Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz debate 2
Matt Slick and I had an interesting discussion on whether Paul was stopping true biblical teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 or whether Paul was stopping error. My answer concerning the imperative command to let a woman learn (1 Timothy 2:11) and the fact that all teaching by “a woman” was to be stopped until she was properly taught was not picked up by Matt as he kept on asking me the same question over and over again. I am not quite sure why he cannot hear the answer to his questions. Maybe he was looking for a different answer and I didn’t give the one he wanted?
Unfortunately Matt did not let me finish discussing the passage with the crucial verse of 1 Timothy 2:15. I asked to come back on and I am willing to discuss the implication of Adam’s first creation where the Holy Spirit links the prohibition with Adam not being deceived as the first one created and the second one created was deceived, however Matt wouldn’t commit to another “discussion”. I really looked forward to hearing what Matt had to say about verse 15. No one yet has been able to answer my exegesis concerning the “she” and “they” from 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul again moves from singular to plural. I can only assume that Matt still does not have the answer since he has not answered me for a year and a half since he first got my DVD set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?”
97 thoughts on “Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz debate 2”
Sorry that I didn’t get this up faster. It has been a very busy day for me. Please also see comments on this second debate at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/23/debating-women-in-ministry-round-2/ as Jason’s comments are very important regarding the impact that Matt has on this young student Pastor.
Well, well, well…
First I’ll just dump my hasty notes I took as I listened, then post my comments:
M– one woman not fit context of 1 Tim 1-2
C– subject can change, not an issue 1 tim 2:11 has grammar shift from falsehood to leadership, plural to singular; makes v15 make sense
M– if “a” woman can’t teach falsehood to “a” man, claim H & A as false teachers
C– they are deceived but know better;
(M showing signs of impatience at 7 min.)
M– mere opinions and philosophy, not scripture (he ignores scriptural basis)
M– calls sincerety in the heart is FALSE and RCC; relies on Calvinism here
M– moaning at 11 min.
M– still doesn’t get it, that people can be shown mercy because they are sinning in ignorance; accused C of teaching Palagianism
M– change subject to “the word ‘quiet’” hezukia=”subdued, quiet (not silent” = sagao)
M– argues that can’t be about false teaching cuz she’s told to be “less false” instead of “less quiet”
M– back to “husband of one wife” = must be a man
M– wants to bring in other passages to this one, but won’t let C do it
M– back to “less false”; still doesn’t get that “be quiet” applies to the teaching, not the fact that she should sit down and learn instead of teaching
C– tries and tries to explain her point; M doesn’t get it
C– Paul never says “stop women from teaching anything at all”
M– interrupting, voice getting higher, moaning at 24 min.; still going on about the meaning of “silent”; cut C off on this point
M– hetera didasko kaleto = false teaching, but not in 1 tim 3, so this can’t be about false teaching
M– compares her to JW again over this
M– keeps going on about CHAPTERS which are not in the originals
M– more moaning at 28 min;
M– she can still teach heresy while she learns! (”whew” at 30 min.)
M– wants to ‘red herring’ by asking C how things are in her marriage
C– “Im shy by nature” M– “oh really?” under breath
M– unsatisfactory, fabricating, reaching, answers from C
M– Paul has a pattern of using didasko only concerning true teaching (won’t let C cite patterns)
C– so she can’t teach / authority over men in CHURCH
M– suddenly doesn’t want didasko to mean ALWAYS sound teaching; never answered Q about women teaching correct doctrine
M– keeps waffling on whether women can teach correct doctrine
M– Adam had priority cuz Eve was “helpmeet”
C– Adam not deceived cuz first created, Eve deceived cuz created second; nothing to do with priority at all
M– Eve sinned cuz she didn’t go to her BOSS Adam to ask him what God meant (wow!)
M– didasko for true teaching but no, I didn’t say woman can’t ever teach true doctrine
M– “household of God” == CHURCH (oy)
M– cuts C off cuz he thinks she’s just babbling and telling “stories”
M– C can’t come back unless she stops with the “stories”; expects C to be an experienced debater like him or she “doesn’t know what you’re talking about”; he wants only short answers
M– more sighing at 43 min.
M– going on more about “in the church” and “authority”
M– women cant teach authoritatively in the church; elders have “authority”
C– why ALL women not allowed to teach from this passage?
M– C’s logic not good; back to “male” words in text, appeals to OT, STILL doesn’t know diff between grammatical and biological gender, men failing in taking authority “in the church”
M– Adam authority over Eve
M– men RULE well
M– created order = order of supremacy
M– C is teaching falsehood and hogging the show she was invited to; “it’s my show”
C– offered her dvd for hearing the other side
M– didn’t like her plugging that
M– thinks C is undermining the church and the home, deceived, says she should be absolutely silent
C– woman teach with authority sin? M won’t answer with def. ‘yes’
M– admitted she is in sin finally
C– am I sinning?
M– “I listen to heretics all the time, and C is one!”; don’t know if C is allowed back or not
M– back to “you know better” as in first debate; blamed C for not knowing Greek; keeps interrupting
M– long answers “drive me up the wall”; wants always short answers or nothing
M– women can’t have spiritual authority on basis of the flesh alone
M– said C used term “authority” illogically
C– OT did not stop women from teaching
M– all OT and NT teachers are male so end of story
M– wants a formal debate instead; still won’t commit to continuing here
C– why more patient with atheist than a sister in Christ
M– atheists are more polite than C; called her “dear”
M– “I can’t get a word in edgewise” (!!!)
(this blog comment was copied from another post to this one)
I am very familiar with who Matt Slick is and what he’s about. I haven’t read every post in this blog, but I see Matt Slick getting misrepresented. I don’t have time to go back and read through the blog to find examples. The comments are there for anybody to read. I’ve seen people on here claim victory (when Cheryl clearly got spanked by Matt Slick on “Faith and Reason”) and jump to conclusions out of false assumptions. Cheryl begged Matt Slick to let her ramble on about her personal experiences, on Matt’s radio show, while her “biblical responses” were not adding up. Matt has let Cheryl know that he’s not interested in stories, only what the text [Bible] says.
From my own studies on this topic, I must disagree with those before who have said that women can be teaching elders. Here is the passage:
“This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
The complete list of qualifications for elders depends upon the verb tense of the words “must be”. In Greek it is the word, “die”. It means “must”, or “ought”. That word tells us it is imperative that in order to be an elder, or teaching elder (pastor), one M U S T be the husband of one wife. An imperative is not negotiable. Seems clear to this female reader of the bible.
As for your readers’ comments about Matt Slick, they are doing the same that they accuse him of, in particular post #28. This reader recites a list of ad hominems, and even admits to their speculative nature.
(Note from blog owner Cheryl – I have copied this comment from another blog post so the comments will on the second debate will all be posted on this one blog topic)
Matt makes a fair mistake when he tries to say that didasco in 2:12 has to be in reference to sound teaching because it was used that way in 3 other verses. Whatever the context in other verses, it cannot change the meaning of the word. The word itself does not define the kind of teaching. That must be gleaned from the context. In the case of 2:12, the context is one of false teaching. The reason the woman needs to learn is because she was ignorantly teaching false doctrine. The purpose of learning is so that one would not teach wrong doctrine, but would learn right doctrine and then be able to teach right doctrine.
He also has not researched the word he translated “exercise authority”. It is authentein, used only once in the whole of the NT and was always translated “usurp authority” until recently. Actually, research has shown that the word is even more negative then that.
Remembering that the primary point was “let a woman LEARN” in the quiet and submissive demeanor of a student, then not teaching or usurping authority are subject to the main point of Let Learn. Students need not to try to teach, but must stay attentive to learn. Students must not try to usurp the authority of their teacher, but must tend to learning. No one stays a student forever. When one has learned, then they can proceed to teach what they have learned.
Over all he was a bit loftily rude. He says on the one hand that the two of you were “just talking”. And then he lectures you on how you need to be succinct. Thus he can just sit back and critique, nit pick, and analyze the manner in which you present yourself instead of actually considering your words.
Interestingly, he was afraid to ask you why you believe what you do. Thus, he revealed an intent to pretend a willingness to talk, but really just wanted to put forth his own opinions about you. Now he talks time and time again with atheist Bob, but a Christian woman he is afraid to have a real conversation with. 🙂
I had to laugh out loud when he said you are not polite. You were extremely polite. 🙂 It is disappointing that he could not have been more respecful.
copied this over for you…..
Matt seemed to get stuck on hesuchios which means quiet or peaceable. It has been my understanding that the phrase “to LEARN in quietness with all submission” was a common phrase applied to those who were students. Don’t know where he got the idea that it said she should be quiet. It says that the woman is to LEARN! in quietness. It’s a demeanor that a student needs to have while being instructed.
justa berean,
Bless you, my friend for helping! My head is spinning right now (now don’t be calling me spinny, okay? 😉 and hopefully we can keep the comments on this one blog entry because I have to learn WAY more about blog organization! It is not my strong suit!
Agent Starling,
In one of the other “threads” we had quite a discussion about the phrase “one woman man”. It is actually a colloquial phrase that was quite common in Pauls era. The phrase was used of both men and women and meant faithful. We have a similar phrase in English that means the same thing. When we say “he is a one woman kind of guy”, we don’t mean he has to be married but that he is faithful in relationships.
You can find more information on it in “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered” by Rev. Bruce Fleming. I believe it is also discussed in “Discovering Biblical Equality”.
I would imagine you would be “spinning” a bit after that debate. 🙂 You did fine. It was not an easy discussion.
And actually Matt did OK also considering that he has such a strong distaste for women who disagree with gender hierarchy.
wish I could help more.
Hi, everyone!
I appreciate all the positive comments on here and there’s alot to absorb. Thank you everyone!
I just read some comments over at the carmpodcasting blogspot about someone saying that they did not hear anything yet from Cheryl that supports women to be ‘elders/pastors.’
I hear often comments made that confuse a ‘pastor’ with an ‘elder’ as they are not only two different words in Greek but also pastor is a gift, whereas an elder/overseer is not. I would like to continue to see discussions or articles over this mix up because it certainly is a huge point.
All gifts are given to ANY no matter thier gender. The question then is not even if a woman can be a pastor! What I’ve found is that usualy with most comps the issue is not that women can’t have any or all the gifts, but rather that they cannot function with them with authority over men. I realize that a heirarchal view has reaped a mix up between the two positions but I just have to point out then that what it comes down to is that this debate (in regards to 1 Tim 3) is really not even about the gift of pastor (!) but rather it is about a man or woman being able to aspire to ‘overseer’.
Isn’t there a link here somewhere at this site to an excellent article that spoke to this issue?
Matt’s foundtional assertons are of course the root of how he interprets all else, and the first is his complete misunderstanding of what happened in the Garden of Eden.
He ASSUMES that Adam is in charge of Eve, in spite of not one word from God to that effect. Animals were created prior to Adam, so are they his boss? Adam was formed from dust, is dust his boss? If Matt is to be consistent, he must say ‘yes’ to both questions or he can’t say Adam is over Eve due to his being created first and her being formed from him.
He IGNORES the fact that both of them were commanded to “subdue the earth”.
He CHANGES the meaning of “ezer” (bad KJV translation “helpmeet”) to a lower-rank assistant, knowing full well that this same word is used of God in relationship to Israel. This also ignores the fact that the one needing help is dependent upon what only the helper can supply. It would be perfectly justifiable to claim Eve’s superiority over Adam with this argument.
And that’s all before chapter three!
When Eve was being tempted, scripture plainly states that Adam was there with her. He said nothing. Some leader! Matt would have us believe she snuck away behind Adam’s back to meet the serpent, but the truth is Adam stood idly by as the temptation went on. He never corrected her when she said “or touch it”, which Eve attributed to God, not Adam. He never said anything at all to the serpent. This is “covering”? This makes Adam fit to lead? This makes ALL MEN over ALL WOMEN for ALL TIME?? It is nothing but presumption to claim Eve did this in a dark corner away from Adam’s knowledge.
So Adam watches the temptation, does nothing, and takes the fruit without hesitation. Then God wants them to confess, and what does Adam say? “It’s YOUR FAULT God, for giving me this woman who gave me the fruit!” But what does Eve say? The truth! She did not pass blame but freely admitted her sin, and truthfully stated the cause: “the serpent tricked me”. She didn’t even blame Adam, whom she had every right to blame. This is all proof that Adam had neither the command nor the authority nor even the willingness to rule over Eve.
And look at God’s response: the serpent was cursed, and the earth was cursed because of Adam, so he would have to sweat for his food. But neither Adam nor Eve were cursed directly. No mention is made of “the death of man’s spirit” in the very spot it allegedly happened. Not one word or hint. But notice how God dealt with Eve, in great contrast: He BLESSED her! Through “her seed” the Savior would come!
Does it make any sense to think God then did a 180 and started CURSING her? Not at all. He did NOT say Adam “shall” rule over her, but that he “will”, and this as a result of Eve’s TURNING, NOT” DESIRE”. God then orders ONLY ADAM out of the garden so ONLY ADAM cannot take from the Tree of Life. That’s how the Hebrew reads. This is where God’s prediction to Eve begins: she follows (“turns”) Adam out of the garden, which God never ordered her to do. And as a result, Adam ruled over her, which God never ordered him to do.
And conspicuous by its absence is any claim that the relationship between Adam and Eve is to apply to all their descendents for all time. God never said any such thing, neither did he order it. All God did was curse the earth and the serpent.
So Genesis 3, which Matt takes as proof of authority of all men over all women for all time, does not support his view at all. He wrongly claims Adam was Eve’s boss before sin, and wrongly claims Eve usurped Adam’s alleged authority in the temptation. This makes a very shaky foundation for everything he builds upon it. And lest he demand that we bring in NT verses to supply his interpetations, we would remind him that he allowed no such thing from Cheryl. If she tried to use one scripture to interpret another, he always cut her off.
Why does he not do with “ezer” what he does with “didasko”? Is it because “ezer” is mostly used to describe God? More specifically, it’s because he wants to use a principle only when it looks good in a debate.
And here again, Matt kept equivocating on whether this was a debate or a conversation. Since he offered a formal debate, then at best this was informal, and he can therefore not demand “concise” answers. He can’t have it both ways.
I could go on and on about all his double standards, logical fallacies, and continual eisegesis, but why shoot at a building whose foundation is on shifting sand?
The complementarian (or hierarchical or traditional) position on women in ministry is filled with contradiction because it is based on widely-varying, almost-arbitrary application of 1 verse: 1 Timothy 2:12.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12 ESV)
If women can’t teach men, what can’t they teach? Greek? Church history? Sunday school? And at what age do men become men? Can a woman teach 12 year olds? 18 year olds? 21 year olds? When does it become unbiblical? Some have said when boys start getting hair under their arms. At that point, no more women Bible teachers. Should we do armpit checks starting at age 11?
Others say it is ok for a woman to teach if her husband is on stage with her so that he is teaching “under his authority.” Others say it is O.k. as long as he is in the front row.
My favorite example is that of complementarian and well-known New Testament scholar Wayne Grudem entitled “But what should women do in the church?” (PDF document) It is hard to figure out how to apply 1 verse (1 Timothy 2:12) to everything women do in the church today but he sure tries. His attempt at application reveals to me how absurd the position is.
Regarding Matt’s comments on the Greek word for teach which is didasko, Matt was trying to say that because the word for teach used in this passage is a normal word for teach not one specifically for false teaching, that Paul isn’t stopping the teaching of error. His reasoning does not hold water first of all because 1 Timothy 2:14 shows that the reason for the stopping of the woman’s teaching was related to the deception of Eve. Secondly didasko? is used in relation to false teaching twice in the book of Revelation.
In both these examples the teaching is error and didásko is the inspired word that the Holy Spirit chose to use. If Matt truly believes that didásko can only reference true teaching and not false teaching, then 1 Timothy 2:12 would have to be stopping only the teaching of true doctrine and this just doesn’t fit within the reason given for the prohibition in verse 13 & 14 – the deception of Eve. The fact is that the only teaching in 1 Timothy that is being stopped is false teaching. If Paul was stopping the teaching of true doctrine merely because the one teaching the truth to a man was a woman, then there would have to be an explanation for the stopping of true teaching that would allow us to see that Paul was creating a new law prohibiting women’s teaching. Since Matt was not able to show that the OT restricted the teaching of women, Paul could not have been adding a law against women’s teaching without the proper scriptural back up. For Matt to say something to the effect that there is no allowance for women teachers in the OT is trying to prove something from silence. There was no specific allowance for Gentile teachers either in the OT. Yet there was no prohibition against Gentile teachers or women teachers in the OT. Matt was trying to make a point that was shaky at best and nonsensical at worst.
Matt’s other point about silence was also very weak. He tried to establish that since Paul was not completely silencing “a woman” that this proved that error was not involved in the prohibition. He disregarded verse 11 where the focus is on her learning and as dusman has pointed out in a previous post, as a student she would not be completely silenced since she would be allowed to ask questions so that she can clarify any misunderstandings and thus learn properly.
The authority issue is the key to Matt’s argument since he believes that only men are allowed to teach the word of God with authority. However nowhere does the scripture give an authority to speak God’s word only to the man. Each one of us is given a gift by God and we are empowered to use that gift whether we are male or female. Consider 1 Peter 4:10, 11 where the authority to speak for God (speaking the utterances or the oracles of God) is given to the one whom God has gifted. Nowhere is gender a part of the equation.
The problem that Matt faces too which unfortunately I was unable to get to since Matt was not in the listening mode, is that the ordinary word for authority is not found in 1 Timothy 2:12. If Matt is so concerned that teach is an ordinary word and not restricted to error, then what sense does he make of the word translated authority which is the Greek authenteo? This word has no positive usage in the Bible at all and is only used once in this passage in regards to the stopping of “a woman” which is related to the deception of Eve. Surely Paul could have used a word for authority that was given to a man to use. Yet men are never given permission to have authenteo over a woman or even another man. Matt’s belief that only a man has “authority” to give out the word of God to the body of Christ is faulty and without scriptural backing.
(For any one confused – I had been moving comments over to this post from a previous post and I inadvertently copied a poster’s i.d. on this one. It is corrected now)
Agent Starling said,
“The complete list of qualifications for elders depends upon the verb tense of the words “must be”. In Greek it is the word, “die”. It means “must”, or “ought”. That word tells us it is imperative that in order to be an elder, or teaching elder (pastor), one M U S T be the husband of one wife. An imperative is not negotiable. Seems clear to this female reader of the bible.”
A few questions are in order to show the inconsistency of holding this position regarding the Greek word dei (“must”) being used in connection with the phrase “husband of one wife”. If we force the text (1 Tim 3) to say that “husband of one wife” disqualifies women, then we must also consistently disqualify unmarried men. Do we also consistently say that unmarried men who are in the pulpit are sinning against God? What about married males who do not have children? If we consistently apply the text in a wooden way (instead of applying the spirit of the law, which means “faithful spouse”) we would also have to disqualify married men who do not have children since 1 Timothy 3:4 says that the overseer must be “keeping his children under control”. Do we also consistently consider married men in the pulpit who do not have children to be sinning against God? Ah what a tangled web we weave when we leave consistency aside for a prejudiced view of women.
Dusman, you said:
What you have said should cause us to think hard about all the rules that would be required to interpret the prohibition of verse 12 if God forbids any Christian woman from teaching men. A couple of years ago when I was working on the script for my DVD, I was nose deep in the Talmud and I was appalled at the minuit rules that the Pharisees had regarding when a female was considered “of age”. They had a “two hair” rule and I won’t get into the gory details but the nit-picky rules that came out of trying to regulate their own interpretation of the law literally made me sick. Is this what we have come to now? We now need a Christian Talmud to interpret verse 12. When does a woman’s teaching become a sin and when is it not a sin? I am sure that every woman would need to know because none of us wants to sin against God. For Paul to leave a woman without guidelines so that she can be sure she isn’t sinning would be unthinkable. No, the “simple” meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not the stopping of all godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. The “simple” meaning is that Paul is stopping “a woman” from teaching error to the one whom she was influencing with her error and that is “a man”. She is to learn and then Paul says, she will be saved if she has sincere faith and she holds fast to the truth.
Matt’s treatment of me is the fruit of extreme complementarianism. Although I am not a professional debater and don’t think on my feet as fast as I would like, the treatment afforded me during the debate is the fruit of what this movement brings to women. Women are treated with disrespect as if our words are not worthy of being heard or respected. A woman’s word is without weight because she has no right to speak for God.
http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-can-women-be-pastors-part-2.html
Thank you Pastor for the link to the audio!
Guys,
As you listen to the audio from last night’s debate remember one thing…I asked to share why I believed that “a woman” was a particular woman and not “all women” and Matt refused to allow me to share this. He called me a heretic without even hearing my argument to the end. I asked Matt to tell me what it was in the passage that made him believe that Paul was restricting all women from teaching men and Matt went outside the passage to do this. Friends, this means that there is NOTHING in 1 Timothy chapters 1, 2, or 3 that would make us believe that Paul is stopping the teaching of every godly Christian woman since Matt was unable to bring even one argument to the table from the passage we were talking about. Think about this! A charge of sin is being leveled against all women by Matt for the sake of one false, deceived teacher in Ephesus! If this charge was taken to court and we had a jury trial, I would ask where is the evidence? Verse 15 is so precise in the grammar that we simply cannot get “all women” as an interpretation of the “a woman” from verse 12.
I have asked complementarians everywhere to give a defense of their belief that “a woman” is every Christian woman by asking them to then tell me who the “she” is from 1 Timothy 2:15 and who are the “they”. I have yet to have a single one of them able to give me a coherent answer. They just don’t know. And apparently Matt doesn’t know either because he stopped me from discussing verse 15. Is that confidence that he has the truth or is he running away from something that he has no answer to? Maybe we will never know because he will not dare to have back on his radio show. He simply cannot afford to talk about verse 15.
We need to hold FAST to what is true and test EVERYTHING by God’s word. If there are complementarians reading this perhaps you can answer for Matt. Who is the “she” and who are the “they” from verse 15? Remember “she” and “they” must have been alive at the time of Paul’s writing to Timothy because “she” and “they” were required to do something regarding the salvation of the “she”. This is Paul’s puzzle to us. If you are willing to be challenged and to know the truth you will work hard to find out who Paul is talking about because the reputation of godly Christian women hangs in the balance. Do not be one who judges unfairly. Look to the facts and then you be the jury. Can we condemn all godly Christian women who teach correct bible doctrine to men because all godly Christian women are forbidden to teach with authority? Or does this one single verse ripped from its context in the letter to Timothy that deals with false teachers and false teaching have no second witness at all that Paul is talking generically about all of our beloved sisters in Christ because there is no such law against teaching true doctrine to anyone by anyone?
(Note I am copying this one comment from my post at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/23/debating-women-in-ministry-round-2/
It is the comment # 44 by Jason Oliver Evans. Jason’s blog is at http://www.iamasonofgod.blogspot.com/) I think this comment will help us to see the hurtful nature of calling women in ministry teaching doctrine to men as sinners and heretics. Below is Jason’s full comment:)
I have never been so apalled at a so-called man of God. This man should not be on radio. He was rude, arrogant, very disrespectful. He has twisted your words. And no, Matt, there was one elder in the Old Testament who was female, Deborah. Matt should have known better that the early church was modeled after the Old Testament governance (elders). And the elders (presbuteroi) is masculine-gendered plural word but that does not necessarily refer to just men.
Did the men of Israel have a problem with Deborah? From history and the biblical witness, I think not! Jewish historians have so much respect for this woman of God. Western Christian men have problems with her. Matthew Henry had a problem with her, too. I was completely offended at Matt’s behavior and the way he spoke to you. God forgive me for the names I called him!!! The more I hear this complementarian doctrine the more it makes my blood boil.
This gender debate in the evangelical movement is literally making me sick! The devil is truly busy to divide the Church, keeping women oppressed and men ignorant! Sometimes wonder why I identify myself as an evangelical. If it wasn’t for the Gospel of Christ and the power of Holy Spirit to keep me, I don’t know what I would do. Because of this issue which is so dear to me, my flesh just screams to renounce Christ, not purse ministry and go down the to perdition. Hell seems to be easy way out because this debate in the so-called household of God is ripping my heart! God have mercy on us. Have mercy on me!
Cheryl, God bless you. You are a strong woman. I take my hat off to you and the man who married you. I want to be married to woman just like you. Please keep me in your prayers and I will surely pray for your strength in the Lord.
Cheryl,
It was unconscionable for Matt to call you names like that. It’s ad hominem and he knows it, not to mention in violation of the most basic Christian principles. And as you keep saying, but the supremacists cannot hear, if “authoritative teaching” (which they cannot support from scripture) is forbidden to all women for all time, then they are hypocrites and guilty of the blood of all Christian women teachers who are sinning ignorantly. Like Adam who stood idly by while Eve was tempted, they stand silently and refuse to speak out that which they believe in their hearts: that it is SIN for women to teach with authority. And if SIN, then they cannot excuse their failure to plainly call it that and have all us “heretics” thrown out of their Church of Testosterone Supremacy.
Regarding “she” and “they”, I should point out that even Dr. Nyland thinks “she” is Eve. But it cannot be, because there is no way Eve could be saved by the obedience of anyone else, much less women living millenia into the future. Without it being Eve, it gives much weight to your argument that this is a particular woman being addressed, and “they” are she and her husband.
I’ve seen many commentaries take the coward’s way out and say “Wow, this is very difficult; we just don’t know what to do with it”. But they can’t figure it out because they have already told God what He can and cannot tell them.
I still can’t get over how strongly Matt insisted upon male supremacy. Why would any believer crave such power, and over other believers no less? Why does he guard it so fiercely?
And here’s where his Calvinism really becomes absurd: If we are, as Calvinism asserts, incapable of free will such that God must necessarily direct every thought, word, and deed, then what’s the point of debating anything at all? Are we not “heretics” because God decreed us to be so, “all for his good pleasure, from his eternal decree”? How is this not a case of fighting against the sovereign will of God? He simply cannot reconcile his invective against women teaching authoritatively with the micromanagement theory Calvinism asserts for God. When he rails against you, he is really railing against God who made you the way you are.
pinknight..
you wrote: “I just read some comments over at the carmpodcasting blogspot about someone saying that they did not hear anything yet from Cheryl that supports women to be ‘elders/pastors.’”
where? got a link. I’d like to check it out.
Teknomom = ”If Matt is to be consistent, he must say ‘yes’ to both questions or he can’t say Adam is over Eve due to his being created first and her being formed from him.”
Also, responsible reading of God’s Word does not insert principles where God does not. I am not aware of anywhere where God assigns leadership, superiority, or privilege according to birth order. That is something that came later, established by humans. Likely it was in response to waiting for the promised Messiah. And when God chooses leaders He often goes for the unlikely and even the last born. Moses, the first primary leader of Israel, was the last born.
”He CHANGES the meaning of “ezer” (bad KJV translation “helpmeet”) to a lower-rank assistant, knowing full well that this same word is used of God in relationship to Israel. This also ignores the fact that the one needing help is dependent upon what only the helper can supply.”
Here is a typical usage of ezer:
Exodus 18:4
And the other was named Eliezer, for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.”
Ezer mean strong help, succour, aid. The prime root azar carries meanings of : to surround, ie, protect or aid, help, succour. Hebrew scholar Gesenius adds that the primary idea lies in girding, surrounding, hence defending
”So Genesis 3, which Matt takes as proof of authority of all men over all women for all time, does not support his view at all. He wrongly claims Adam was Eve’s boss before sin, and wrongly claims Eve usurped Adam’s alleged authority in the temptation. This makes a very shaky foundation for everything he builds upon it. And lest he demand that we bring in NT verses to supply his interpetations, we would remind him that he allowed no such thing from Cheryl. If she tried to use one scripture to interpret another, he always cut her off.”
This is the type of disrespect commonly given by gender hierarchalists. It galls them that a woman (whom they hold to be beneath them) would dare to instruct them or reveal them to be in error. It’s a tough one to overcome. I think we have to give him some credit for being willing to engage Cheryl given his opinions.
The authority factor that is missing in creation is a huge point. God said that THEY would hold sway over not each other or the man over the woman, but over the whole of creation. The authority given to them is a joint responsibility.
It is of some importance to note that the authority God prophesies the man will exhibit toward Eve (Ge. 3:16) , now that they have sinned, is not ordered by God. He warns the woman. He does not command the man.
Agent Starling, Have you learned nothing about logic and exegesis from Dr. Lecter? To say that simply because the enumerated qualifications for bishop (3 Tim.) allude to the male gender and thus excludes the fairer sex from the office is not good reasoning. It would be akin to saying that the liberties and protections enumerated in the U.S. Constitution apply only to white males of substance and property.
Dusman = The complementarian (or hierarchical or traditional) position on women in ministry is filled with contradiction because it is based on widely-varying, almost-arbitrary application of 1 verse: 1 Timothy 2:12.
The CBMW book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has a section where they instruct women on how they should speak to men so that they are not “teaching” them. It goes to the bazaar point that if a woman is giving directions to a man she must be very careful not to offend his manly rights of leadership – or something to that effect.
In reality, they were following their premise to it’s logical end. If one believes that the one statement (taken completely out of context) that a woman is not to teach a man, which has absolutely no stated borders, then it must extend to every area of life. This only becomes absurd when one rightly realizes that God has never done that in all of history. In fact God has violated that idea many times.
The CBMW book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has a section where they instruct women on how they should speak to men so that they are not “teaching” them. It goes to the bazaar point that if a woman is giving directions to a man she must be very careful not to offend his manly rights of leadership – or something to that effect.
And that is just as arbitrary and subjective also because what is “manly” and conducive to promoting “male leadership” is going to be different from culture to culture and man to man. Again, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument when my complementarian brothers and sisters try to use this verse (out of context, cf. 1 Tim. 2:15 “she . . . they”) to substantiate limiting a woman’s teaching.
Some ideas that may help.
1. In 1 Tim the concern of the letter is stopping false doctrine that is being taught. In some cases this is done by disfellowshipping the person, a person that I am not to fellowship with as a believer cannot teach me anything. In other cases, it is just to stop the false teaching, this is whatteaching means in 1 Tim 2:12, it does not need to be repeated that it is false teaching, Tim knows exactly who is being referred to that he should not currently permit to teach. In other words to rip 1 Tim 2:12 from the context of the whole letter (and try to make it a self contained mini-teaching) is a mistake.
2. The hesuchia in 1 Tim 2:12 ties back to the hesuchia in 1 Tim 2:11. This repeat forms an inclusio and serves to tie these 2 thoughts together. This means 1 Tim 2:12 should never be even discussed apart from the tight coupling with 1 Tim 2:11. Of the 2 verses, verse 11 takes prominence as it contains the imperative.
Perfect word Don.
Now for a bit of rambling about the debate…..
Interesting Matt interrupted Cheryl from answering an important point. Matt claims that the whole reason of the epistle is in 1 Tim. 3:15. When Cheryl attempted go to Scripture to point out that was in direct reference to chapter one, he only let her get out two or three sentences before he started complaining that she was taking too long to answer. He went on to pontificate that if a person couldn’t answer a question in two or three sentences then they didn’t know what they are talking about. Then a little further he states that her logic just isn’t that good. Notice that he never came back to ask again the question he didn’t allow Cheryl to finish answering…. Which really she did answer.
And BTW that answer, that 3:16 is about church meetings is an old argument trying to cause 2:12 to refer to “the pulpit” in Sunday worship. Problem is that “the house of God” is not a church building or meeting place, but it represents the whole body of Christ in every day living, not just in assemblies.
Then this is where Matt clearly says he does not want to ask Cheryl why she believes what she believes, because it is his show and he is afraid she will take up the rest of the time with her answer.
After that he goes on to call Cheryl very deceived. He says that if a woman spoke in his church, he would get up and leave. Continually interrupting Cheryl, agrees she is a heretic, pretty clearly mocking, saying he cannot get anywhere with her. Saying he doesn’t want to sound mean BUT…. Mocks her ability to rattle off Greek words, more and more criticism of long answers. Yet in reality Cheryl never got to give a long answer because Matt kept interrupting her. And then he claims he cannot get a word in edgewise. Sounds like distractions and stalling to me.
Matts claim that ALL teaching (I’m assuming prophecies) is done by man does not equate to a rule that only men are qualified to write prophesies or speak them. Actually, there are several prophesies, teachings in Scripture that are from women. In fact there were schools of prophets (both male and female) in the OT. Not every prophesy or teaching was written down. The fact that they were copied/quoted in books likely by men does not create an unwritten rule that women cannot write, speak, teach.
I would like to ask the group here about some of the reference material that I use. I have read so many informed, intelligent posts on this blog that I trust your more experienced judgement. I have just recently started my journey into greek by purchasing my first interlinear by George Ricker Berry. Being unexperienced I just sought out the first interlinear that I could use with my KJV. My church only uses the KJV which is fine, and personally I perfer to stick with this version also. I am not to thrilled with the Strong’s Commentary but I do use the Strongs Concordance and Dictionary (simply because these sources all reference the KJV). If I am going to convincingly show them the erroneous interpretaions of scriptures pertaining to women it will have to be done through the KJV (so, you know I need all the help I can get :-).
Any suggestions or observations about the material I use, or other sources that might be more helpful for my personal study would be greatly appreciated.
Nice to see how you are not allowing all posts to go through. Only the ones that agree with you. Too bad. Time to dust off my sandals.
Agent Starling,
I have never stopped a post from going through. I have it set up that the very first post of a new person must be approved. This is to stop spam and to make sure a person isn’t using profanity. Your original post was put up and I even copied it on to this thread. Perhaps you might want to check before you dust those sandals of yours. You are welcome here.
Cheryl
AS,
If she had been blocking posts, why do you suppose she’d let the mocking one stay?
Terri,
I use e-Sword a mostly free program on the web http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html I especially like The Word Study Dictionary which has a charge but which has been very helpful to me in the study of the original languages. I also use The Sword Project http://www.crosswire.org/sword/software/biblecs/ for help with the finer points of Greek/Hebrew grammar.
I hope you get a lot of help too from others. I have sure appreciate the community here! There is a lot of wisdom in the posters to this blog and I learn a lot from them.
I put together a simple grammar guide, just for quick reference, at This Link. There is an easy Greek course at This Link. It also includes many books of the Bible translated into Greek without the added accents that can force a meaning that was not in the original. Very good intro to Greek. Other sites include Learn Greek, Learn Hebrew, and Greek Lexicon.
Don, teknomom, dusman, justa berean, greg and everyone else who has commented wisdom on this blog,
I have learned from you all. Your wisdom has amazed me. I don’t always have time to write much but I do read all the entries. You are a support for each other too and that is such a blessing! I always wanted this to be a safe place where people can learn about God’s will for women without feeling threatened that accepting their God-given gifts or the gifts of their sisters was a pathway to sin. We need to trust God’s word that it alone is the test of truth and you have helped me do this.
I am honored to call you all friends. Really honored. And your help is most appreciated. Sometimes there just are not enough hours in the day. I didn’t go to bed until 1 am last night and up again this morning at 5 am. When I know there are others there to back me up and to treasure scripture along with me answering someone who questions these hard passages of scripture, I can relax and not burn myself out from overwork. You all are truly appreciated.
We appreciate you too sister Cheryl! Get some rest and spend some time with your hubby, it is well-deserved.
Cheryl,
I would encourage you to look into the paltalk option that Matt suggested. As someone who is interested in hearing both sides of this debate, I don’t think your style meshes well with the talk-radio format.
Without getting into the content of the discussion, I too had problems following you answers to some of the questions posed (it did indeed seem that many questions were left unanswered).
A more structured format may be exactly what is needed here.
I’ll second that. Not everybody is willing to face giants. Goliath lost his head and now the rest of us can chase away the Philistines.
Cheryl said:
‘Guys,
As you listen to the audio from last night’s debate remember one thing…I asked to share why I believed that “a woman” was a particular woman and not “all women” and Matt refused to allow me to share this. He called me a heretic without even hearing my argument to the end. I asked Matt to tell me what it was in the passage that made him believe that Paul was restricting all women from teaching men and Matt went outside the passage to do this. Friends, this means that there is NOTHING in 1 Timothy chapters 1, 2, or 3 that would make us believe that Paul is stopping the teaching of every godly Christian woman since Matt was unable to bring even one argument to the table from the passage we were talking about. Think about this!’
Yes, thank you! That’s what I noticed yesterday and was going to post on last night but did not…!
Cheryl said:
‘I have asked complementarians everywhere to give a defense of their belief that “a woman” is every Christian woman by asking them to then tell me who the “she” is from 1 Timothy 2:15 and who are the “they”. I have yet to have a single one of them able to give me a coherent answer. They just don’t know. And apparently Matt doesn’t know either because he stopped me from discussing verse 15. Is that confidence that he has the truth or is he running away from something that he has no answer to? Maybe we will never know because he will not dare to have back on his radio show. He simply cannot afford to talk about verse 15.’
I had a patriarchalist tell me that ‘she’ in verse 15 is Eve who represents all women (so ‘she’ really means singular ‘woman’) and then the following plural ‘they’ means all women. As much as I tried to understand any logic of such a conclusion, none was available and so I hardly had a response since I was so taken aback that such an argument would even be put forth.
Justa berean, hi! I can recognize my berean folk. *wink…* Here’s the link: http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/
How do I edit what I’ve posted?
“And then he lectures you on how you need to be succinct. ”
There is no way to be succint with this issue. There is too much to discuss, learn and allow to be revealed with deep study. It is like a winding path that leads one all the way back to Genesis 1 from 1 Timothy!
Few are willing to go there but every day I am seeing more and more question some of the extra Biblical teachings coming out of CBWM. Most of what they are teaching if taken to it’s logical conclusion is legalism. It has to be. They paint themselves into a corner when too many questions are asked.
I once heard a pastor say that if he preached truth then I was responsible for it. He said that he is ONLY the messenger and had to stick only to the Word. It was MY responsibility to make sure it was truth.
BTW: Are you all serious? The council gives instructions to women on the proper way to give a male directions without teaching him? People don’t see that as legalism?
Agent Starling, Do you realize that by your interpretation of the qualifications for elder that the Apostle Paul would not qualify?
pinklight,
I don’t have a way for you to directly edit your post, but you can either contact me through the form on the contact page (listed at the top of this page) and I can either remove the post or put in your edit. Your choice!
Cheryl,
I have your blog under my Firefox Bookmarks folder called “Christian Resources”. I will continue to be a reader of this blog. I believe your ministry to the Body of Christ is vital. Thank God for women like you and the brothers and sisters who are fed up with the enemy’s deception being paraded as “Biblical Truth”. Now I’m learning to be careful when I read or listen to people when they use the term “Biblical”. Because what may be biblical may not be Godly. Saul, king of Israel was biblical. The Jezebels were biblical. Goliath was biblical, but were they godly? We are not called to be biblical men and women, but Christian men and Christian women. Our goal is to be conformed into the image of the only Begotten of the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s is so important to “rightly divide the word of truth” in these latters. People are being hurt by skilled workmen (male and female). We need the power of the Spirit and sound biblical hermeneuticians. The reality of lost souls demands our responsibility to interpret the Word of God according to the will of God for the glory of God. The Prophets of the Old Covenant had to soundly interpret the Law i.e. sit in the council of the Lord. How many of us so-called Bible-believing Christians do that?
I believe that complementarianism is a false doctrine informed by Western patriarchal culture, not the Scripture. Yes, Scripture was written within the Near Eastern patriarchal culture that is Israel, yet the Holy Spirit gave us examples of godly leadership and prophetic authority in Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Anna, Phoebe, Mary sister of Lazarus, Mary the mother our Lord, Priscilla, and other women of the Faith in the Scriptures and in the Early Church. God will continue to use women along side their brothers in Christ for the coming of His Kingdom. Keep the faith and stay in the race!!!
Jason,
Welcome to this community! I hope you will be encouraged and loved and cared for by many people here!!
Hey every one out there,
On tonight’s Matt Slick’s program a man named Vince said that he wanted to hear more about what I was saying about scripture. Matt said that he would only consider having me back if I presented a written list of what I would say and also if I would limit my comments to 1.5 minutes. This would be an opportunity to speak again to Matt’s audience. I know I won’t be reaching the ones who have closed their hearts against a woman teaching the Bible with authority, but for those silent ones who are listening especially those who pick up the show through the internet, it could be a good opportunity to give Jesus honor and glory by lifting up his word in a way that most have never heard.
What do you think?
pinklight, I owe you an apology. I called you pinknight by accident. And I was thinking pink knight…. 🙁 I’ll remember now.
Cheryl,
Do you think Matt’s time slots to present your case is generous? It seems he wants to put you in tight position. Truth is not simplistic. Unfortunately for Brother Matt, it is when its coming from a person which whom he disagrees.
Jason,
No I don’t think that Matt’s time restriction is generous. I think it is restrictive and a way to control me. But I have faith in a very BIG God who is able to open doors that no man can shut. I really didn’t think I would be allowed to be back and frankly I think this hints of fear. Why else would he remove the advertisement for my DVD set on his podcast on his site? But if he is willing (I don’t think he thinks I am willing!) God can do a miracle. At any rate I am willing to be a vessel to be used by God to do whatever he wants.
Anyone have words of wisdom for me??
Cheryl
Cheryl said: “God can do a miracle. At any rate I am willing to be a vessel to be used by God to do whatever he wants.”
That’s enough wisdom right there!
Terri, Katharine Bushnell wrote an excellent resource in which she uses the King James (AV) almost exclusively. She argues cogently and with the impassioned reason that William Wilberforce used when he fought for the abolition of the slave-trade in early 19th century England.
Here’s the link:
http://godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/onlinebooks/gwtw.htm
Greg,
Yes, I bought the printed version of GWTW just so I have it even if we lost electricity. I do that for every important book I can afford. It is absolutely shocking, even after a hundred years.
Cheryl,
So Matt wants his PalTalk venue no matter what. Then let him have the same restrictions as you, including not allowing interruptions. But every formal debate has to have ground rules, which apply equally to both sides. Problem is, there is no neutral moderator, so he can break the rules with impunity. He gets the best of both worlds.
I’d recommend having someone with you who will have a stop-watch, and you have every right to cut him off after his allotted time. And he too must supply a written list to you, in all fairness, so you can make sure he sticks to what he wrote and not go off on one of his tangents. I would also require that both your list and his be posted online before the debate, on the website of someone who can be trusted not to alter them… hey, maybe one of those polite atheists would do this!
There is a good reason his listeners keep wanting to hear more from you, because they too know that he keeps cutting you off before you can make a point. If he had treated you with any degree of civility and let you finish a point, they wouldn’t keep asking for more. He wants sound bites, not depth.
If this comes to pass, you’ll have to be quick and pointed. That can seem impolite to those of us who value such qualities, but it’s the only thing he can comprehend. And for what it’s worth, a quick google search on Matt’s so-called polite atheists paints a much different picture. They have nothing nice to say about him, for the very same reasons we’ve seen in this debate. He shut down parts (all?) of his own message board because various people were being extremely rude, so for him to put you in their category is just a wild stretch and he knows it. He wants only to belittle you.
He’s a name-caller as you know, and commits a variety of other logical fallacies as well. But he’s hoping you won’t have time to call him out on them, much less see them. His listening audience must surely be aware of them though, because he makes such a big deal about them when others commit them. If they have ears to hear, they’ll see his double standard; he won’t be able to hide it.
And since he openly and publicly called you a heretic, it is hypocritical and a violation of scriptural teachings for him to even want to debate you. The fact that he does anyway, tells us all that he knows the charges he has leveled against you have no basis in scriptural fact.
As has been pointed out, pin him down on “ezer” and the Bible’s absolute silence on any establishment of hierarchy before and at the Fall. Make sure he doesn’t bring in any other scriptures to interpret this, since he won’t allow you that same privilege.
Well, got things to do. Hope this helps.
Reposting from previous thread where it may have been missed
Good news. I am taking a Greek class from the Greek scholar Dr. Bill Wagner. I asked him if in 1 Tim 2:15 whether the “she” (implied in the verb sothesetai) was theoretical or actual and he said he believed it was an actual person. He said Paul is very direct in his letters and Paul would not have written it this way to Timothy if Paul had wanted it to be theoretical. Bill is the author of “First Reader in New Testament Greek” which is the textbook for the class I am takingm he personally knows all the famous names associated with the Greek NT.
Just a quickly I’d like to quote from the Introduction to The Source NT:
So even our lexicons are outdated, yet the people who make them know they need updated but refuse to do it. And it is to these outdated “authorities” the supremacists always appeal. Big problem.
On Matt’s “Rules of Engagement” you need to realize you accepted skewed conditions and would be accepting even more skewed conditions. And accept the need to tailor the presentation of your message to those skewed conditions. This is (by far) NOT the best way to present a message, but sometimes it can be accepted as a way. Part of that acceptance is to accept a severely limited goal.
Here are some limited goals:
1. If you can just get people to THINKING about these verses, I think it would be worthwhile. One of the main (false) winning arguments that CBMW, etc. uses is that the verses are straightforward to understand. You want to dispute that claim.
2. This may be hard for you, but you need to learn to make bold assertions (given the 1.5 minute time limit) that do not sound totally crazy. For example, in explaining 1 Tim 2:12, go IMMEDIATELY to 1 Tim 2: 15 and claim that this verse makes best sense for an actual person living at the time (which is true). In explaining 1 Tim, claim that one needs to read the book in Biblical, literary (book) and cultural context and that missing even one of these contexts can mean one takes a verse out of context (which is true) and that a verse taken out of context can be a pretext for almost anything. Exaplin that as we are not Timothy, we are in effect looking over Timothy’s shoulder and trying our best to understand what would have been easy for Timothy to understand, in other words, that the verses might easily take some hard work to try to understand.
Excellent advice Don. Matt’s show (like most radio shows, excepting Greg Kokul’s 2 hour weekly apologetics show) is designed for the post-modern ear that is trained for 30 sec. sound bytes. This means that deep reflection and exegesis of any given passage is simply out of the question.
Another important point: To quickly counter CBMW’s claim that a first-glance, “plain reading” of these controversial passages is the appropriate way to read them can easily be countered with this statement: “That might sound good, but since when do Christians have a first-glance theology?” Then you could go on to say, “‘First glance’ Scripture reading is the stuff that the cults are guilty of and if we do what they do we’ll cause the Scriptures to contradict themselves . . . such as what happens when the complementarian says that 1 Tim. 2:12 is saying that a woman cannot teach a man true doctrine under any circumstances yet in Acts 18:26 we have Priscilla teaching Apollos the way of God more accurately. I guess Priscilla was in sin huh?” That’s the kind of tact that needs to be taken in 1.5 minutes or less.
Don,
Kudos to Dr. Bill Wagner. It seems to me that more people are coming out of the woodwork since my DVD set was produced. I was quite counter cultural with my exegesis and by that I mean even counter cultural among egalitarians. The reason is that I don’t just accept egalitarian literature without testing it by the Bible. When I went through the scriptures seeking to understand what the hard passages of scripture I didn’t accept the traditional egalitarian understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 that Paul was stopping all women in Ephesus from teaching because they were poorly educated because it didn’t make sense with the reason for the prohibition given by Paul as the deception of Eve. Were all women in Ephesus deceived? And it didn’t make sense in verse 15 where we had to have a living “she” or the passage didn’t make sense. I got my understanding from only the Bible. I read no book and no secular source told me that the “she” was an individual woman. Now since my DVD went public, it seems that there are wonderful godly people coming to my attention who believe as I do that I had no idea about. I will certainly have to record that Dr. Bill Wagner is on board with same exegesis and I don’t think that Matt dares to call him a heretic.
Don & Dusman,
Thank you for the amazingly good words that you have written for me. Your suggestions make sense and I believe I can use them. I had many good suggestions before but Matt never let me get to them because he had a habit of cutting me off. Now that I know I will be given 1.5 minutes of silence so I can get a point across, I will take your suggestions to get the point across! It will be a matter of talking faster and honing in faster to the essential point. I am so used to teaching verse by verse that this idea of a radio debate is foreign to me that requires me to get to the point first and then back it up later by verse by verse. I have to get my head around that. And I have to get my head around that being pointed is not being rude or arrogant. I really shy away from any kind of rudeness and I try hard to treat others the way I want to be treated. Looks like a radio debate is playing by different rules than I am used to conversation.
Yes, a debate is NOT a teaching. In a teaching you can build up slowly to your main point, like a math proof. It is simply not possible to do a math proof type of argument in a debate, so do not even try. My take is your limited goal should be to get as many listeners as possible to STUDY BOTH SIDES ala Proverbs 18:17.
The way to do that is to make claims that do not seem totally crazy and so will be rejected by a listener WITHOUT STUDY.
Get as much agreement as possible, like the Bible is the inspired word of God, including word choice and grammar (as you did). This will mean that the listeners will not reject you out of hand. Get agreement as to the purpose of 1 Tim, this purpose should color every other verse in the book and provide the overall literary context. This is why Paul could say for the woman in 1 Tim 2:12 that she is not now permitted to teach, because (in literary context) she was teaching false doctrine, which is the whole purpose of the letter, to stop false doctrine. When he says authenteo means authority, agree that this might have been true in 400 AD, but what did it mean in 65AD when in 300BC it meant murder? This gets people thinking.
So it is important to state your CONCLUSIONS from your DVD in a way that people cannot simply dismiss. For example, claim that 1 Tim 2:15 is critical to understanding 1 Tim 2:12. Listeners cannot just reject this claim out of hand, they will need to dig and see whether it is true or not, regardless of what Matt says.
Ask him whether the Bible should be understood as the original readers would have understood it. Then point out the tombstones in Ephesus that use “mias gunaikos andra” to refer to both a woman and a man, in other words, it was generic, not specific to males and means being a faithful spouse.
I did notice one thing where you allowed Matt to get in a cheap shot. This was where you were trying to contrast the deceived with the deliberate sinners. The deliberate sinners could easily have been deceived in some way also and Matt pointed this out. So I would use carefully crafted terms, like deliberate and non-deliberate sinners. They may be better ideas of words to use.
As I see it, there are 3 types of sinners, all are sin, but the consequences are different.
1. Non-deliberate sin – like the woman in the garden
2. Deliberate sin – like the man in the garden
3. Teaching another to sin – like the serpent in the garden
I see God treating these differently.
Just heard the debate and read the comments on this blog. I’ve learned so much 🙂 Thanks everybody! And thank you God for your powerful word and for revealing your will to me bit by bit. I pray that you will bless all the people here and let them grow in your love and wisdom all of their days.
Cheryl keep up the good work! You did very well on the debate and I must say that Matt was a lot nicer this time, maybe the next time we wont hear him sighing 🙂
You are in my prayers, your brother in Christ,
Martin
Don wrote: Reposting from previous thread where it may have been missed
Good news. I am taking a Greek class from the Greek scholar Dr. Bill Wagner. I asked him if in 1 Tim 2:15 whether the “she” (implied in the verb sothesetai) was theoretical or actual and he said he believed it was an actual person. He said Paul is very direct in his letters and Paul would not have written it this way to Timothy if Paul had wanted it to be theoretical. Bill is the author of “First Reader in New Testament Greek” which is the textbook for the class I am takingm he personally knows all the famous names associated with the Greek NT.
Excellent, excellent word. Thank you for posting this. Can he be quoted? I’d like to keep this handy?
Don, do you preach? If so where? 🙂
Yes, I verified with Bill that he can be quoted. He gets asked questions about Greek all the time apparently.
I do not preach, per se.
I am a member of Vienna Baptist church in Vienna, VA (they are ABC, not SBC). I am currently teaching a class on Marriage and Divorce: First Century perspectives there as the verses are very easy to take out of context. I attend a Sunday school class led by someone else, but I have sometimes been asked to fill in when he goes somewhere. I am a member of CBE and have attended their last 2 US conferences.
Cheryl, The time limit for responses is quite telling. However, it is very unfair of him to refuse to mention your DVD. How about insisting he read the website address after every break?
I know what it is like to hear something on the radio and have no idea where to look for more information.
Also, he needs to mention the ground rules he gave you for the program to be totally open and transparent.
And like I said, he should be required to post his list too, for everyone to read before the debate. And be restricted to 1.5 min. himself, with Cheryl having the right to cut him off if he exceeds it.
It still isn’t fair for him to impose such rules when he has control of the mic.
Denis,
My inexperience may not mesh well with anything live, but I am willing to learn. I would rather, though have a bigger audience than PalTalk. I was on a PalTalk site once because I was invited and I was quite uncomfortable with the whole thing. And that is not even listening to an audio debate. No, live radio is more than scary enough for me!
Part of the problem was that Matt wouldn’t let me finish. The other part of the problem could have been me not understanding where Matt was going and the third part was that I answered the questions but Matt didn’t accept my answer and kept saying that I didn’t answer. A case in point was when Matt asked me why Paul used the word didasko? (teach) instead of the word heterodidaskaleo which means a different doctrine. The question was asking me to understand Paul’s mindset instead of really dealing with the issue. The issue is whether didasko can be used properly to mean false doctrine. The answer is “of course”.
In Revelation 2:14 didasko is used twice and the meaning is clear that it is false teaching:
However the question posed to me was not whether didasko was a wrong word to use when false teaching was meant but why Paul used it. My explanation was that Paul was stopping all of her teaching not just the false teaching and that false teaching was understood in the passage not because of the Greek word used for “teach” but because of the context “deceived” showing the teaching was attached to deception. I don’t know how clearer I could have been. If you could tell me what you didn’t understand about my answer, then I will be able to expound further. It sure didn’t make sense to me that Matt kept on asking me the same question when I had already answered him. If he had said that he didn’t like my answer or if he would have told me what was wrong with my answer, then I could have gone on, but for him to say that I didn’t answer was just plain frustrating to me.
Well that may be better for me too. Since Matt wants to keep me to 1.5 minutes per question, I will need to have a list of his questions and his follow-up questions or I won’t have the time to work on them in order to be concise. Yes, yes, I know I can be verbose too! That is one of my human faults and I freely admit it. I just have so much passion and love for the Bible that when I get going…..well…..I think that says it all!
Denis,
By the way, I LOVE the Way of the Master! My son’s life was changed forever several years ago when I lent him a copy of Ray Comfort’s The Way of Master series. He is now an “on fire” evangelist/apologist with a heart of love for the lost.
Well, it looks like the debate is off. Matt just announced that although he had said that he would allow me back if I went through his hoops and I agreed to go through the hoops, he has now announced that he will not allow me back on. Can you believe that? I was willing to limit my talking to 1.5 minutes per question and to give him a written list of my position so that he can go through it with a fine tooth comb and now he has rescinded this.
I am sorry, but what should we call someone who says things and then he goes back on his word? He said that I could give out the information on my DVD and then after he said it was okay he had his assistant remove that information. Is that honest?
Then he said last night that he would allow me back on with his restrictions. I was warned not to allow him to control me like this but I felt that it was a way to glorify Jesus and I would submit. Then he rescinded the invitation. The really strange thing is that this comes right after his teaching on how to be honest and how to show honor to Jesus. How is Matt showing honor to Jesus by going back on his word that he gave publicly?
Any thoughts?
I’m sure we all have thoughts, but not necessarily the kind we should express in public. 😉
Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. But his fans saw this too, so I’m sure something good will come of it. Kinda reminds me of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but God sent his angel to stop it at the last second. You’ve been tested and found faithful.
Thank you teknomom, but I really wanted another try! My patience was tried but God didn’t fail me. Unfortunately his reputation is going to suffer from this. No longer can he say that he will take anyone on about the women’s issue. I hope if he tries to say this again that someone calls him to task and asks “What about Cheryl?” And to be completely honest, I am so green around the edges in a debate format. I am getting better by the minute (thanks guys for all your help, you were amazing!!!) but if I can send Matt running away screaming into the night just because I was kind to him and didn’t call him a heretic, a liberal or a false teacher, then what might a real debater have done to him?
Guys, if anyone of you emailed Matt, I hold my hat out to you! Apparently he got at least a half a dozen emails coming through after he announced he was canning me and they were all asking for me back!! Thank you Lord! I trust in God that God will bring honor in the name of Jesus from all of this and that people will see the truth despite the smoke screen.
Well, dear Matt seemed to be less aggravated and far more patient (for a longer period of time) in comparison to last week’s go around. Matt’s argument for his complementarian postition impresses me about as much as the patriocentric crowd’s argument that Paul said that women should not vote. And when he can’t score, he whips out the JW pejorative. And there’s always “Can we just go on to the next point?” And this “I’m just repeating what you’re saying?” When that didn’t work, he starts with “If you believe A, then you must believe B and the absurd C.” It hints at black and white thinking as a consequence of presupposition or prejudice.
While looking for the Matt Slick blog (where short references are posted regarding the radio show), I came across some of these sites authored by a motivated individual. Here it is for what it’s worth.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/02631926376230920393
As my grandmother always said, “Consider the source!” I don’t know who authored these blogs. However, as we’ve seen here with Matt, he’s not above reproach by any means either. None of us are, but I was not pursuaded by Matt at all. His fast pontifications of “Yes it does” and “No it doesn’t” combined with his sarcasm were unimpressive.
Well the guy seems pretty upset at Matt but then reading down a little he is upset about the Trinity too so I would think this guy is a cult member just out to label Matt. For some reason Matt seems to get more hate mail than normal, but then for some reason Matt seems to like hate mail. Go figure.
I noticed that about the Trinity also. Poor guy. Who knows what happened to trip him up so. In the end all so called “hate mail” is not the way to go.
Problem IS the above person is indeed angry and in “hate mode”. But not all mail that Matt calls hate mail is hate mail. A good portion of it is heated disagreement, or just plain disagreement.
The world doesn’t disagree well. As Christians we should be giving a better example. Christian debaters need not follow the collegiate example of tricks, baits, mockings, cutting off, etc. when discussing differences. As Christians our goals should be to research, analyze and discover truths. Most debaters goal is simply to win at whatever means.
That is why it was so refreshing to see Cheryls honest attempts to be forthright yet polite. I chuckled when Matt said you weren’t polite, Cheryl. And then you repeated to him that statement asking if that was the problem, that you weren’t polite. But it was too late, he’d already committed himself.
I think we should ask God if it might be His Will to raise up an army of Christian debaters that was polite, yet firm and pointed; Christians that were not prone to anger, self promotion, or running from an argument.
justa berean,
Amen! God send us an army of faithful brethren who are not committed to running away when things go rough. Faithfulness and a quiet spirit (not argumentative) are very precious things to our Lord. I trust that many of you out there will get a bug in your bonnet to step out in faith and become one of this army!
I think that Matt is “spooked” by Cheryl. He is used to debating by scoring debating points in sound bites. Cheryl contantly tried to show respect and present aspects of her teaching, but did not really conform to the sound bite method. So Matt is not quite sure what to do with Cheryl, so the safest thing is to not provide a forum for what he considers heresy. He is just being consistent with his beliefs, even tho it means going back on an offer.
There is one way to guarentee one never changes and that is by never being willing to learn.
“I think that Matt is “spooked” by Cheryl.”
Right-e-o Don. Not only does it appear as if Matt is not really interested in having Cheryl lay out her position carefully because he’s not really interested in hearing it first and then passing judgment; but moreover, the sense I get is that he just doesn’t know what to do with a bible-believing egalitarian that actually builds her position from Biblical passages in context instead of ignoring the Bible like the theological liberals are prone to do. It’s easy to dismiss a theological liberal in a 30 sec. soundbyte. It’s not easy to dismiss a born-again believer that makes her points from the infallible, sacred text.
The male hierarchicalists know that IF both positions are possible, then they will lose (since people want to be free); this is why they believe that the egalitarian position amounts to heresy, because they are trying to scare people from even considering studying it.
It is a great threat to them to have someone who believes the Bible is inspired in words and grammar but does not conform to their understanding. An atheist they can dismiss, a liberal they can dismiss. In another forum I was shocked at the accusations that were made against me on this issue. The male hierarchicalists simply do not know what to do with us freedom teachers. This is uncannily similar to the slave owners not knowing what to do with the abolitionists in the 1850’s, except to say that if you do not believe what they teach, you do not believe the Bible.
Don said, The male hierarchicalists simply do not know what to do with us freedom teachers. This is uncannily similar to the slave owners not knowing what to do with the abolitionists in the 1850’s, except to say that if you do not believe what they teach, you do not believe the Bible.
I’ve read the arguments used by the early Southern Baptist Convention founders in support of New World slavery contra the abolitionists of their time, and I really can’t tell any difference in the form of their pro-slavery arguments when compared to the modern complementarian arguments, albeit the substance and texts under question are different.
It’s also interesting to analyze the arguments of modern day polygamists. They think that since the Bible never condemns it and the patricarch’s practiced it, it must be God’s will. And of course, Paul only said that elders had to be the husband of one wife, so everybody else is off the hook!
(sound familiar?)
How embarrassing! I should have typed “patriarchs”. I get so peeved when people can’t punctuate, and now they’ve got me doing it!
I get so peeved when people can’t punctuate, and now they’ve got me doing it!
i hate it when people dont use punkchewashun, dont use apostrofees when they dont use commas and win they use the wrong wurds and spell the wrong way i also hate it when peeps dont put punkchewashun at the ends of there sintenses
🙂
Sorry tekno . . . couldn’t resist.
Very cute! I like you guys.
🙂
🙂
Good one Dusman. 🙂
We are after all children of God.
Did anyone ever consider that we are the really young ones. We rarely live beyond 90 anymore. Adam and Eve lived …what? 800+ years. How little can one learn in 90 years?
‘s k, Dusman… I kallz it “keyboard dyslexia”.
FWIIW, there ARE modern day polygamists who point out all the righteous men in the Bible who were like them. Jews were the only ones who were allowed to practise polygamy in the 1st century in the Roman empire. Even today, some Sephardic Jews are polygamists and keep their wives if they immigrate to Israel, even tho monogamy is the rule in Israel, following the Askenasic Jews in this area.
P.S. I do agree that Jesus taught monogamy as being God’s intent and am a monogamist. I happen to know the above as it is a part of my class I am giving at my church.
Concerning this slavery issue:
To make a long story short, in my journey out of Word of Faith, I ended up reading a great deal of Theonomy and Covenant Theology, but I don’t think that any self-respecting Presbyterian would claim me as their own… Elements of Calvinism helped bring balance to the drastic arminianism of my past. I was also influenced by the late D James Kennedy’s version of Christian Reconstruction which viewed the Enlightenment as a mixed bag but one that provided for the conditions that fostered the religious freedom in the U.S. (with the French Revolution in cultic/humanistic contrast). Theonomy, until the death of Rousas J Rushdoony (not that his human construct was without its problems), was also governed by freedom-loving, wise (non-baby boomer) folks as well. These two men provide good exemplars of those Calvinists who, not anticipating a pre-(7 year) tribulation rapture of the Church, hold to the dominionist perpective.
I don’t know if it’s the American Baby Boomer generation, world events or postmodernism, but the freedom-loving leaders of the past seem to be nearly non-existent. The new guard of baby boomer aged leaders within the Reformed traditions (predominantly) embrace an authoritarian outlook and seem to look to the writings of Robert Louis Dabney (presbyterian minister/seminiary teacher and Confederate, author of “Defense of Virginia and the South”) as some kind of prophetic literature tantamount to the Bible. Dabney argued and defended slavery as well as opposed both minority and women’s suffrage and public education. (I’ve recently skimmed “A Defense of Virginia and the South” because of this issue to find that Dabney hated the Enlightenment -??freedom??- as well as Locke and Burke.) Within the homeschooling circles with Christian Reconstruction influences, Dabney is literally venerated as a prophet. The (non-militant) neoConfederate movement and advocates who once only argued against top-heavy federal government now also openly argue for “kinism” and against feminism. Many within this group of Reformed boomers also despise Luther and argue for a type of sarcedotalism in the forms of Catholic ecumenism, Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul. (At Westminster where Slick attended, there is much controversy over teachings that deny traditional salvation through grace and insert a merited grace element through works into justification among other problems.)
Ken Giles (“The Trinity and Subordinationism,” “Jesus and the Father” and articles on CBE) explains that the slavery issues support the ontological subordination of women throught the heresy of the subordinationism of Christ within the Trinity. For those interested in the Matt Slick camp and the influences within Presbyterian/Reformed circles related to slavery, women and this authoritarian neo-Confederate issue, Mark Noll’s book on slavery, “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis” is a necessary read. (His earlier work, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” is also vital to understanding the American Christian Reconstructionist as well.)
So the Reformed and Christian Reconstruction influences continue to grow regarding the defense of slavery and opposition to feminism as the outward manifestations of their underlying authoritarianism. It’s a disturbing new trend (that was not characteristic of the aforementioned Rushdoony and Kennedy) that seems to rest in the Systematic Theologies of Turretin and Hodges in the 19th century, melded with this over-response to feminism. Giles is a must-read on this topic. Christian homeschoolers are easy prey for these zealots, many of whom are arrogant epistemic foundationalists.
The question is what to do about it? If anyone wants any addtitional info either on or offline, please email me via my website at http://www.UnderMuchGrace.com.
Cheryl,
I found something that may interest you. I have a quote from Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Old Testament of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary regarding 1 Timothy 2:13-14:
It is this Greek verb, exapata?, “to thoroughly
deceive,” that shifts the word plass? from the secondary meaning
“to form,” as in creation, to the primary meaning usually associated
with this verb: “to shape [socially or educationally].” Thus,
according to Paul, the two reasons women should not teach are:
(1) they have not as yet had a chance to be taught, and (2) they
can all too easily be tricked and deceived when they have not
yet been taught. Unfortunately, Adam too sinned, but did so
being fully cognizant of what was going on: he just ate! Eve, on
the other hand, seemed to be really misled and attacked as if in
an ambush, because she had not as yet had all the advantages of
walking and talking with God in the garden of Eden or of learning
as had Adam.”
This is an exerpt of his article “Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women” found at under the Free Articles section at the Christians for Biblical Equality website http://www.cbeinternational.org
Blessings,
Jason Oliver
Jason
”The new guard of baby boomer aged leaders within the Reformed traditions (predominantly) embrace an authoritarian outlook and seem to look to the writings of Robert Louis Dabney (presbyterian minister/seminiary teacher and Confederate, author of “Defense of Virginia and the South”) as some kind of prophetic literature tantamount to the Bible. Dabney argued and defended slavery as well as opposed both minority and women’s suffrage and public education.”
Not all. I’m a babyboomer and I never went in that direction. The first thing the Lord did in my life was set me free and I felt it in every fiber of my being. I never again wanted to be entangled in a yoke of worldly bondage. Remember that most or many of the egalitarian equality thinkers are also babyboomers. Maybe we are just a prolific noisy group. 🙂
”Ken Giles (”The Trinity and Subordinationism,” “Jesus and the Father” and articles on CBE) explains that the slavery issues support the ontological subordination of women throught the heresy of the subordinationism of Christ within the Trinity.”
I’ve both of Giles books. Jesus and the Father is an easier read. Giles was predated by Jewel. Jewel’s book “Man as Male and Female” was the first book God brought to me about equality at a time when I thought I might be the lone prophet in a wicked world. Giles nails it and screws it in solid IMO.
Before I was aware of Giles there was some professor teaching about inherent design to the tune that one can NOT say that woman must take a submissive role as a life calling because she is woman. To say that says that a woman is inferior in her inherent being. This was when the gender hierarchalists were teaching that woman is equal to man, but it is woman’s inherent design to be submissive to men. The professor essentially taught that submission by inherent design cancelled out any concept of equality.
Good thoughts UnderMuchGrace. Maybe I’ll have to find Mark Nolls book. 🙂
justa berean,
I’m going to have to get Jewel’s book!
Concerning Baby Boomers, I didn’t necessarily mean all Baby Boomers but the sub-group of those within Calvinism and the Reformed faith (and those who were probably raised with those doctrines). There are more of them now asserting themselves in the wake of the passing of the old guard. I just started reading a series of articles that refers to these as “hyperCalvinists,” although I’m not quite sure where the article goes with it’s premise. It was referenced in Midwest Christian Center’s latest blog article: http://www.batteredsheep.com/pca.html
It’s my concern that Matt Slick has been strongly influenced by one if not all of the aspects of this growing movement which has strong ties to slavery and authoritarian concepts and foundational epistemology (which seems very or too “canned”). Some of the old guard had a balanced view of evangelism within a Calvinist framework, and for whatever reason, those to whom they’ve passed on their vision go about Christian living and evangelism with a great deal of rigidity (perhaps in response to the situational ethics and relative morality so prevalent in our culture today).
I guess where you thought yourself a possible “lone prophet in a wicked world,” I felt my myself a lost soul awash with confusion! I saw so many power-mongering, pastor-hating women in my Assemblies of God church, the Shepherding (and Calvinist) message regarding women seemed to also bring balance to this poor example. The egalitarian message (which I find to be more Christian in origin than pagan) just reminded me of many things I already knew. I’m swinging back and forth in response to these influences, trusting the Holy Spirit to bring me to eventually rest over and in perfect truth.
I pray, as I trust you all do, that these faithful Reformed folks get a new understanding of “egalititarianism” in the true spirit of the term within their relationships with the Lord, individually and as a group. The Reformed Movement of today desperately needs a renaissance of liberty and freedom. I believe that God’s bringing it in perfect time, and we are here for such a time as this. I’m just not sure how to persevere to the end.
“The Reformed Movement of today desperately needs a renaissance of liberty and freedom. ”
I could not agree more. I hear more about Calvin than I do about Christ from many of them these days.
“I believe that God’s bringing it in perfect time, and we are here for such a time as this. I’m just not sure how to persevere to the end.”
As my mom always said about persevering: Read 1 John. And pay close attention to chapter 3:
16By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
19By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22andwhatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
The Reformed Movement of today desperately needs a renaissance of liberty and freedom. I believe that God’s bringing it in perfect time, and we are here for such a time as this. I’m just not sure how to persevere to the end.
God is “bringing it”, and He’s starting with one Christian at a time but IMHO, I don’t think it will occur primarily in the subscriptionist churches, at least not yet. Just like all doctrinal pendulum swings, they’ll have some groups that break off from them in the future once the authoritarianism and patriocentricity becomes too cult-like seeking “a more excellent way.”
The areas you are more than likely to see this in will be in splinter groups from the strongly complementarian Sovereign Grace Ministries movement (of which Wayne Grudem is a part) that desire the high view of Scripture, the high view of God’s Sovereignty, yet desire to have people operate in accordance with their gifts vs. their gender per the Scriptures. Moreover, this is already being seen in the New Covenant Theology movement, of which, I’m part of (see Jon Zen’s excellent article here: http://www.searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm).
Both of these movements are confessional in a sense, yet they have folks within them that strongly desire to test all things in light of the word. Those from the more authoritarian backgrounds (i.e., those that hold to Dabneyism) will call the rest heretics. And so the story goes . . . .
Thanks Lynn and Dusman for your comments.
I emailed this to an interested friend who sent me this link to a similar topic on another blog. The chief editor of IVP (who publishes Grudem) mention women in ministry and the slavery issue, commenting on Grudem’s new book but also says that Mark Noll’s book is a must-read for all students of hermeneutics. The blog entry here links to the IVP site also. Sounds like all these books should be read.
http://connversation.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/slaves-women-the-civil-war-a-hermeneutical-question/
Cheryl,
I have just been listening to this broadcast, and I have not read any of the comments on this strand, but I just wanted to let you know that I admire you and respect you for your love and passion for an accurate understanding of scripture. I was disguisted with Matt Slick’s demeanor during this broadcast. You were very patient and kind, but he was completely rude and condescending toward you. And he called you impolite! The entire interview was just the opposite!
I have studied the issue of women in the ministry as well, but I still don’t know that I have arrived at any sort of a firm conclusion. I just wanted to encourage you not to back down from your convictions and what the Holy Spirit has led you to believe through scripture. I also don’t know that you need to apologetically tell people as rude as he is perhaps that you are a little nervous and that you are not used to debating and things like that. He was clearly the cause of any anxiety or flustered-ness that you might have felt, but he kept insisting that you were the cause of the confusion! Unbelievable.
Hold fast to the word of God and don’t let people with his sort of impatience and offensiveness stop you from proclaiming the truths of scripture.
Andrea in Oklahoma
Andrea,
Thank you!!! Your words of encouragement are accepted and I appreciate them! As far as my apologies to Matt for not knowing how to debate on air and my nervousness, well that is just who I am. I readily take responsibility for my own inadequacies even as I strive to represent the Lord Jesus in a caring way. I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until they have finally gone past my boundaries. I was giving Matt as much benefit of the doubt that I could. I have asked him for another opportunity on the radio to finish the verses that we started and I will continue to ask him. So far he is not responding to me even though he had originally agreed I could come back if I kept my responses down to 1.5 minutes and provided him a document of what I was going to say. Well this post is the document and I have already agreed to keep my responses down. Unfortunately, he has rescinded the offer. That is too bad, because there is so much more to say and his view should be challenged.
I just have to be confident that if I am available that God will use me in some way for his glory and for the benefit of my special dear sisters in Christ who have been called onto the front lines but who are getting arrows in their um, shall we call them the “rear quarters” and this from their brothers in Christ!! I want to see the day when women are given respect and honor for their godly service to the entire body of Christ. May I live long enough, dear Jesus to see that fulfillment in this day and age!
My reply to him/his email is below! Notice I’m just using the bible and Only the bible to back up our side, no articles etc etc!
Thank you for the article & time to send this e-mail, I looked over the article. I still disagree with the article. For exmaple: the article states:
Father was indeed an eternal obedience, rendered by an eternal equal, constituting an eternal subordination of the Son to do the will of the Father
Nice wording but the Son Is NOT/can’t be eternal subordination because Jesus is that ONE true God! ANY limit on Him in anyway you lose the Oneness/Tri-Unity/FULLY God of Him! ALL 3 Persons of the Trinity are seen woking as ONE!
You give me articles but I’m just using Only the Bible to prove my side of the issue! Just see below what is typed, I used bold print to drive the point home!
Another example: The Father & Holy Spirit:
INTERCHANGES OF “GOD” AND “HOLY SPIRIT”
Now we will consider more Scriptures proving that the Holy Spirit is indeed God. When the Bible interchanges terms exactly, we can be sure that God is teaching us that they are interchangeable. We will now commence to look at some Scriptures in the Old Testament referring to Yahweh God, and find that when they are applied and quoted in the New Testament, they are, in fact, attributed to the Holy Spirit. This is possible only if the Father, Yahweh God, and the Holy Spirit are the one God.
——————————————————————————–
EXODUS AND HEBREWS
Let’s consider Exodus 17:2,
“Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test Yahweh (or, the Lord)?”
Notice that the people were clearly testing Yahweh God. When this account is referred to in Hebrews 3:7-9, we find that the people were testing the HOLY SPIRIT.
“Therefore just as the HOLY SPIRIT says, Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, as in the day of trial in the wilderness, where your Fathers tried Me, by testing Me, and saw My works for forty years.”
Indeed, the people were putting to the test the one God, revealed two ways in these Scriptures, as the Father and as the Holy Spirit.
——————————————————————————–
JEREMIAH AND HEBREWS
The prophet Jeremiah records a promise of YAHWEH God in chapter 31, verse 33,
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD (or YAHWEH), “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God and they shall be My people”.
That promised new covenant is now a reality. The original uttering of that covenant promise was attributed to YAHWEH God, but let’s now read
Hebrews 10:15,
“And the HOLY SPIRIT also bears witness to us, for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days says the Lord; I will put my laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write them”.
Another revelation of the one God, through the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are the one God.
——————————————————————————–
ISAIAH AND ACTS
Another prophet, Isaiah, records in chapter 6, verses 8-10,
“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send Me! and He said, “Go and tell this people; Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.” Render the hearts of this people insensitive. Their ears dull, And their eyes dim. Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, and repent and be healed.”
When application of the Scripture was made in New Testament times by the apostle Paul, we find that the HOLY SPIRIT is credited with the utterance, in place of the Father. Acts 28:25-27 records,
“And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “the Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers saying,
“Go to this people and say, “You will keep on hearing but will not understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn again, and I should heal them.”
Yes, the terms “God” and “Holy Spirit” interchange in Scripture. The Holy Spirit Himself is called “God” and He is that one true God.
Only Again Thank You for reading this,Bye,
Michael