Public debate between Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz

Public debate between Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz

While I am reviewing Matt Slick’s articles on women in ministry, I would like to create this post as a public debate between Matt Slick and myself so that he is allowed to express himself without the restrictions that he has placed on me but in a place where I too am unrestricted. Matt previously said that he would allow a public debate on the radio but that I was restricted to 1.5 minutes for each of my responses. I told Matt that I would do this as long as he gave his questions ahead of time so that I could work hard to limit my answers to 1.5 minutes. I don’t know why he would put such restrictions on me when he has never restricted anyone else on his radio show to speaking only 1.5 minutes, however the fact that I am a woman who is passionately in favor of women’s ability to teach the entire body of Christ with their God-given gifts and Matt is passionately in favor of men ruling women, might give a good indication why he would place me under such strict tight restrictions. However even with my agreement to Matt’s control of the extent of my answers, Matt backed down and said he would not allow me to publicly give a defense in that format.

So instead of a audio debate this is a place for a public written debate and all can see and judge without Matt’s restrictions on me. It is a godly thing to passionately try to influence another. It is not a godly thing to try to control and I believe that the best way to be heard is in a place where Matt cannot try to control. Let’s see if Matt is willing to come and dialog in a professional and respectful way. In the meantime I will continue to review his articles and reveal the faulty premise that Matt has based his view that women are not allowed to teach men authoritatively God’s word. I disagree and believe that women are allowed to teach God’s word authoritatively as 1 Peter 4:11 clearly shows that everyone who has been gifted is allowed to speak the oracles of God.

13 thoughts on “Public debate between Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz

  1. The spirit behind this offer is commendable.  Well said.  And you can be assured that you have established such a good rapport with those who read your blog, that we would be willing to hold you accountable to your own parameters on this.

    It is interesting that Diane S. has chosen to claim that you are again lying, that Matt did NOT refuse your challenge, that you refused Matt’s challenge on the radio.  Though considering Matt’s requirement to be limited to a 1.5 minute response to each question, who in their right mind would ever accept such a “debate”.

  2. A debate where someone is both the debater and moderator is not a debate.

    I also do not think a debate is the best way to advance egalitarianism (I think the best was is teaching), as it is a new idea to many and a new idea needs extra time to go thru stages of acceptance; at first it may seem preposterous, then strange, then possible, then voila! accepted, but this is a paradigm shift and also means admitting that one was not interpreting the BIble previously as well as one could.  But it might be a way, so I wish you the best.

  3. Thank you tiro3!

    There has been a great deal of false accusations against me that I will not be responding to publicly because I do not want to wade in the same mud pond that others have created, but I have decided to create a list of Matt’s unwarranted actions against me that have been publicly denied but the evidence is there for anyone to check out and decide for themselves who is telling the truth. I will give the evidence out to anyone who contacts me privately. I will not post it publicly on my blog as that would publicly humiliate Matt Slick and I do not seek to publicly humiliate him but rather challenge him on his beliefs. But because I do believe in having the facts known should there be those who have read the accusations against me and want to see the facts that have been falsely represented and things that have been publicly denied that Matt Slick has done, I would not want to hold back the truth from any of Matt Slick’s followers or others who want to see both sides.

    Having said this, I am still very interested in having Matt Slick visit this blog and enter into a public written debate. I think it would be an excellent way for people to see both sides interact with each other in a way that would hold both publicly accountable without one controlling the other. This is certainly a godly way to handle disagreements and I would not limit Matt Slick’s “time” to respond or edit his responses.

  4. Don,

    Thanks for your thoughts! I was not thinking about a moderated debate, just a debate where both could present their arguments and ask questions of each other that the other could answer. I don’t think a moderator would be necessary since there would not be restrictions. While I have set this up, I don’t think that Matt Slick will show up. He has stated publicly on the radio that he is sick of me (is that a sick Slick? Sorry just being a little “punny” today) and he wants nothing to do with me. He can handle all kinds of cultists but he can’t handle a woman who disagrees with him on the women’s issue of women teaching the bible with authority. The way he handles the opposition on this issue is the “fruit” of the hierarchal way.

  5. I was thinking about his format, not yours, with yours there is no moderator.

  6. Ah, yes. My eyes now see! Well this is pretty much like my husband has told me many times…the man with the microphone always wins. I don’t think Matt likes to come across as not winning so he wants to keep things in his court where he can control. I wouldn’t control him here if he comes. I would love to see what he has to say in answer to all my posts about his articles. The stuff he leaves out of his articles is very telling. It isn’t hard to call attention to the weakness of his argument. Perhaps that is why he doesn’t want anything to do with me 😉

  7. Matt popped up on his forums challenging you to accept his debate offer on paltalk. You already talked once on his set up. What is so frightening for him that he cannot now accept your offer on your set up. Does it always have to be “his way or the highway”?

  8. Slick and Co. on CARM are so afraid of their posters hearing other viewpoints, that they have forbidden posters from giving links even to other websites. Amazing, ey. I think this is one of the signs of a cult isn’t it.

  9. Matt Slick has answered my request for a written debate by posting this on his discussion board:

    I am in the midst of two debates right now, prepping, etc. and I find out that “a woman” has said I refused to debate her? right….. It turns out that “a woman” is misrepresenting what I have said in the past about debates. I offered “a woman” to debate me on Paltalk, publically, live, timed, etc. Paltalk is a public forum, an excellent Internet-based, voice chat system. I have done formal debates there many times in the past and I will do more in the future. It is very easy to do. Since I have already had “a woman” on my radio show twice, in public, while I paid the bill, I’m ready to do another “discussion” in public, on pal talk. I am still waiting for her to accept this challenge that I offered months ago. I have no interest in a written “debate”…been there and done that with the atheists and it turned into, if I remember correctly, a debate that was over 25,000 words long (I think that is like over 60 written pages). I am not interested in that happening again. So, I’ve already written an awful lot on the women’s issues exposing the stupid errors of that position. I’ve already had one of its representatives on my radio show… she drove me crazy with the slow, condescending delivery. And, As I’ve already said, I have no interest in a written debate. I’m perfectly comfortable with debating the women’s elder/pastor thing with her and anyone else who is willing. Paltalk is a great forum for this. So, if she is up to it, fine. If not, then she can go back to her corner and keep swinging at shadows.

    Here is what I posted in response:

    The issue of whether a woman is forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men is an important issue that affects all of us in one way or another. It is also a very worthwhile issue to debate with other Christians when it is done with love and respect. This is a secondary issue of doctrine that should never divide us.

    I was invited by Matt Slick to be on his radio program through an email sent by him on April 5, 2006. In this email Matt Slick said that he would be respectful and that I would be allowed to cross examine him on live radio.

    **Here is a copy of Matt Slick’s invitation to me to come on his radio program. The invitation was given on April 5, 2006:**


    I am willing to have myself be challenged and examined on live radio. I am willing to have what I believe to be true to be cross-examined. 1 Pet. 3:15 commands that I do this and I obey it. Your DVD does not allow cross-examination and what it presents as “opposing views” are not always sufficiently represented.

    Please understand that I’m not trying to be hostile, though it may sound like it.

    I have for more than two decades requested women and men who hold to your position to actually have a dialogue with me on these issues and not a single individual has ever accepted. Why is that? I cannot help but wonder what the problem is?

    I can certainly understand why you would not want to discuss this with me live over the radio. I’m disappointed that you have declined since you would be someone who will be very good at defending a position.

    Just so you know I am very respectful on the radio and everybody, except for one atheist who got cornered, has said that I had been extremely respectful and polite — even those who have disagreed with my positions.

    At the very least, the DVD has provided more areas, more positions fromyour perspective, that I need to address.

    Again, I politely request to have you on my show to discuss this.

    in Jesus,


    I finally accepted Matt Slick’s offer in September 2007 and I was a guest for two programs on his Faith and Reason Radio Show.

    I offered to come back for another show and Matt said he would think about it. Later he stated on his Faith and Reason radio show that he would allow me to come back on his the radio if I would limit my answers to 1.5 minutes each question. To my knowledge Matt has not tried to control any other guest to this extent; however I was willing to abide by his rules and I responded to Matt that if he would provide me with his questions in advance so that I could work on keeping my answers short, I would abide by his restrictions. Matt subsequently withdrew his offer and I was not allowed to finish my explanation for 1 Timothy 2:15 – a verse crucial in the interpretation of the prohibition.

    I do believe that we should passionately debate this issue and because of this I have extended to Matt Slick an invitation to come onto my blog to have a written debate with me. The debate would be on the question of Does God forbid women from teaching the bible with authority to men? Matt’s position would be the affirmative and my position would be the negative.

    The debate would be done in a scholarly fashion with both sides presenting their arguments in an open way for the world to see how each side presents their argument and how each side answers the questions posed to them. I do agree with Matt Slick that cross-examining is important. I also believe that the written record of such an important debate would be helpful to many who are searching the scriptures to find out what God’s will is on this matter. A written record of the debate would also make us both accountable for the attitude that we display as the scholarly community and the world would also be watching. This is one way to keep accountability for the attitude that can slip away from the respect that I had been promised and did not receive with our audio debate. The two programs are on my blog for anyone to check the respect level that was afforded me on live radio.

    I have already accepted Matt Slick’s offer to dialog with him in the audio format on his radio program. It is time to take another format that would be more conducive to a respectful, passionate debate. I think that all will find a written format to be easier to follow and with a higher accountability for a respectful attitude since the record would be a permanent written record on the internet. The arguments can then be analyzed at the reader’s leisure and a good evaluation made on that basis, rather than on tone and level of voice, etc and would provide an effective way to have peer analysis and scholarship. The written debate is the way to go after what has already transpired.

    I understand that Matt has tried the written debate before with an atheist and with issues that are primary to our faith and not secondary. Whether he did well or not in the written form of debate is not my concern. If this issue is as important to him as it is to me, then there is no reason not to spend the time and the energy to bring this debate to a public forum that will be seen and evaluated by the Christian world. My blog is a place where there will be no control on either one of us and there will be respect for both of us as is fitting for brethren in Christ.

    Cheryl Schatz

  10. You know, I predicted that Diane would be the one to answer for Matt and I was right. Okay, I am not a prophetess, but it is interesting to know that I picked up a long time ago that Matt has Diane fight his battles for him much of the time. It just seems odd that for two who fight for the man to be in charge and the woman to be the follower, they seem to find a comfortable balance with him staying in the background in written debates while she takes on the “enemies” for him. And no, Diane is not Matt’s wife. She is his vice-president of CARM. It is just a thought, but I am thinking they are not as complementarian as they make themselves out to be. It could be a good thing to move towards an egalitarian approach if the ideal is not something that will practically work out in reality. Most complementarians actually live out egalitarian marriages. Okay, so here is Diane’s answer on behalf of Matt from

    (One thing you should notice is that Diane does not link to the articles that I have written refuting Matt’s “refutation”. 😉 )

    Diane’s Sellner’s answer is here and it goes along quite well with the one where she says that I “smell” 🙂

    “Oh please WIM! Matt Slick has already written an entire section in refuting all your ridiculous, liberal, feminist arguments that have been posted here by yourself and your liberal “groupies.” You have been addressed in writing, now because you cannot defend your position in a verbal debate while claiming to be an “apologist” you want to pretend Matt has not written to refute you? We will be sure to let everyone know, in fact, maybe I will pin it to the top of this forum, that Cheryl Schatz refuses to defend her position in a formal, verbal debate as challenged, refuses time limits, formal rules of debate and when addressed in writing by Matt with numerous papers already refuting her argument on the CARM homepages, she claims falsely that Matt has not written in debate to refute her. Matt quotes the arguments from the Cherylites on this forum and answers each argument, Cheryl responds to Matt by simply repeating her same arguments, already refuted HERE: then wants Matt to write it all again as she repeats her same “she” and “they” and “deceived wives” for the 100th time?
    Cheryl Schatz arguments refuted by Matt, to those reading her blog
    you will not find anything new in her responses to Matt, but she simply repeats the same exact thing over and over and over.

    Two times Cheryl Schatz has refused a formal verbal debate as she continues to claim “no one has refuted her”…Yes Cheryl, you can make such claims, and that is because you refuse to debate verbally, calls herself an apologist but will only write. :-)Is that how you worked with the JW’s, told them to send you a letter?

    I think it is time for “Schatz” to move on from beating this “dead horse” Maybe Cheryl you should take CARM’s “Apologetics” course, it might help you learn how to do apolgetics without a video camera and script in front of you. Take the course and then you can come back and try again with Matt.

    __________________ end of Diane Sellner’s response.

    For all who are acquainted with logical fallacies, this is a perfect example of ad hominem – an attack on the person. Instead of allowing questions and giving respectful answers, this tactic allows the person to attack and run off. It is one of the favorite tactics of cults. What I usually do with a JW who tries to attack and run is just ignore the attack and keep asking thought-provoking questions. When you show your love and respect to a JW you can disarm them by “heaping coals of fire” on their head. The Lord Jesus told us that the world will know us by our love. This is a requirement for children of God, not an option. For anyone that wants to comment on CARM’s discussion board, just remember these things. One hand can’t clap and a civil answer shows the difference between God’s way and the world’s way.

    I am working on a new post that I hope to get up soon. There will be lots to think about on the subject of “scriptural fences” which will be the name of my new post coming shortly.

  11. While Matt Slick has declined my invitation to debate Are women forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men? by the intermediary words of his vice-president Diane Sellner saying that he is concerned that:

    1. His words would be edited on my blog

    2. I would get help from my five friends and this would not be fair

    I would like to offer a solution.

    Answer to #1: While I do not edit people’s posts on my blog (except when they have asked me to edit them or to remove the highest level of inflammatory name calling that is inappropriate for a Christian site and in these cases I only edit out the foul words and make a note that I have done this and to the credit of the wonderful people who come to this blog, I have only had to do this a couple of times since I started WIM), I would propose that our debate be done on a neutral site where we can both write without the blog/web site owner interfering with any of the dialog. I think this would be fair and reasonable.

    Answer to #2: While I do not personally need help in defending the issue of women in ministry since I started this blog to teach others what I have learned, I wonder why Matt would be so concerned that he might not be able to answer what he calls “feminist” apologetics that he is afraid that I might get help from five others? Is the apologetics that I present and that others present so intimidating to Matt that he cannot hope to win a written debate? Sure seems odd for someone who is so assured of himself. I do not have any worries that he might get help from his ten friends so I cannot possibly see why he would run scared from those who have come to enjoy my teaching? I would suggest that Matt learns that a written debate that is available to the public is the safest way to prevent abusive mocking tones that seem to be a part of Matt’s audio “style”. It would be a good way for Matt to grow up and mature in order to learn how to debate with a loving respect for his Christian opponent.

    In the next comment box I will be posting Diane’s further answer today and from her comments you will see how she has been trained to take on a mocking tone toward those who disagree with her on mere secondary issues of faith.

  12. This is from and is Diane Sellner’s further answer to my challenge of Matt Slick of CARM to debate me in writing on whether women are forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men. Matt has been very vocal against women’s teaching the bible with authority to men and very against me personally so it was time to ask Matt to be willing to be confronted with questions as he wrote me in April of 2006 that he believed he was mandated by scripture to answer questions about his teaching. Diane writes:

    Sorry, a one hour radio show interview/discussion is not a formal debate, not even close, and for Matt to post on a “gossip” column blog to a bunch of “whiney” feminist supporters with the one in the debate having the control to change the words of the opponents writing, seek help from 5 other people to answer, is NOT even close to a fair or formal debate challenge. I have witnessed other discussion forums where they will edit and change your actual written words to something you did not say and I am sure that Cheryl would be debating Matt on her blog assisted by her husband, friends and every other liberal on the internet. Plain and simple, I don’t trust that women AT ALL. If Cheryl wants a one to one, she would do so in a verbal debate. Matt would be completely opened to false teachers manipulating his arguments and changing his written word to go to “their blogs.” The fact she even asks is completely absurd, of course Matt will not go to some “blog” to post to Cheryl, Matt doesn’t even write on the CARM blog. He has a webpage where all of this has been addressed, ALL of it….. If the radio show or her blogging is suppose to be formal debating, Cheryl would have been fouled by the moderators numerous times, since she does not follow any time limits, uses ad hominem and refuses to answer direct questions by simply repeating the same things over and over…..

    When are you going to get this, Matt doesn’t own paltalk, or control paltalk, it is a neutral place, where both sides have equal control and that is why it was offered, no way is CARM going to a Cherlite blog…Ridiculous….It has already been done in writing, the papers are already written, Matt has already answered Cheryl’s arguments, here and on the radio. To suggest that Cheryl should have control on her blog of a formal debate, and Matt should run to some liberal gossip column website to repeat his words written there to the five people that read it, is probably the most ridiculous challenge ever posted on CARM.

    If I were Matt Slick, I wouldn’t go to Cheryl’s blog if she paid a million dollars for it. Look at the trouble she caused for the radio station with her whining, threats, demands for “free air time.” I can just imagine the histrionics that would go on her blog. Paltalk, neutral place, where it all can be recorded LIVE, where no one can edit/control the forum or rules and time, and paltalk would not give in to Cheryl’s threats of “I don’t like this, give me free time” nonsense, is the only possibility for a fair debate with Cheryl Schatz. But of course, the self-proclaimed “female” apologist that wants authority to preach, teach and assume authority over men in the pulpit, refuses to defend herself publically when being challenged and cross examined, and I think it is very clear, WHY…..”Oh please come to my blog and write and I can have friends, relatives and every known liberal help me answer the cross examination”…Does not work that way to formal debates…..

    One more time, Cheryl Schatz blog is under her control to edit, misrepresent and even change Matt’s words or anyone’s words, we have already witnessed her quotes out of context, snipping out the parts she likes when she answers any challenge, then ignoring the tough questions…….She cannot do that LIVE audio debating and that is why she is running from it and has for months.. Matt has already written to refute Cheryl’s arguments, it is done, she is refuted in writing…..she was refuted on his radio show, she had four hours free air radio time to promote her false teachings and NO one is buying her argument but feminist liberals that were already rewriting Scripture… She was offered a formal debate on neutral territory and refused…

    Matt has answered Cheryl Schatz’s arguments in writing, all of her arguments posted here, he has refuted her, if you are interested in seeing her properly refuted, go to the Women in Ministry sections of CARM and read it, just click on my signature. Because Cheryl Schatz contradicts herself from one week to the next, then claims she has been “misrepresented” and threatens people they had better not write this or that, or else, there won’t be many people that will use her name on their websites unless they quote her directly, the reason is obvious..why ….. Cheryl Schatz has NEVER, not ever, subjected herself to a formal debate, with moderators, rules, time limits and being cross examined in her false teachings on neutral ground since being here with CARM. What we see is Cheryl, talking, lecturing, and pats on the back from friends on her blog, no serious debating. She doesn’t KNOW HOW……. A radio show interview and discussion, blogging, or videos and scripts, is NOT a formal debate with rules. I suggest, she refuses because she cannot defend her position without a script and she knows it.

    Do not suggest here again that Matt has not answered her in writing, do not even think to suggest anyone is afraid of Cheryl Schatz…PLEASE…. that is bearing false witness, he spent hours and days in writing to her arguments as well as other feminists here he addressed on the CARM home pages. If you can find something Cheryl teaches that he did not address, that is the “proof” to women being elders in Scripture, then list it here and it will be addressed. Otherwise, it is simply bearing false witness to claim she has not been answered. If the woman wants a debate, claims she is an “apologist” wanting to help the “silenced” women, she wants to play with the “big boys” then she had better get the nerve to leave her little blog nest of liberals and whiney girls claiming they want to “rule men” and come out to the real world and prove she is a true apologist…Otherwise, it is just another feminist “blog” as one of the thousands, more blowing smoke and liberal propaganda…..Do we look afraid of Cheryl Schatz to you? My kids know Scripture better then Cheryl Schatz, we just won’t let her manipulate and control, she just does not feel comfortable in her arguments unless she is writing the script, making up her OWN rules and editing everyone else…….

    Quit trying to stir up trouble here, the woman has refused a debate, paltalk is not Matt’s format…it is simply the best audio debate website on the net for quality….If Cheryl can’t talk, why on earth is she in apologetics? Time for her to get out of apologetics, go bake some cookies and leave the debating to the “men” that know what they are doing. ……

    PS…And why is this so long and wordy? Well I am sick and tired of Cheryl’s blog quoted here, needed to rant myself. chattykathy posting her pages and pages on our forum from Cheryl’s blog of cut and pastes with her hit and run of Cheryl’s same old arguments and propaganda, never responding to anyone, posts that are never answered. This is a discussion board and we do not want to hear anymore about what is posted on some feminist blog…Talk about it here, answer here, or move on…I am sick of this group….

Comment to join the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: