudem , Politics - According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture
57
" Antes de considerar el tema de este capítulo, es necesario considerar brevemente si es apropiado usar la palabra hombre para referirse a la raza humana entera (cómo en el título de este capítulo). En algunos países, algunos hoy objetan el hecho de que se use siempre la palabra hombre para referirse a la raza humana en general (incluyendo tanto a hombres como a mujeres), porque se aduce que tal uso es insensible a las mujeres. Los que hacen esta objeción preferirían que usemos solamente términos tales como humanidad, seres humanos, o personas para referirse la raza humana. Después de considerar esta sugerencia decidí seguir usando la palabra hombre (así como otros de estos términos) para referirme a la raza humana en este libro porque tal uso tiene garantía divina en Génesis 5, y porque pienso que hay en juego una cuestión teológica. En Génesis 5:1-2 (RVR) leemos: «El día en que creó Dios al hombre, a semejanza de Dios lo hizo. Varón y hembra los creó; y los bendijo, y llamó el nombre de ellos Adán, el día en que fueron creados» (cf. Gn 1:27, RVR). El término hebreo que se traduce «hombre» es adam, que es el mismo término que se usó como nombre propio del primer hombre, y el mismo término que a veces se aplica al hombre a distinción de la mujer (Gn 2:22,25; 3:12, Ec 7:28, RVR). Por consiguiente, la práctica de usar el mismo término para referirse (1) a los seres humanos varones y (2) a la raza humana en general es una práctica que se originó con Dios mismo, y no debemos hallar esto objetable ni insensible. "
― Wayne Grudem , Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith
58
" But Jacobs does not seem to have any awareness of how severely the Kroegers’ arguments have been criticized by competent New Testament scholars. Compare Jacobs’s trust in the Kroegers’ writings to the scholarly analyses of Thomas Schreiner, Robert W. Yarbrough, Albert Wolters, and S. M. Baugh mentioned above. (Schreiner is professor of New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky; Yarbrough is chairman of the New Testament department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois; Wolters is professor of religion and theology/classical languages at Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada; and Baugh is professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California.) These New Testament scholars do not simply say they disagree with the Kroegers (for scholars will always differ in their interpretation of data), but they say that again and again the Kroegers are not even telling the truth about much of the historical data that they claim. But in spite of this widespread rejection of the Kroegers’ argument, evangelical leaders like Cindy Jacobs accept it as true. "
― Wayne Grudem , Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?
