Cheryl Schatz

…And yes, I can put this behind me now.

He refuses to admit that a person cannot be a heretic on a secondary issue of faith when the secondary issue is also accepted as orthodox in the church.  He states that any church that accepts women in ministry is also heretic.

What I did appreciate about the meeting we had was having the opportunity to meet Ryan, the new apologist at CARM.  I really appreciated his attitude and his demeanor.  I pray that God will help him to make a positive impact in a godly way in the calling that he has.

My report on my meeting has been created on a separate post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/06/public-statement-regarding-matt-slick/

Note from my Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick (CARM):

I have posted my public statement regarding the conclusions from this Matthew 18 meeting here http://www.mmoutreach.org/slick.htm

Any further discussion of this matter, please email me privately as this brings to a close a very public disagreement and I will not be commenting further in a public way.

Cindy,

Thank you for your kind words!  I will go with that encouragement knowing that the Holy Spirit will be there as my strength – my real battery power.  There are things that I need to learn from this experience and I need to be courageous and not give up.

I will post more on the weekend when I get home from the meeting.

Don,
Preach it brother!

Don,
The fight includes not giving an inch.  It appears that their rationale is that if they give an inch they have lost the war.  This is what is at the heart of what I am facing right now.  He is between a rock and a hard place.  Will he do the Christian thing or not?  That remains to be seen.  Ego and tradition are a difficult thing to let go of even if one sees that they have blown it.  Giving an inch appears to be admitting defeat.

Don,

Do I sense some type of repentance?  😉

BTW my sisters are here for a visit and will leave on Thursday morning as we leave to go down to Idaho to have a Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick.  If I am not on line very often the next week, this is why.

Vicious is probably an understatement concerning the attitude from the comments on that blog article that I linked to.  I just finished reading all of the comments myself now.  Don kept his cool and acted in a Christ-like manner.  The ones who call themselves complementarians showed their attitude as anything but Christ-like.  This is the separation that was meant to come.  They are separating from us but anyone who loves Jesus and loves the brethren can see the hateful attitude coming from that “community”.

While they are the ones separating from us by their vicious attacks and name calling, Jesus is the one who uses this division to show where the fruits of the Spirit really are.  Those who have eyes to see will see.  Anyone who can attack a brother in Christ over a secondary issue of faith in the way that they did to Don shows that they do not have the love for the whole body of Christ.  Jesus said that they will know us by our love.  That means that we can alsoidentify those who do not love.  Remember all those who are reading these comments, that this is not about the essentials but about a secondary issue of faith.   Anyone reading the comments on that blog who do not blush with shame towards the brothers who were doing the name-calling, in my opinion needs to repent and go back to their first love.  Those who LOVE Jesus will LOVE their brothers.  It isn’t an option but a must.  When one names the name of Christ but acts in this repulsive manner they are proving that they do not have the love of God in their life.  I fear for them because this is the time that the church is being judged.  Those who resist the Holy Spirit’s work in discipline because of their lack of love may well find themselves outside the door.  All those who do not have love and who do not LOVE the truth will fall for the lie.  This is God’s work in judging the church, but it is so painful to watch the separation happening.   Very, very painful.

Paula,
Yes, I believe this is God hardening their hearts.

Lin,
The link is here.

Let me guess.  It is our favorite Don from this blog 😉

Greg,
I can’t say that I am shocked from reading through the Denny Burk’s blog post.  This is where CBMW has decided to take the debate in recent years and it is removing their credibility with those who sit on the fence.  How can an organization declare other evangelical Christians as heretics and liars over this secondary issue in the body of Christ?  When we are being mistreated by the body, we are suffering.  The bible says that when one part of the body is suffering, the whole body suffers.  I believe that Jesus cares about this suffering and he will do something because it is HIS body.

How can anyone read this kind of abuse and see egalitarians as the ones who are dividing the body instead of laying the blame with the ones who call Christians as heretics and liars?  Has anyone read anything like this from the egalitarian camp?  I have never seen egalitarians say that complementarians are heretics and liars and Satan’s pawns.  Has anyone out there seen this kind of vitriol coming from the egalitarian camp?  It is shameful and I believe it is the end result of CBMW’s hierarchical teaching.  I also believe that God is allowing these men to go this far so that the true “fruit” will be seen.  People’s eyes are being opened and what we are saying about the divisive nature of the hierarchical teaching is being vindicated by the attitude shown by complementarians such as Denny Burk and his blog article that you pointed us to. http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2288

Lin,

It is divisive to say that Christian egal teaching is allowing Satan into the church.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  In my opinion these kinds of words are “thought stopping” words meant to produce fear in any kind of communication with egalitarians.  There are so many who are willing to say that CBMW has all the answers and they trust their word and are unwilling to look at the issues themselves in order to engage an egalitarian.  We are broad brushed into the enemy’s corner without so much as a second thought.  I find this very sad because of the extreme divisiveness.

Don,
I do not believe Christians should “disfellowship” each other over secondary issues of faith.  Differences of opinions are opportunities to:

1.  Understand the other person’s viewpoint
2.  Sharpen our own viewpoint and either make adjustments to our view or solidify our view by measuring it against the challenge of the other person.
3.  Love and appreciate one another in spite of our differences and thus we have an opportunity to demonstrate patience in a mature way.

Calling other Christians degrading names and attacking their character because of their beliefs on secondary issues of faith is never a good thing.  If we find ourselves doing these things, we should do a self examination to see what our own heart motive is.

Recently I heard that it is said real men are not primarily gentle.  I strongly disagree with that.  Mature Christianity is expressed in gentleness because this is part of the “fruit” (singular) of the Spirit.

Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23  gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Those who wish to separate male and female by spiritual characteristics appear to make “kindness” and “gentleness” as female fruit while “courage” is said to be a mature male trait.  Yet Paul shows us through the Holy Spirit’s inspiration that there is one “fruit” of the Spirit and we are all to have these characteristics that come as fruit from the Holy Spirit no matter what our gender.  I also believe that those who go through the troubles and trials of this life and who allow the “fruit” of the Spirit to grow in their lives are most certainly all “courageous”.

My desire is that I will not be afraid to courageously step out in faith even if no one goes with me, yet always working hard to be gentle and compassionate to those who have not yet seen the things that have been made so clear to me.  I may have a long way to go, but I am willing to stay the course and not give up.

Don, your answer shows that egalitarians are not questioning the salvation of complementarians and we are not the ones initiating a charge of not being true Christians.

I had an email from someone who said that it was egalitarians who were responsible for dividing the church and being divisive.  I would like to see the evidence of this.  I have experienced the exact opposite.  In fact it is egalitarians, in my experience, who are the ones who are working on peace making and reconciliation.  If there are complementarians out there who have been peace makers and who have worked to keep the peace, I give them much credit.  I just haven’t met them yet.

Lin #10,

I too see so much confusion in the complementarian camp when they allow some “special” complementarian women to do things that they actually speak against for all women.  I am glad that Elisabeth gets to do all she does for men.  I am glad that she has slipped through CBMW’s cracks and wish more women were able to slip through the cracks.

Don,

I love your point form.  It very much appeals to the logical way I think.

I agree with you that Stinson’s article was a heartfelt (and revealing) expression of how CBMW and Stinson feel about egalitarians.

I also think that the issues that Stinson brought up (the authority of Scripture, the health of the home, the health of the church, our worship, Bible translations, and the advance of the gospel) are important issues.  But are hierarchists crippled by their view in these areas?  I don’t think that this is necessarily so.  As long as they don’t use their views to reject, belittle and condemn other believers, I personally think that a complementarian can love Jesus with all their heart and advance the gospel.  Where they may run into problems is when they are confronted with what unbelievers see as a prejudice against women.  If they are upfront by saying that the church must be prejudice against women bible teachers and women leaders because they believe the bible mandates this, they will see many unbelievers reject Jesus because of their stand.  This is not a good thing.  However I have seen that most comps will deny that women are held back in any way and unbelievers can see right through this inconsistency.  In this way their evangelism will be hurt if they focus on the gender “role” prohibitions because educated men and women today see this as prejudice in its truest form.

Are complementarians crippled by their view of marriage and male leadership?  Many marriages are just fine and complementarian husbands who really love and respect their wives, while they agree in principle with the comp position that the husband makes the final decision, personally they do not follow through with overriding their wife’s will and they work hard on coming to mutual decisions instead of holding the trump card over their wife.

Are complementarians crippled in their advance of the gospel?  I do not think this has to be the case at all.  Since gender issues are not part of the gospel, there should be no reason why a complementarian cannot evangelize and win the lost for Christ in an effective and winsome way.  However they will certainly run into problems with discipleship if they push the complementarian way as the only Christian way.

Are complementarians crippled in their view of the church?  I believe that many complementarians who are loving and kind to the body of Christ have found ways to acknowledge and use the gifts of women for the benefit of men.  Some have no problem in allowing women to teach as long as women do not go behind the physical pulpit.  Women have been allowed to teach by some who consider themselves complementarians if these women stand behind a music stand on the main floor.  Many women will humble themselves to use a music stand as long as they are allowed to use their God-given gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.  Many complementarians have learned how to set aside man-made traditions (the pulpit is not found in scripture) and encourage both men and women to learn from each other.  These kinds of churches and these kinds of pastors who do not separate themselves from egalitarians are ones who CBMW is especially afraid of.

It is the hard-core complementarian (hierarchist) who puts down Jesus in the Trinity, adds the complementarian view to the gospel and questions the salvation of other believers because of secondary issues of faith that must be strongly resisted in these areas.  These are the complementarians who are the most vocal and who seek to divide the church by forcing egalitarians to either repent of the “sin” of the egalitarian view or be considered as an enemy of the church.

3. However, and this is important, people have a right to their own conclusions, this is soul liberty.  We can discuss, explain our reasons to each other, and part ways.  I am thankful for religious liberty in the West and hope the rest of the world will have it.  I would not want to try to force my egal conclusions on anyone, rather, I would invite them to accept them.

Don, I agree with you here.  We are to be gracious and kind and speak the truth with love but we are not to force others to come to our conclusions through threats, coercion or other un-Christlike ways.  We are also not to divide over this issue but are to treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with a deep respect and love as they too belong to Christ.  If we must separate because they will not allow us to use our gifts without our being forced to be prejudiced against men, then we go in peace and pray for their eyes to be opened.

Cindy K,

Great post on your blog!

You know,  maybe these guys are so worried about being emasculated because they serve an emasculated Jesus?

Well, it appears to me that Jesus wouldn’t pass CBMW’s required “manhood” rules.  I am certain he would be way too soft for them and just as Jesus offended the Pharisees for breaking their man-made laws, he appears to not be tough enough for their standard “biblical manhood”.  Consider this prophecy about Jesus:

Isa 42:1  “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.
Isa 42:2  “He will not cry out or raise His voice, Nor make His voice heard in the street.

I also loved your thoughts about Everready batteries.  What a great analogy about the word of God!

Janice #5,

So I skimmed a few articles over there, including Elisabeth Elliot’s chapter in RBMW, and the impression I get is that they’ve confused Christianity with cultural conservatism.

This is very well said and something that I also picked up on.  A soft or gentle answer from a man is confused with the softness of his skin so that both are considered feminine.  Yet Jesus had a gentle spirit and no one could accuse him of being feminine.  I find their take on “masculine” and “feminine” to be confusing because they blend spiritual things together with cultural issues.  Also the idea that egalitarians are only interested in power and authority is so far off the mark, I wonder if they have any ability to see outside their own view at all.  Your comments and questions were very thought-provoking!

Pinklight and Don,

I apologize for being so slow in answering.  Your thoughts and your questions are worthy of a new post of their own and I will be doing another post on Eve’s comments.  There is so much to unpack in Genesis that one cannot do it justice in only one or two posts.  I will try to get to the next article as soon as I can.  My time until the end of August is extremely limited. My sisters will be visiting and the day they leave, I leave for Idaho to confront Matt Slick on a Matthew 18 mission regarding his offenses against me.  I am also working on the final pieces of my new DVD and stressed with a September deadline to have all the editing, artwork and stamping finished for its October unveiling in Pennsylvania.  On top of that my Mom has taken ill and she has been very concerned that she will not come out of the hospital alive and I am suffering myself with severe pain and no time at all to do anything but take Tylenol 3s and suffer through it.  I really appreciate all the patience people have for me and as my Son says, after September I should be human again and able to actually have time to converse.  If you remember me in your prayers, pray for me that God will help me through this very stressful time and that my own patience will survive all of the differing levels of tribulation in my life.

Don,
You said:

I think it is important to see that what the woman says God said contains an ambiguous or partial truth.  There were 2 trees in the middle of the garden.  Which one is she referring to?  If she is quoting God, which one is God referring to?
And the important question is: Would God declare a sin of commission in an ambiguous way?

I don’t think that the woman’s answer was ambiguous or a “partial truth” at all.  While there were two trees in the middle of the garden only one tree was forbidden for them to touch and only one tree was forbidden for them to eat the fruit.  Both Eve and the serpent understood her statement.  The serpent showed that he knew which tree she was talking about because he responded that eating the fruit would allow her to know good and evil.

Gen 3:5  “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Would God declare sin of commission in an ambiguous way?  No, not at all.  God is very serious in repeating his commands so that we know what is sin in order to make it clear to us to keep away from sin and evil.  Eve’s testimony shows us that God took her to the tree itself and gave her the command there.

God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

This would only be ambiguous if one was not in front of the tree itself.  Eve commented on the tree’s location but she did not quote God as commenting on the location.  This would not have been needed since it was clearly pointed out to her.  God’s words are no more ambiguous than the word “it” is.  What is “it”?  Eve clearly understands and the word of prohibition that Eve pulls out of her conversation with God is clear to her and clear to the serpent who talks about the very same tree.

This was all clear to Eve, but is it clear to us?  It is only clear to us if we accept the testimony of the woman that God communicated with her directly.  God pointed out the tree that was forbidden.  He calls the tree “it”.  God forbids both the man and the woman from touching this tree and thus forbids them from testing its fruit and he forbids them from partaking of its fruit in essence showing that eating of the fruit without life in it (without seed bearing fruit) would cause death and this was not good for them.

Was Eve confused?  I do not believe so.  If she was, then why would the serpent so clearly understand what she was quoting from God?  I think it is clear.  Eve understood God who spoke to her directly.  The serpent understood Eve who accurately gave out God’s words to her.  The serpent seduced Eve and she fell for the lie.

More on this shortly in my next post.

Thoughts?  Questions?  While I may be slow right now especially if your questions cause me to have to think and reflect, I welcome your thoughts!

Lin,
This is also what has prompted me to take action and call for discipline. When they touch my Jesus by taking away his equal authority in the Godhead and when they dare to add complementarianism to the gospel they get my dander up.  And when they call egalitarians to repent merely for being unashamed to follow Jesus in using our gifts for the common good of the body of Christ, they have my attention.  I will stand up for my brothers and sisters in Christ who have been abused by those who apparently consider themselves a privileged class of Christians.  This attitude must stop and the more people are outraged at this kind of treatment of the Trinity and the body of Christ the better.  Modern Pharisees must not divide the body of Christ into two classes of Christians.

I guess I must be an eternal optimist.  I believe that if the leaders of the church are not willing to be humble and to stop beating their fellow slaves, that Jesus Himself will take away their “lamp stand” and in their place he will set up ones who know their place as godly servants and teachers who have true humility.  True servants of Jesus lift up the sheep to mature them and grow them and they do not muzzle the sheep or hedge them in to stop them from using their gifts for the common good.  I believe that God can and will raise up godly leaders and teachers who will be true shepherds who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sheep.

Thanks Don!  It looks like a substantial piece of work.  I haven’t had the time to read it yet as I am in the final stages of editing work, but I will save it for later and it is listed here for anyone else who would like to have a look at a scholarly work.

Charis, amen!

Lin,
Thank you for expressing your thoughts so clearly and by doing so you have encouraged me too!  I too feel the same way as you do.  These are our brothers in Christ who deserve to be encouraged by us and nourished by the gifts that God has given through us.  If we simply ignore the divisive behavior and never seek reconciliation we are acting as if they are the cancer in the church.  I for one am not willing to do that without giving everything I can to be a peacemaker.  Whether I can be that peacemaker or not remains to be seen.  I know that we are to reject a divisive man after a couple of warnings, but I think the warnings should be an all-out loving confrontation.  This is exactly what I would want someone to do for me if I was in error.  If they really loved me as a sister in Christ, then I should be pursued and lovingly taught the truth as if I was deceived, not that I was a deliberate deceiver.

The fact that strong hierarchists want nothing to do with me says more about their relationship with Christ than it does about me.  If one really, truly loves Christ, that one is to love the brethren in Christ.  How can one say that he loves God when he hates his brother?  I have not been loved by any of them and my objections have not been answered.  Rather I have been hated and rejected, lied about and forbidden to speak.  This is not the “Way of the Master” and when I have pointed this out, I have been accused of being judgmental.

Well I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.  I am persuing peace and standing up for what is right.  I do this in order that the one who has been extremely against women’s ability to teach the bible with authority as 1 Peter 4:11 encourages us to speak, will know that there are those who love him enough to say the truth in love and hold him accountable.

I have been told that I am an enemy and hurting the church.  If I am such an influence in the church, then why would they not take the time to personally influence me and do it in a loving and kind way?  I believe it is because the “fruit” of hierarchical teaching is not one of love and respect but power, control and a fight against any who would challenge the “right” to be the only spokesmen for God to the church.  There is simply no love lost towards their egalitarians brothers and sisters in Christ and it is such a shame.  This should never be.

I will be posting a response to an article by Randy Stinson on my blog where he talks about the necessity of complementarianism.  I have a special interest in this article especially since Randy is the one who threw my DVD set in the garbage after watching only a short bit of it.  Apparently he couldn’t stomach a woman teaching him even one-on-one on DVD.  My communication was with Chris Cowan from CBMW and he let me know that Randy Stinson was not even interested in trying to refute my exegesis.  Since they had originally agreed to do a review of the DVD series, they were obligated to send me a check for the DVDs that they deposited in the garbage.  In that way CBMW has unwittingly supported my work without any kind of refutation.  It is sad but typical.

Don #43,

Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you.  I have had a full plate here for days 🙂

You said:

Jon 3:4  Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

is the verse I was referring to being truncated in some sense, as it does not mention any possibility of escape.  I agree God gave them an escape.  But if you look JUST at what was said, there is no escape potential mentioned, it is just a judgment.

I can agree with you that the words were not given with an “escape door” option.  However I see it as a warning.  For example you could go to the coast and warn that a tsunami is coming.  People who heed the warning would go to higher ground.  In a similar fashion when God warns of judgment, it is a warning.  Once judgment truly falls there are no “escape doors”.  When the flood actually came the door was shut and repentance was not an option.

Would you agree with me that the words given by Jonah are a warning and not a final judgment?  If there were a final judgment they would have had to be fulfilled.  It is only because they are a serious warning that must be heeded, could we conclude that Jonah was not a false prophet.

You said:

The question is why does Mark not mention Jonah?  My solution when I got from Instone-Brewer is that Mark truncated.  If we JUST HAD MARK, we would know nothing about any sign of Jonah, so I am glad there are 4 gospels.  Truncation is invalid as an operator in Greek logic, as you lose information, but it is fine in Hebrew thinking, you are supposed to know it is possible.

I think this is valid thinking.  The question I have is why does the particular author leave it out.  In Jonah’s case it appears it is left out because he really does not want the city to repent.  In Mark’s case, could the reason that it is left off is because no unbeliever accepted the “sign” as a valid sign so to Mark it was unnecessary to mention since no unbeliever ever had the “sign” revealed to him? In essence there was no sign given to that evil generation because unbelief kept them from seeing a sign.

You said:

I agree on checking to see if the woman might be telling the truth, this is possible and is even what I want to be true. But just cuz I want something does not make it true, it remains a possibility.  Your argument that she could not simply be mistaken in what she said seems to me to be an “argument from personal incredulity” which is a weak form of argument.  It might convince some, but does not (yet) convince me.

Okay, Don, do I see some weakening happening here?  Your “yet” gives me hope 🙂

This is where my being a “confounded skeptic” comes into play.  If something is a possibility, I want evidence of that possibility.   For example in the case of Jonah it is a certain fact not just a possibility that the warning from God had the “escape door” of repentance.  We know this because this was God’s way plus Jonah was a true prophet and not a false prophet.  If there was no escape clause then the JW’s are right and Jonah was a false prophet.

So I ask, what clue or hint in scripture is there that the woman was mistaken?  I see none and I don’t think anyone has brought any evidence forward.  If I am going to judge the woman of adding to God’s words through making a mistake, I would want to have evidence.  We could make all kinds of possibilities in scripture none of which have evidence either.  We could say that this was the second time that Adam ate the fruit, once being by himself in the garden and so he ate this second time with his wife without saying anything because he was already in trouble.  Is that a possibility?  I guess it could be.  But what is the evidence?  Without evidence we have no foundation at all to consider the possibility.

The biggest reason why I do not consider this possibility is because God did not mention her error and no prophet or apostle mentioned it either.  How could such an error not rate a small comment?  Would her error teach us something?  The fact that no biblical writer comments on the possibility of her error makes an error seem impossible.

In Mark’s case we do not have Jesus’ words about the “sign” of Jonah because he apparently didn’t see it as important because no unbeliever accepted it, but we do have the others who do mention it.  It is interesting that even the Jewish leaders believed that Jesus prophesied his resurrection but they didn’t believe him, instead calling him a deceiver.

Mat 27:63  and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’
Mat 27:64  “Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.”

But how could every single biblical writer have missed the first woman’s “error”?  Would it not be an important detail to point out to us?  I would think it would because it would seem to cause me at least to think that God created the woman as defective.  If the first prototype was so incompetent to even get a simple command right without being “mistaken”, then how incompetent would I be as a woman?  I am pretty far down the line from Eve.  My ability is not even close to hers and so maybe I shouldn’t even try to teach the bible even to children because surely I couldn’t get even one thing right if Eve couldn’t.  Do you see what I mean?  It breeds hopelessness and distrust in God’s ability to use women.  It makes all the bad things that hierarchists say about women’s usefulness limited to the home a reality.  Of course if that is the way that God made us, then so be it.  But is it really true?  Should I be agreeing that God made me defective?  Should I distrust my gifts and calling?  Or should I take the most honorable way to treat another human being and believe Eve until there is something that will discount her testimony?  I choose to believe the very first witness on God’s behalf.  She spoke out and was not silent.  She became deceived, but her first words as a testimony to God’s goodness and his careful warning to her should be believed.  There is no solid reason not to believe.

I hope that one day you too will believe Eve’s testimony without a nagging doubt.  I would like that.

I don’t know if I have influenced you in any way at all in anything.  You are a hard cookie to crumble.  But I like you a lot and you have been a gracious and respectful challenger.  If everyone was like you, I would have so much joy in debating and refuting and pressing for excellence in apologetics.  I still do have joy, but there are some days that the attacks of the enemy through brothers in Christ have wounded me terribly.

Cindy,

What an awesome, wonderful comment that you gave that very much encouraged me!!  I have let it sink into my heart all day.

I really loved Dr. Martin as he was the driving force that got me into apologetics.  I took to heart his challenge to the church and decided that I would do whatever I could to win the lost in the cults for Christ.  So to have you mention an example from Dr. Martin where the Christian is taking a beating and much abuse, really hit home for me today.  I want to thank you for taking the time to write this out and encourage me.  The Lord knows I need encouragement when the situation looks bleak.

You said:

And I don’t even see this all as a disagreement over gender at the root of this but the fact that Matt (as many like him) choose to deal harshly and cruelly with their brethren who disagree over intramural doctrine.   We should afford one another liberty under the bonds of the Holy Spirit and of love, not ridicule, strife and insult.

This is exactly my purpose in calling Matt Slick to account.  I want to do my part to stop all these ungodly attacks against fellow Christians.  When we allow brothers in Christ to get away with treating Christians with cruelty and harshness we do not do them a favor by ignoring their bad behavior.  We must call them to account so that others will learn from their sin and not follow along the same pathway.  We must not remain silent if we love the body of Christ.

Thanks for your sweet words.  I have taken them to heart!

Paula,

Absolutely!  And so much more…the Old Testament is full of Jesus!

Don,

You said:

“We see examples of this truncation in Jonah, where he gives no escape clause in his warning, yet they escape;”

While we do not have the words quoted from Jonah, we can know for sure that it wasn’t a false prophecy because God’s prophecies are provisional.  This is shown in Jeremiah 18:8

Jeremiah 18:8  if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

We know that Jonah knew God’s prophecy was provisional because he said as much in Jonah 4:1, 2

Jon 4:1  But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry.
Jon 4:2  He prayed to the LORD and said, “Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.

Jonah was angry at God because God’s compassion was shown just as he thought it would be.

The people of Ninevah also knew that God could be compassionate and relent from his anger.

Jon 3:5  Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them.
Jon 3:6  When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes.
Jon 3:7  He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water.
Jon 3:8  “But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands.
Jon 3:9  “Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”
Jon 3:10  When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

This is why Jonah was angry.  He did not have compassion on the people of Ninevah and he didn’t want God to have compassion on them either.

So while the missing part of what Jonah should have said is implied here, we can see that Jonah’s prophecy is not a false prophecy as the Jehovah’s Witnesses like to say (thus allowing them to be, in their minds, true prophets too and make “mistakes” in prophecy).  God’s word explicitly says that God may have mercy on a nation that turns from their sin and repents.

The question we need to ask, is this applicable to Eve?  It cannot be applicable since no one implies in any form that Eve was either lying or made a mistake in what she quoted from God.  Paul himself mentioned Eve twice, once in 1 Timothy 2:13 and another time in 2 Cor. 11:3 where he warned about being led astray from devotion to Christ, never once did Paul mention a deception other than the serpents as far as Eve is concerned and none of the Apostles, including Paul made any application to adding to God’s word.  In this case without any evidence we cannot insert a meaning into the text that is foreign to the context and foreign to the complete scriptures.

You said:

“and in Mark 8:12 where Jonah is not mentioned as an exception to the “no sign given” yet Mat 12:39, Mat 16:4, and Luk 11:29 DO mention the sign of Jonah.  Skeptics use such verses to claim the Bible contradicts itself and it DOES if only using Greek logic, but the problem is in the using of Greek logic, not the Bible as understood by a Hebrew thinker.”

I guess I must be a Hebrew thinker, because these accounts do not contradict one another.  The “sign of Jonah” is not a sign for that wicked and evil generation.  Jesus’ sign of being in the earth for three days and three nights that corresponds to the time for Jonah in the belly of the fish is impossible to be a sign for unbelievers.  No unbeliever ever saw the risen Lord.  The only ones who saw the risen Lord were all believers and were his followers before he died.  The “sign” then becomes a non-sign to unbelievers and only a “sign” if one turns from their sin to Jesus and believes.  It is then that the resurrection becomes a Jonah sign.  Jesus spoke about this “sign” in more than one occasion and one time in particular there is no mention that he mentions the exception.  Was this because he knew that in that group of Pharisees there would be no future believers?  Later Jesus speaks to the crowds in Luke 11:29 and spoke about the “sign” of Jonah.  For Jesus to mention the “sign” would indicate that there would be those who would believe the sign in the future.  No unbeliever ever received a “sign” of the resurrection for to them it was impossible for it to be a “sign”.  No contradiction here at all.

You said:

“I agree there is no evidence that the woman in the garden was a liar or even childlike.  But anyone can be simply mistaken.  Being deceived means one is mistaken about at least one thing, but the sin did not occur until she ate. ”

I do not agree that being deceived equals being mistaken.  A mistake is a misunderstanding or a misconception which brings an error in action or judgment.  One who has been deceived is one who has been deluded to believe something that is not true.  This is not a mistake.  It is deception.  A mistake is something you do on your own with your own false understanding.  Being deceived is something that someone else does to you and being fully deceived causes the truth to be hidden so that you cannot make a “mistake” about the truth, you cannot see the truth to even make a mistake.  One is fully and completely deceived.  No scriptural author ever stated that Eve was mistaken.  Her statement is merely stated as fact and without a hint of a contradictory view being brought forth.

We simply cannot see Eve as anything else than what scripture leave us with.  She is a woman who was created with the ability to provide what Adam lacked because she is called the same term as God is given when he helps us.  She also defended God in the beginning in the serpent’s attack against the Creator until the point that she was deceived.

We can either accept Eve’s word as correct and as something that is never impeached.  Or we can accept Eve as a liar or mistaken over nothing less than one of the simplest commands in scripture.

My push here has always been to have people see outside the box.  What happens to Genesis if we see the woman as telling the truth?  For me, Genesis came alive when I trusted the word of an unimpeachable witness.  If she was impeached, then God should have told us.

For the rest of those who are reading this, I ask just one thing.  Read through Genesis 1-3 one more time, this time seeing what you can see if everything in there is as it was written, except for the lie of the serpent.  Take Eve at her word that the forbidden tree was in the centre of the garden.  Take her word that both of them were forbidden from touching the fruit.  Then read the rest of the story about what happened to Eve and see Adam, knowing the truth, yet refusing to love his wife enough to sacrifice himself for her.  One sentence may have been all it took to stop Eve.  Maybe only one word “No”.  It wouldn’t have been a big sacrifice.  He was a man and he knew the truth.  He had the ability to speak and he knew the truth.  Yet he was silent.

Don,
Thanks for also pointing out John Piper’s take on the silence of Adam.  While I do not agree with Piper on the women’s issue, I do applaud him for speaking about against the silence of Adam and connecting it to God’s words to Adam when God spoke about Adam listening to the voice of his wife.

May none of us ever be silent.  If we know the truth, let us speak out boldly and confidently.  I will speak more about this in the next post.

Hi guys,
I haven’t had time to read the comments yet. I am out of the office and will try to bounce back in as much as I can over the weekend.

Cheryl