![\"Witnesses](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/witness2.jpg?resize=400%2C457\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In the last blog post<\/a>,<\/strong> Cheryl Schatz posed her second set of questions to Mike Seaver<\/a><\/strong> regarding their discussion\/debate on women in ministry. Links to all the previous questions and responses is at the end of this post. \u00a0This discussion will be Cheryl’s response to Mike’s answers on question #2 and Mike’s rejoinder.<\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/span><\/p>\n Regarding Mike’s denial that there is a need for a law to have a second witness:<\/span><\/p>\n I didn\u2019t say that \u201cscripture\u201d needs a second witness. \u00a0There is a lot in the scripture that isn\u2019t repeated. \u00a0What I did say is that a judicial matter (that is the establishing of a matter that will charge a person with sin) always comes with a second witness<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0All of God\u2019s laws have been established by at least a second or third witness. \u00a0Try as you might you cannot find a universal law that doesn\u2019t have a judicial second witness. \u00a0When God establishes such a requirement for our safety, we can be guaranteed that He will follow through and make every matter of sin clear so that no one will fall into sin by an unclear (bugle) warning.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:7 \u00a0Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:8 \u00a0For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:9 \u00a0So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fact is that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not recognized as a universal prohibition by a good portion of the church. \u00a0Why is that? There are a lot of reasons. \u00a0First of all this unique prohibition was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition) and it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal).<\/span><\/p>\n Not only is it not clear that \u00a0the prohibition was written to all<\/em><\/strong> godly women for all of time, since it was written to one person concerning particular problems in that one church, but the prohibition is placed in a passage that has several obscure words and concepts that have puzzled the church for a couple of thousand years. Also, the sanction of 1 Timothy 2:12 was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not a universal prohibition). \u00a0Added to this is the context which is about false doctrine and false teachers and there is nothing in the passage that would hint that Paul is stopping godly Christian women from their teaching of the truth. \u00a0Also, a universal command is unworkable with 1 Timothy 2:15 especially with the inspired grammar of singular and plural (\u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d and the future tense used concerning the question of her salvation), along with the fact that the prohibition is never repeated or explained anywhere else. \u00a0Lastly, the prohibition is never accounted for in any list of sins. This is a massive amount of red flags that signal that the prohibition is not universal for all godly women for all of church history. \u00a0It is about a particular situation in the context of false teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n I also established that Jesus agreed that a second witness was necessary for a judicial matter. \u00a0His own testimony that He is the Son of God would be a matter that would be used to charge people with sin thus it was a matter that needed a second witness. \u00a0It seems inconsistent then that God would fail to give Christian women a second witness in a matter that would charge them universally with sin for teaching the truth about the Bible. \u00a0Are women to be judged for refusing to be prejudiced towards their brothers in Christ by demanding that these precious men leave the room? \u00a0That is unthinkable when compared to Paul’s words about body-wide edification. \u00a0God loves us so much, that it is also inconceivable that He would list a sin in a personal letter and then refuse to be clear about when, how or why teaching the truth of God\u2019s word becomes a sin merely by who is listening to her. \u00a0Is a woman guilty if a man is listening and she cannot see him? \u00a0If she demands that he leaves so that she can continue to teach, is she now sinning because she is \u201ctaking authority\u201d over him? \u00a0The amount of \u201cwhat if\u2019s\u201d in this situation would require a complete Christian Talmud to sort out. \u00a0Or\u2026.we could just understand that it is not a universal \u201claw\u201d that makes correct biblical teaching to be a sin for godly Christian women.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus said that if His testimony was alone, it was<\/em><\/strong> still the truth, yet it was not considered lawful<\/em><\/strong> without a second witness. \u00a0Jesus submitted to the law of the second witness, and He provided a second, third and fourth witness to lawfully establish who He is. \u00a0Those who refused to believe would die in their sins.<\/span><\/p>\n The book of Genesis confirms that repetition is used to establish a matter.<\/span><\/p>\n Genesis 41:32 \u00a0“Now as for the repeating<\/strong> of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God<\/strong>, and God will quickly bring it about.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Hebrew term for “determined” means to be firmly established, confirmed, fixed, ordained. \u00a0God’s law has all been firmly established<\/em><\/strong> and ordained<\/em><\/strong> with at least a second witness so that it can be used as a judgment against our sins.<\/span><\/p>\n God is infallible and inerrant and yet He provided a second witness to every single law that He gave. \u00a0There is not one universal law that is without a second witness so we can see that God has been faithful to us to provide ample evidence regarding sin. \u00a0But without a second witness, why do so many feel free to accuse godly women of being in sin depending on who is in their audience while they faithfully teach God’s word? \u00a0The “law” that God forbids women to teach the bible to men fails the test that this is indeed one of God\u2019s universal laws. \u00a0It is because God loves us and wants us to flee sin that He has made it very clear in scripture what sin is. Has God changed His mind in the area of women so that He refuses to provide a second witness that teaching the Bible is sometimes a sin for them? \u00a0Did God say \u201cI forbid women to teach the bible to men\u201d? \u00a0Or is it possible that we are reading into 1 Timothy 2:12 a \u201claw\u201d where there is no God-ordained universal law?<\/span><\/p>\n The issue is not whether Scripture is true or not. \u00a0I agree that it is without error (in the original writings), but I also agree with Jesus that even as His testimony is true without a second witness, yet His testimony was also invalid <\/em>as a judicial witness<\/em><\/strong> without a second witness. \u00a0God gave us ample witnesses against sin. \u00a0But there is no second witness that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men.<\/span><\/p>\n It will not do to deny that a second witness is needed since God Himself has ordained and provided the second witness in every instance of a judicial matter that would lead to the charge of sin. \u00a0I have also documented that both Jesus and Paul submitted themselves to the necessity of the second witness in an area where a judicial matter is being established. \u00a0All it would take to refute my entire argument is to provide one example of a universal law that is not repeated. \u00a0If you can provide a universal law that is not repeated, then you have disproven my case. \u00a0If you cannot provide a universal law that is without a second witness, then you will need to explain why God has failed to establish, confirm and ordain one unique law that leaves half of the body of Christ as potentially operating in sin for doing what is never a sin issue for men? \u00a0Why has God made an exception to the rule without telling us the reason He has done this to women while leaving no such unestablished law for men to be concerned about? \u00a0Would this not be showing that God is a respecter of persons as He has failed to establish His law only regarding women? \u00a0\u00a0God doesn’t have to do anything for mankind in the first place, but since He chose to do something for all of us by communicating His law and setting up a standard to establish the law, it appears inconsistent and unsafe to have one law for all Christian women that fall outside of that established standard.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike you said:<\/span><\/p>\n As far as other theological debates go\u2026if Scripture needs a second witness than all those who hold a Millennial view of Premillennialism or Post Millennialism are out of luck because only Revelation 20 speaks of a Millennium. \u00a0Only Amillennialist bring this up\u2026usually.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n My claim is that judicial matters need a second witness. \u00a0Scripture doesn\u2019t need a second witness to the Millennium since it is not part of a judicial witness that is used to charge someone of sin.<\/span><\/p>\n You said:<\/span><\/p>\n Also, I think the idea that more than one source is not consulted when thinking about whether or not women can be overseers\/elders\/pastors is a faulty one. \u00a0Paul, the apostle speaks about it in 1 Timothy 3:2 and in Titus 1:6. \u00a0He mentions that women should not teach or exercise authority in 1 Timothy 2:12.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There is no statement in these passages that women cannot<\/em> be an overseer\/elder\/pastor. \u00a0Also there is no charge of sin or a punishment for a woman who desires<\/em><\/strong> to be an overseer\/elder\/pastor (it is even encouraged in 1 Timothy 3:1). \u00a0Nowhere in the scripture is there a charge of sin listed for a woman who is teaching correct biblical doctrine, but who fails to dismiss the men before she teaches. \u00a0 It is a stark omission that there is no list of sin that documents a sin that relates to women teaching the truth of the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike you said:<\/span><\/p>\n The order of worship in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (specifically ch. 14) seems to speak about men being the ones leading the corporate meeting.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Where is this “suggestion” that only men are leading? \u00a0In 1 Corinthians 12, the term \u201cbrethren\u201d is not for men only. \u00a0It is a term for Christians. \u00a0There is nothing there that says \u201cmen only\u201d. \u00a0In 1 Corinthians 13, the chapter is all about love. \u00a0Is this all about men too? \u00a0I have never seen that suggested. \u00a0 In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says \u201cthe whole church\u201d and \u201call\u201d. \u00a0This chapter also isn\u2019t about only men speaking, but about the permission that is given to all<\/em><\/strong> to prophesy. \u00a0Even church discipline is done not by the elders alone but by the church. \u00a0Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:6 –<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 2:6 \u00a0Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority<\/strong>,<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The edifying of the church is to be done by all, not just the men. \u00a0Which verses in 1 Corinthians 12-14 say \u201cmen only\u201d? \u00a0I do not see any such verses.<\/span><\/p>\n You said:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 20 has Paul speaking to the Ephesians elders and it seems like they were all men and this is Luke writing (Acts 20:30 uses \u201cmen\u201d as who will rise up from among them). \u00a0Peter and Paul speak of male headship when it comes to marriages (1 Peter 3:1, Eph. 5:22).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There may have been only men as elders at any particular time in a church. \u00a0It is a far stretch to take a historical account and make it a doctrine that only men can teach the Bible to the church. \u00a0Also, I don\u2019t want to go outside of this topic by talking about \u201cheadship\u201d in marriage, but from what you have already said, it appears that you agree that a woman can teach the Bible to her husband. \u00a0If a woman can teach the bible to her husband when he is her \u201chead\u201d, then there is no reason why she cannot teach the bible to another man. \u00a0There is no other \u201chead\u201d of the church but Jesus Himself, and He has given gifts to His women \u201csons\u201d for the common good.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 12:7 \u00a0But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mike, if women\u2019s gifts were not for the \u201ccommon good\u201d then scripture should have told us this fact rather than what was inspired where Paul commands all to desire the gifts for the common good.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike you said:<\/span><\/p>\n So, while the Bible never says, \u201cgodly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men\u201d it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As I said, there is no \u201cheadship\u201d in the church except for Jesus. \u00a0The Bible never says males are held responsible to provide leadership. \u00a0This is reading into the text something that is not there.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike you said:<\/span><\/p>\n It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. \u00a0It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n On top of the problems that I have already documented, this kind of interpretation implies that women\u2019s gifts are for some reason inferior to men’s gifts or it devalues men since men are not allowed to receive the work of God’s Spirit through women.<\/span><\/p>\n This interpretation devalues men if women\u2019s gifts are valuable <\/em><\/strong>because men then are forbidden to receive the edification that women are allowed to receive. \u00a0Women then are given by God the benefit of the gifts of both <\/em><\/strong>men and women. \u00a0They receive encouragement and edification by unique gifts that are given to both males and females. \u00a0But men have only \u00bd the gifts for their own benefit. \u00a0Does God want to punish men because He forbids them from benefiting from some of God\u2019s gifts while freely allowing women to receive all<\/em><\/strong> of the gifts?<\/span><\/p>\n However,\u00a0if women\u2019s gifts are NOT valuable<\/em><\/strong> to men, then women’s spiritual gifts are inferior and unnecessary gifts for them. A male could say \u201cWomen\u2019s gifts may be valuable to women, but I as a male certainly don\u2019t need to receive women’s gifts.\u201d \u00a0But we have told that we cannot say this.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 12:21 \u00a0And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A male cannot say that he (personally) does not need women\u2019s gifts. \u00a0Our gifts are given for the common good, not just for women.<\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/span><\/p>\n Cheryl, thanks for engaging the conversation again and for your response.<\/span><\/p>\n You said Scripture does not need a second witness, but then you said, \u201c[1 Timothy 2:12] was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition), it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal)\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n How is this not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? \u00a0Timothy was an elder of the Ephesian church and the letter was circulated as Scripture and is thus in our bibles. \u00a0If all of 1 and 2 Timothy are just for that day and age and not for today, is Christ really our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) are the positions of overseer and deacon necessary (1 Timothy 3:1-12)? \u00a0Is all Scripture breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? \u00a0Are Paul\u2019s words in a letter to young Timothy Scripture or not? \u00a0Are Jesus words that are in red (in some bibles) more inspired than other texts? \u00a0I think all of the Bible is inspired equally, so to say that Paul\u2019s letter is not as useful as Jesus words is unsettling.<\/span><\/p>\n So, the \u201claw\u201d idea that you build up is set on the principle that one passage (especially from a personal letter) cannot be enough to allow for a teaching to be true. \u00a0If Paul wrote to Timothy, \u201cWomen should not be elders at any church because that is a position of authority that a man is to take.\u201d \u00a0You would say that this is cultural, not abiding by a law of consistency in other passages, and thus discarded. \u00a0But, what if Paul said what he meant and the teaching to Timothy are for the entire church, just as those who put the canon together desired. \u00a0If something is written one time in Scripture, it must be dealt with as Scripture and not tossed out because there is not an identical passage or teaching found in Jesus\u2019 words.<\/span><\/p>\n You said, \u201cAll it would take to refute my entire argument is to provide one example of a universal law that is not repeated. \u00a0If you can provide a universal law that is not repeated then you have disproven my case.\u201d \u00a0Though I have articulated that I don\u2019t think your argument works, I will explain another universal law that does not have a second witness. \u00a0The Lord\u2019s Supper. \u00a0Is it sinful to eat the Lord\u2019s Supper in an unworthy manner? \u00a0I say, \u201cYes\u201d because 1 Corinthians 11:27 says, \u201cWhoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.\u201d \u00a0It goes on to say that people drink judgment on themselves by improperly taking the Lord\u2019s Supper. \u00a0Thus a sin, thus a \u201claw\u201d (as you define it), yet there is no second witness. \u00a0This is the only passage in scripture stating this case. \u00a0You would have to say \u201cno\u201d it is not sinful to eat the Lord\u2019s Supper in an unworthy manner. \u00a0You would have to say that there would need to be a second witness for this to be sinful, but their isn\u2019t. \u00a0Thus a universal law, that is only stated once in Scripture\u2026and I believe it is stated the amount of times it is needed to heed it\u2019s teaching\u2026once.<\/span><\/p>\n When talking about 1 Cor. 12-14, I\u2019m not saying that the passage is for men only, both men and women are to use their gifts for the common good in an orderly way, I am saying that the authority in the passage is enacted by the leadership. \u00a0How else does the order happen? \u00a0Someone has to be taking the authority to have order. The church had order and Paul assumes that there is authority in the church. \u00a0I assume that we would both agree that the elders or pastors would be overseeing the corporate meeting. \u00a0If there are men and women pastors, then I would assume they would both be carrying out the authority of overseeing the corporate meeting, but what if the women pastors were publically correcting prophesies? \u00a0This seems to be going against 1 Cor. 14:34-35. \u00a0Like we have and will discuss with other questions, I don\u2019t think this passage speaks of a rule to have women not speak at all, but that they are not to have authority to publicly judge the a wrong prophesy and thus correct it.<\/span><\/p>\n This passage can\u2019t be seen as a quotation from another Corinthian letter as you say just because you disagree with the wording as it is stated without quotation marks.<\/span><\/p>\n DA Carson said, \u201cIt is very doubtful that verses 34-35 constitute a quotation, perhaps from the Corinthians\u2019 letter. \u00a0During the last decade and a half, one notable trend in Corinthian studies has been to postulate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians in more and more places\u2014usually in places where the commentator does not like what Paul is saying! \u00a0That Paul does quote from the Corinthians\u2019 letter no one disputes. \u00a0But the instances that are almost universally recognized as quotations (e.g. 6:12; 7:1b; 8:1b) enjoy certain common characteristics: (i) \u00a0they are short (e.g. \u201cEverything is permissible for me,\u201d 6:12); (ii) they are usually followed by sustained qualification (e.g., in 6:12 Paul goes on to add \u201cbut not everything is beneficial\u2026but I will not be mastered by anything\u201d\u2014and then, following one more brief quotation from their letter, he devotes several verses to the principle he is expounding); (iii) Paul\u2019s response is unambiguous, even sharp. \u00a0The first two criteria utterly fail if we assume verses 34-35 are a quotation from the letter sent by the Corinthians.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Lastly, Cheryl, you said, \u201cThe problem with this [women not teaching men] is that it makes women\u2019s gifts inferior or it devalues men.\u201d I don\u2019t think Elizabeth Elliot, Carolyn Mahaney, or Dorothy Patterson feel inferior. \u00a0None of them seek to teach men, yet all of them are very good teachers. \u00a0I actually think they are esteemed more and are treated better for taking a strong view on biblical womanhood.<\/span><\/p>\n If God says the way he creates things are good, why does one using the gifts the way God desires have to be inferior or superior. \u00a0All gifts are from God anyway. \u00a0We haven\u2019t earned gifts, but they are from God for his glory and the edification of the church. \u00a0Women are equal in worth and value, not inferior.<\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/span><\/p>\n Because of time off to enjoy the summer weather with family, question #3 from Cheryl and Mike’s answer to this set of questions will not be posted until August 17th and it will show up on both Cheryl’s<\/strong><\/a> and Mike’s<\/a><\/strong> blog at that time. \u00a0In the meantime we would like to thank everyone for the amount of interest shown in this discussion and the respectful comments and questions that have been posed. \u00a0Because of Mike’s heavy ministry schedule he may not be able to respond to questions but he would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments.<\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/span><\/p>\n Question #1 and Mike\u2019s answers<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Responses to Question #1<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Question #2 and Mike\u2019s answers<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Responses to Question #2<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Question #3 by Cheryl and Mike\u2019s answers<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Responses to Question #3<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Question #4 by Cheryl and Mike’s answers<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Responses to Question #4<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Question #5 by Cheryl and Mike’s answers<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nCheryl Schatz responds:<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
Mike’s rejoinder<\/strong><\/em>:<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n
Links to all segments of the debate:<\/span><\/h2>\n