Cheryl Schatz

Don,
I have been thinking about our responsibilities as a watchman when no one wants to listen to our warning.  How far are we to push someone who refuses to listen?  I have just been through that and so it is heavy on my mind right now.  I think I will do a post on it to address my concerns.

I am wondering how blind the church can be when they equate a “grave moral concern” with the preaching of the gospel and women’s desire to use their gifts for the benefit of all as “Satan coming into the church.”

It seems to me that it is a concern for those who want to hold on tightly to a privileged position.  Why else would men fight so hard to keep women from using their gifts when scripture does not equate exercising our gifts with sin?  When men try to decide who gets to use their gifts for the common good and who doesn’t, isn’t this usurping God’s authority?

Paula,

I am very saddened by the fight that goes on in the church over secondary issues.  Those who devour their brother or sister in Christ over a secondary issue are in danger of producing bad fruit.  Jesus said that only good fruit comes from a good tree.  A bad tree cannot bear good fruit and a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.   This doesn’t mean that we don’t ever sin.  But our attitude towards sin is different than the one who bears bad fruit.  One who sins and repents and turns from their sin will be forgiven.  The one who covers over their sin will not prosper.  While we may not see the judgment right now, God has promised to be call to account.  When we have God on our side as our Advocate, we will come through the battle.  I would hope that all of us would like to have good fruit no matter which side of the fence we sit on regarding women in ministry.

Don,

I like what you said here:

The more they respond with paper after paper, the more they self-repudiate their claim of supposed clarity.

This is so true.  If it was so “clear” then how come churches don’t know how to implement it without a whole set of additional “rules”?  How come churches have to write to CBMW to find out if they can have women ushers and women serving communion?  If women are not allowed, then where is the dividing line?  This position only says that no one really knows.  Where is a set rule and where does conscience play into it?  But if we see scripture as allowing women to follow Jesus in using their gifts in the way that men can follow Jesus, then we don’t need organizations like CBMW.  We can now decide for ourselves and allow the scriptural position that men and women are spiritually equal before God and as spiritual equals they can both use their gifts for the benefit of the common good.

Irving church also stands out as a perfect example of an egalitarian view being upheld because of scripture.  I noticed that during their 18 month study of the scriptures they also studied both sides from both CBMW books and egalitarian books.  If the issue was so “clear” as CBMW says, then why didn’t their “clear” view convince those who were clearly very open to scripture and who only wanted to hold tightly to the scriptures.

You mean the ones who have written the Christian Talmud?  Sigh.

Pinklight,

Be encouraged because all of us have had distorted views of God because of tradition and satan’s work.  Satan hates God and wants him to be viewed in a bad light.  I remember when I came to the place in my life where I gave myself fully to Jesus.  I had been viewing him as the God who wanted to make me miserable because I saw his will as only wanting to control me.  My eyes were opened when I read a book that showed how my perception of God was completely wrong.  The view that I had of God was instead satan’s false testimony and not the truth.  God loves us so much and desires that we come to know him.  He is also willing to work in our hearts so that we desire the things that he desires.  God is not a spoil-sport as satan portrays him.  All of satan’s words are lies and distortions.  We cannot believe a single thing he says.

Years ago when I was doing a lot of studying in old JW books in order to understand their theology so that I could better serve them as teaching them the truth in Christ, I came across an odd statement in the Watchtower that said that a truth spoken by satan is just as true as a truth spoken by God.  They said that we are to embrace truth wherever we find it.  Apparently they didn’t take seriously Jesus’ words that there is NO truth IN satan.  There is no such thing as a truth spoken by satan because he is incapable of truth.  He is an example of one who has been turned over to his sin.  He is fully and completely in darkness.  He is the complete opposite of God.  Where God has no darkness in him, satan is only darkness.  Where God is fully light, there is no light in satan at all.  Our goal is to find what God has said and embrace it, believe it and practice it.  God’s word is truth.

Yup, ezer here 🙂  Paula’s post shows up as #9.  She got caught by my spam catcher because there were a ton of links.  She is out and free now 😉

Lin #5,

Yes, I believe it means to intimately know but even more than that.  It is something that isn’t even connected to his nature at all.

Remember Jesus said that “in him” (satan) there is no truth?

On the other hand, what is said about God is that “in him” there is no darkness at all.  1 John 1:5.

One has no light and no truth, the other is light and has no darkness and is truth and cannot lie.  God then is good and in him is no evil or experience of evil.

Lin #4,
The “us” that the man is no longer like is the Trinity.  While most of the Bible talks about God as “I”, the book of beginnings (Genesis) reveals God in the plural as three persons.  All three have the same nature so the holiness of God needs to be stated for all three.  Man is no longer in a sinless state while God is “Holy, holy, holy”.

In my mind when the way that the bible is translated contradicts Jesus’ words (Jesus said that there is no truth in satan) then we need to dig further to see where our understanding of scripture is wrong when we see satan telling what appears to be “truth”.

Great comments everyone!

Don,
A very good comment about the evidence of satan is to be ignored.  It certainly cannot be relied on.

I also think that we can learn from satan’s lies to see where Eve was deceived.  His evidence of course disqualifies him from being any kind of truthful witness, but his evidence will help us to see Eve’s temptation and her ultimate fall as she was deceived by his words.  The bible says that we are not unaware of his schemes.  We need to be aware of how he works and how he twists so that we recognize the “signature of satan” whenever we see the twists and lies.  Those who practice this sin (not those who sin and then repent) are following after the father of lies.

Paula,

You are always good in boiling things down.  Maybe you could give your thoughts on what Jesus is keying in on with “in him”.

Pinklight,

I am very impressed!  You are working on thinking through this passage and reasoning from other scriptures as well.  You are right in that Satan was not quoting scripture in Genesis 3.  You have come a long way in your desire to understand scripture and to work hard to push through for understanding.  I am proud of you.

I am proud of all of you too who read this blog and persist in studying to show yourself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.  Good going.  I am so glad I decided to post this one before I gave the answer.  It is encouraging me to see people trying to think this one through.

Thanks Lin and Paula for responding.  I think you both will find my next post very interesting.

Any other thoughts?  My further question would be, if Satan distorts the truth so that part of the statement is true and part a twist, can anyone see where the twist is?

If Jesus was simply using common Hebrew hyperbole when he said there was no truth in Satan, wouldn’t that make Jesus to be a liar?  I think we can agree that quoting scripture is not Satan’s words so that wouldn’t qualify.  What Satan does in twisting God’s word is “helicopter” the verse out of its context and in that way he twists God’s word.  But when he speaks of God not as a quote but of his own words is it possible for this to be truth since Jesus said there is no truth in him?

Again, I am trying to push people to think through this one for themselves before I give my answer.  Thinking caps on for this one 🙂

As a matter of looking to the greater good I have already taken off several posts on this blog. I do not have time for disputing over words and if those who mock and attack have an issue with me, they can contact me directly through email.

Lin writes:

“Who would then decide which is the “orthodox” position on each non-essential?  Seems to me that this would make everyone a “heretic” in someone’s eyes. Who would then decide which is the “orthodox” position on each non-essential?  Seems to me that this would make everyone a “heretic” in someone’s eyes. ”

Well, this is exactly what we have seen in history even from the Reformed church that decided Ana Baptists were heretics for re-baptizing and refusing to allow their babies to be baptized. This thinking on non essentials is dangerous. Even the Reformed church burned these ‘baptizing heretics’ at the stake.

tiro writes:

I think a heretic was originally one who differed from the accepted and Pope authored doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. Thus a protestant is considered a heretic. Thus Luther was considered a heretic … but only by the Catholic church

Those who think they are the ones to establish the acceptable doctrines for the body of Christ in general, are then making themselves the Popes of the church in general with full rights to call anyone who disagrees with them a heretic. Of course this is ludicrous, arrogant and divisive.

An individual denomination can, if they wish to be popish, decide what the acceptable doctrines are for their denomination. Anyone of their denomination who did not accept them could be called a heretic and ostracized. But it would be improper to call those of other denominations a heretic since they are outside the ‘authority’ of that denomination. However, most churches today recognize that with so many denominations, it is foolish to think non salvic and debatable subjects can be required beliefs to hold over all Christians. Who is to decide? Christ has already decided what is required for salvation. We are foolish to go beyond that.

Don writes:

I agree the gospel gives freedom and this is more than just freedom from being a slave to sin, it means choices and is one of the principles of the Kingdom.

I have the Companion Bible and it has many insights I like.

Gal 3 is the most egal statement for centuries, it was quiet unprecedented, no wild Greek philosopher went that far.

I agree the Bible does not discuss big church hierarchies, I prefer rule at a local church myself.

Acts 15 has a specific context, given in v. 1 and it is important to understand the whole chapter in that context.  It does not talk about Jews, only gentiles.

Greg Anderson writes:

Ryan  & Don,

I never remotely meant to imply that I am free of any moral constraints.  Murder, theft, adultery, and other sins, are universals that must not be engaged in under any circumstances, and Paul argues that even the heathen world has a conscience that bears this out (Romans 2).

The main gist of my comment earlier, was primarily a defense of women in ministry based on what I still see as a manifesto of freedom in Acts 15 for all people, whether 1st century Jew or 21st century gentile believer.  I also see this same manifesto, or at least a corollary of it in Galatians 3.

So far as church governance goes, I believe that what’s written in 1 Tim. are nice suggestions, but they are by no means written on stone tablets and absolutely binding.  Some churches follow the autocratic Moses model, while still others opt for a representative checks and balances approach.  E.W. Bullinger (hardly a liberal theologian) had this to say:

3. To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical, kind”.  These directions afford no warrant whatever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today (Bullinger 1799).

Source: Bullinger’s  Companion Bible , first printing 1922.

Don writes:

Yes, one needs to strive to obey all commandments of all covenants one is in.  Do not enter a covenant (e.g., marriage) if you do not intend to keep your vows, for example.

You cannot divide a covenant up, the Bible says it cannot be done, if in the Mosaic covenant, keep all those commandments that apply to you and that you can do.  Many Messianic Jews try to do this, they keep Sabbath and kosher and I do not see this as wrong, they are honoring God by what they do.

There is some 1st century context that is useful to understand some of the NT.  Most gentiles were pagan but some were called God fearers and were allowed in the temple up to the court of the gentiles.  In effect they were on the road to becoming a Jewish convert and stopped part way.  This was allowed, they could go to synagogue and learn, see Acts 15:21.

Mikveh baths were a part of 2nd temple Judaism.  This is where the idea of baptism of believers came from.  The Jews would do this to be ritually pure to enter temple areas.  It was also the very last step of conversion of a gentile, when they came up out of the mikveh bath they were considered Jewish with all rights and responsibilities.  Before that they needed instruction, to be circumcised if male and to pay for a temple sacrifice, this last was changed to a contribution after the temple was destroyed.

Being baptised is one of the early acts of obedience of a believer and is a public declaration of the inner transformation.  This is also where Jews are freed from the being in the Mosaic covenant by dieing in baptism (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12) to enter the new covenant see Rom 7:1-6, which is a better covenant, e.g.,  God commandments are written on one’s heart and not just stone or paper.

Yes, faith and trust are implied in the Hebrew and Greek, it is English that makes them seem different, but it is good to point out what it means Biblically.

On sexual immorality, see 1 Cor 5:1.  There was a concept among pagans about sexual immorality, but it was not the same as the Jewish concept.  The Jews are asking to meet the commandments of the Jewish understanding.  Recall that some gentiles might be new believers.  Paul teaches not to be immoral also.

Ryan writes:

@Don #14:

I realize that this is getting a bit off the original topic for Cheryl’s post, but I’d like to carry this one through.

Don, I like how you showed earlier that the Pharisees and other Jews were requiring something for salvation that wasn’t to be a requirement.  However, to say only that “Jews and gentiles are saved by accepting Jesus and accepting the Spirit in them v.8 & v 11? is missing the whole idea of Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will obey My commandments.”  Both Jews and Gentiles in OT times were saved by faith looking forward to God’s future work.  However, until the way was made clear, Gentiles were separated from Jews in some way unless they also physically became Jews under the covenant of Moses.  I can’t say I fully understand all of this yet, but this does seem to be the case.  Feel free to correct me from scripture.

As I read Acts 15, the Jews who believed didn’t understand there was a fulfillment of the ceremonial and food laws which were previously intended to separate Jews from Gentiles such that they were done away with when the way was made known and the veil was torn from top to bottom.  These were no longer to separate Jews from Gentiles.  However, we have a similar practice which all who profess to believe ought to do which is baptism.  Baptism separates those who believe from those who do not believe and it separates these two groups from fellowship together in Christ.  Baptism is a sign like physical circumcision (though much easier and universal to include both men and women), representing inner workings of the heart.  To say that someone is not saved because they have not been water baptized is insufficient.  It may be that this person has not yet had an opportunity to do so (ie. you need water to carry it out like you needed a knife or flint stone for circumcision).  But if such a person was negligent or refusing to do so, that is more serious as it communicates a heart condition which is not healthy.

I think this is more clear when we understand faith as an action word like trust, intending that we believe so we obey.  How will anyone (even ourselves) know we have saving faith in our heart if it is not evidenced in our actions?  And if we continue through the tests of life and see no evidence of that faith in our actions, what good is such faith?  Further, if the evidence proves the contrary, then it makes evident something about the heart condition which would
otherwise not be known.

These are the 4 minimal requests, from a Jewish POV these were gross things that exemplified what it meant to be a pagan, so please stop doing these worst things from the Jewish POV so that Jewish believers in Jesus can be with you in fellowship.  Remember, they are trying to make it as easy as possible on the gentiles v. 28.

Was sexual immorality something that believing Gentiles would be free to do if it weren’t for the sensitivities of the Jewish believers?

Looking forward to your response.

Don writes:

I appreciate your point.

I might understand Acts 15 somewhat differently.  The context is gentiles and what do they need to do to be saved.  Do they need to join the Mosaic covenant?  No, as the Mosaic covenant does not save anyone, as pointed out by Peter in v. 11.  Do they need to be circumcised and join Abraham’s covenant?  This is a little trickier, but no, as they are in Jesus and Jesus was circumcised they are already IN Abraham’s covenant.  And if “circumcision” is referring to the traditions of Pharisees on conversion v. 5 (which it might) then no again, as James points out both Jews and gentiles will worship God v. 17 per Amos quote so there is no requirement for Jewish coversion.

So Jews and gentiles are saved by accepting Jesus and accepting the Spirit in them v.8 & v 11.

But what will it take so Jewish believers will not be grossed out by being with gentile believers?  (They might be saved, but do I have to sit next to them or go to the same church with them?)  These are the 4 minimal requests, from a Jewish POV these were gross things that exemplified what it meant to be a pagan, so please stop doing these worst things from the Jewish POV so that Jewish believers in Jesus can be with you in fellowship.  Remember, they are trying to make it as easy as possible on the gentiles v. 28.

But this does not talk about what a church is to do for leaders or what a family is work, that is elsewhere in Scripture.

Ryan writes:

Greg Anderson writes:

For me it is pretty simple actually, from the book of Acts Chap. 15. The text makes it pretty clear to me that God was long finished with writing in stone out of the thick darkness atop Mt. Horeb.

In verse 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29, I am assured that there are only 4 things that I am to refrain from in my Christian walk, and that sitting under a gifted woman teacher of the Bible is not among them.

Greg, I don’t think it is quite that simple. When the apostles concluded “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality,” surely they didn’t mean to say that they were free from the moral commandments such as those requiring them not to murder, steal, covet, lie, etc. Indeed, after listing these few restrictions which they were to communicate, the apostles make it clear why they don’t have to repeat all of the moral requirements: “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21).

The apostles were only addressing the issue of those ceremonial and judicial laws which were stipulated to separate the Jewish people from other non-Jewish people. In other words, all that was being said here was that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish customs, aside from a few of the food laws and an emphasis on avoiding all sexual immorality, not that they were freed in any way from the transcendent moral requirements given by Moses.

On the issue of women in ministry, while there are clear verses which seem to be very clear on the treatment of men and women in the Kingdom of God, it is these difficult passages listed before which people use to oppose it and restrict women. Therefore, the best way to prove a view to be correct is to show how it fits with both the verses which seem to agree as well as those which seem to disagree.

Hope that helps…

Ryan

Greg’s comment:

Don,

For me it is pretty simple actually, from the book of Acts Chap. 15. The text makes it pretty clear to me that God was long finished with writing in stone out of the thick darkness atop Mt. Horeb.

In verse 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29, I am assured that there are only 4 things that I am to refrain from in my Christian walk, and that sitting under a gifted woman teacher of the Bible is not among them.

What then do I do with a personal letter from Paul to his protege Timothy saying that he “Suffers not a woman to teach…”?  I use common sense and the context of false teaching to conclude that it was never intended to bar Godly women from preaching & teaching Christ crucified.

Don,  I know that you have been magnificent in defending the sisterhood of believers from the depredations of patriocentric dogmatists and I salute you for it.  All I am saying is that I think we have overlooked Acts 15 as a pivotal manifesto of the freedom we have in Christ and his new covenant.

Don’s comment:

Cheryl,

It is true that 1 Tim 2:12 is the most famous verse used to restrict women in ministry (often with the claim that some translation is the clear teaching of Scripture) but there are other verses that are also used to do that and I am sure you know this.  1 Cor 14:34-35 (women be silent), 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 (husband of one wife) are some others used by non-egals, as well as using inconsistent or non-primary meaning translations of Rom 16:1 on Phoebe and Rom 16:7 on Junia.

I wish it was a simple as one verse.

This is a copy of Ryan’s comments:

It is also a reminder to me to not to respond in kind.

I think this statement from Lin is a good reminder.  The promotion of the truth will be all the more powerful if our response to criticism is simply to address ideas themselves and not the attitudes, feelings or behaviours of our opponents. Let’s focus on keeping up the high quality of discussion on this board doing this very thing, demonstrating what mature Christ-like character ought to look like, and remind ourselves to lay our emotions and desire for justice at God’s feet through prayer.

Copies from my blog post that is being taken off but some of the comments I want preserved.  This is from Lin:

This is off topic a bit but what you wrote, Don, reminded me of things I witnessed many times in mega church and para church organizations. The Matthew 18 process was always emphasized to deal with conflict among staff but rarely carried out. People saw how it was dealt with and were just taught not to go there. One reason Matthew 18 does not work in many situations is because of the teaching of hierarchy. People are busy looking at the caste system and if the brother was sinned against by another with a higher title or position within the church then they could not advance the process because they were not to ‘question’ or impune the character of the ‘leader’ by such accusations.

I have been watching with interest this new found interest in church discipline from the reformed movement. At one conference, the Matthew 18 process was taught. Everything was fine except they ADDED a step to the process. The extra step was to take it to the elders before it went to the whole church. Sounds ok. Sounds logical, even pragmatic. But it is NOT in scripture. And scripture does not specify who the witnesses need to be except other believers.

The extra step is fine if the elders are godly men chosen according to biblical precepts. But my experience is that many are chosen for more pragmatic reasons and this renders the extra step, added by the reformed group, null.

I wrote a satire on one incident I really did  witness. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. :o)

http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2007/09/adventures-of-matthew-18-in-mega.html

While I had originally decided to remove this post, it is imperative that people be warned about those who mock Christians and impersonate others are merely trying to draw attention to themselves. Private sins are to be repented of to the persons involved. Public sins are to be exposed publicly. Those who mock and rip at the sheep will one day stand before the judge of all.

This is it. Here draws the line in the sand. They will get no further attention from us.

______________________________________________

We are moving on to more positive things and leaving those who drain us behind.

tiro #37,

Good thoughts.  The only real purpose of calling someone a heretic is to divide from them.  The body of Christ doesn’t need anymore divisions.

How helpful would it be to have church after church and Christian after Christian calling their brothers and sisters in Christ as “heretics in this one area”.  We need to keep the term heretic and heresy in its proper biblical context.  A true heretic needs to be warned and then if unrepentant separated from.  Separation is a cleansing thing for the church.  Separation over non-essentials isn’t cleansing but is harming the church.  When we hold our view as more important to protect than we hold and protect a fellow brother in Christ, we have fallen from love.  Anyone who wants to do ministry outside of love is not walking in the true wisdom of the word.  It is only love that covers over the offense of the sin.  Without that love we are not being obedient to Christ.

As a matter of looking to the greater good I have already taken off several comments on this blog. I do not have time for disputing over words and if those who mock and attack have an issue with me, they can contact me directly through email.

I am appealing to God as my Advocate.  He will make things right in his own time.

If those who are mocking and attacking would like to continue the attack, they will be the ones to answer to God. I will not let their mud-slinging come this way. The motives of their hearts will be seen by all by their own words whether for good or for bad. God will be the judge.