Cheryl Schatz

Adam’s motive has been one of the biggest mysteries.  The only thing we can work with is what is already there in scripture.  We do know that Adam did not defend God (when the serpent was accusing God of holding back) nor did he defend or protect Eve when the serpent was lying to her and Adam knew it was a lie.  We also know that God says that Adam dealt treacherously with him (Hosea 6:7).  Can we get his motive out of these facts?  I don’t think we can put Adam and the serpent developing a scheme together to find out what was in the fruit.  I think that Adam knew what was not in the fruit.  There were no seeds.  He wasn’t deceived and knew what God said.  I think the problem is not that Adam didn’t know the truth but that he didn’t act on that truth.  Why did he do that?  Perhaps there are more clues in scripture, but at this point, I don’t think that we can go further than what is already told to us.

Paula,
Your example is pretty far out as I am sure you meant it to be.  But what you are getting at has escaped me.

Don,
Amen!

Eve’s character is being maligned by hierarchists and yes they are using an argument from silence because scripture never attributes sin or stupidity to Eve’s actions.  We can only access the “why” of Eve’s arguments by allowing her own words to tell us the why.  Eve claimed that God said additional words that are not recorded in scripture other than her own testimony.  Yet this is how God’s words are rightfully recorded in scripture as a testimony that “God said”.

The issue is whether we can attach any fault to Eve by the text alone.  The fact is that we cannot find fault with Eve from the text.  Therefore any attributing to Eve of a sin by adding to God’s (when we know that he spoke more than once and he spoke directly to Eve herself), or a flaw in Eve’s argument that proved she “got it wrong” must be an argument from silence.  If we just believed it as it is written (and which is never contested in scripture) we can rightfully see more about God from Eve’s testimony.  If we distrust Eve without a reason from the text, then we miss out on what God has for us that is revealed through a woman.  God does reveal things through women too and not just through men.  God has chosen to reveal things through his word quoted by a woman.

Don,
I agree with you!  That is exactly my point!  This is the only place that woman spoke so when God said that Adam listened to the woman, he should have done something about it.

The point that I am making is that we cannot add in the thought that Eve was mistaken when the text clearly gives her testimony as fact.  The facts are not disputed in any way so without a piece of evidence to dispute her claim that “God said”, we are obligated to believe a woman who had not yet sinned.  Those who say that she got her facts wrong are grasping at the wind.  We could also grasp at many other things that also have no evidence in the text.  My contention is that we need to stick with the facts and not consider that Eve was deceived by her own malfunctioning mind in the first place before she was deceived by the serpent.  Unless we have facts to base a belief that Eve was incompetent to know the details accurately, we give a foothold to the hierarchists who push us to distrust Eve.  It is distrusting Eve’s testimony that has caused us to disregard God’s equal treatment of both the man and the woman.

By the way, while I passionately fight for Eve’s accuracy, I still have great respect for everything you say!

Also the thought that Eve got it wrong comes from the teaching that Adam was the one who instructed Eve.  Because of the teaching that Eve got God’s commands second hand, we can then assume that she got the message wrong.  Once we understand that God spoke to the woman directly and instructed her directly on what she could eat and what she did not have permission to eat, we can believe her when she gives God’s additional commands to them.  Eve’s testimony is that God gave additional instructions to both of them regarding not testing (touching) this one fruit.  How could she get this wrong?  Either God said it or he didn’t.  If he didn’t then she lied.  Why would God create a liar to help Adam?  This doesn’t make sense.

Another thing that we need to remember is that women like detail while men like the bottom line.  God gave the bottom line to Adam when he was alone and when Eve was there with him, God gave the details.  A woman is unlikely to get the details wrong because we are sticklers for detail.  Eve was the first woman just like other women but made perfect without sin.  To even think that she got the details wrong is….well….it’s thinking like a man.  Women know how we have been created to be detail people and we can recite details until the cows come home.  Eve did not get the details wrong at all.  She was deceived but she wasn’t senseless, unintelligent, an imbecile, a ditzy blond or dimwitted.  She was an intelligent, bright and useful mate for Adam.  Was she mistaken?  There is not an iota of evidence to base that on.  If I have missed a detail 😉 please let me know.

I believe the evidence after the fall will be the judge.  Did either Adam or God say that Eve was mistaken or that she lied or added to God’s words?  The evidence is that she was not charged with lying or adding to God’s words or of mere stupidity.  If this were the case that she was so naive that she couldn’t even get a simple command right, then God made women somehow defective and childlike and of course they should be led and their word should never be trusted.  This was the Jewish view.  Women’s word was never to be trusted.  I wonder how many trust what Eve said even today?  Our world view has been tainted because we mistrust her.  If we take her words at face value (since there is no evidence we should not trust what she said) then everything changes.

Don,
You asked:

If she cannot touch it and the seed in the fruit is hidden, how would she know whether it had seed or not?

This is the one of the key points that I received insight about.  This is and always has been an issue of faith.  You see she would be required to believe God by faith that there was no seed in the fruit.  Everything in scripture has always been about having faith in God.  Yet the account in Genesis only seemed to be about one thing – obedience.  Where was the faith aspect?  But when one understands that they were given complete freedom to eat from every single tree that had fruit with seed but they were forbidden to inspect the fruit on the one tree that they were also forbidden to eat from, then we can understand that God was calling both the man and the woman to have faith in him.  They were to believe him that he was not keeping away from them something that he had already given them permission to partake of.  They couldn’t test what he said because they weren’t allowed to touch the fruit.  It was a matter of faith.  I will be posting my conclusions based on the subject of the permission by God and the issue of the prohibition and faith in my next post (when I have time to tear myself away from my editing to get my thoughts together).

Sue,
Thanks for posting the link. Sorry that my spam program pulled your link for some reason and held it hostage 🙂  I released it for you.  I think it doesn’t like links accompanied by few other words.  If anyone else has had my spam program hijack their post without my catching it before it went into the trash, I sincerely apologize.  I didn’t even realize I needed to monitor this area or within 15 days it automatically deletes them ):

I too have been contacted by a Jewish woman rabbi, one who is a Christian and she was extremely pleased by the Hebraic content in my DVDs.  She said that the history I incorporated from the Jewish tradition really helps to pull back the veil to help us understand Paul.  She is now a big supporter of my DVDs and is showing them in churches.

Sue, thanks for the encouragement!  Any encouragement coming from someone with your level of education in the Greek language is very humbling for me.  I will keep fighting the battle for women like yourself who has been marginalized merely because of your gender.  One day I hope and trust God that this will change and our brothers in Christ will see the value of the gifts that God has given to women especially the gifts of teaching and instructing in doctrine and biblical languages.

Don #50,

I know what you mean about not being able to read too much of the hierarchical writing.  I can only listen to one hour at a time and often that is too much to stomach.  And it is the same with reading.  Reading man’s interpretations when I can clearly see where the holes in their argument are, is a painful thing for me.

Truthseeker #30
You said:

They also do not refer to such things as the women’s issues as laws.  They are principles written for the church.  Somehow in their minds, that is a significant difference.  All verses that we egals would use to raise questions and/or explain the equality position are subordinated to the verses that explicitly tell women to be silent or not teach or usurp authority, etc.

The problems with this mindset is that they may not say they are “laws” but they act as if they are.  A law is to be obeyed without exception.  But a principle is something that can overridden.  If God has gifted a woman to teach, then will they allow the “principle” of no women teaching men to be overridden?  If they do not allow a gifted woman to teach in the assembly when men are present, then they are proving by their actions that this is a “law” that cannot be broken rather than just a principle.

Also when one “subordinates” one verse to another verse this in essence is saying that that the bible contradicts itself and the “law” trumps the verses that contradict the law.  Rather we should see the meaning that satisfies the seeming contradicts rather than appealing to verses that trump other verses.  I see this as an immature way to “divide” the word.  We need to work hard to rightly “divide” the word.  We need to work to unravel what appear to be contradictions and when we have succeeded we can know we have God’s will on these hard passages.  “Trump” verses are never the answer.  Biblical consistency is the answer and those who ignore this will miss God’s truth in these areas.

Greg is right, they always have an answer.  It may fall flat in our understanding but it seems to work for them.  They do seem to tie everything back to creation.

While they do seem to have answers, I believe that it is important for us to continue to ask questions to show them the inconsistencies and outright contradictions.  What you are doing is the right thing to do.  I get this understanding from having worked with Jehovah’s Witnesses in a support group setting for 16 years.  Those who came to me and who were not open in the least could have the seed planted through asking the “right” questions.  They were not looking for “right” answers because they already believed that they knew the truth.  It was the “right” questions that threw them off their solid foundation.  For those who will not allow themselves to be taught, asking hard questions can be the key to change.  With Jehovah’s Witnesses I found their arrogance at having the only right religion caused many of them to struggle when they had questions given to them that they could not answer.  These questions can shake their foundation.  But you may never know how much your questions have shook them.  Those who are deep down truth lovers will struggle with the questions until the question goes from a seed into a plant in their hearts.  I see the same thing with hierarchists.  They can be very arrogant.  They have the truth and no egalitarian knows anything about scripture on the women’s issue.  But when you present questions that they cannot answer and you continue to push them for answers that resolve the contradiction without ignoring the verses that cause them problems, you will be planting a seed for change in their heart and you will probably never even know it until the seed has produced a plant.

The key then is to keep up the questions.  Keep pushing for answers.  A question asked once without an answer is an opportunity to ask it again and again and again.  This is what I do and what makes me very persistent.  Questions deserve to be answered.  If there is no answer, I do not see the silence as an answer.  I come back another time with the same question or another question that is slightly different worded.  An unanswerable question is not the fault of the one asking the question.  It is the fault of the one who arrogantly believes that he has all the answers.

I was told that the context was different.

This is one of those shut down statements.  It is invalid if they cannot show you from the context where it is different.  This reminds me of all the times where I have argued from the text and the context and the person then states, “but the whole of the bible supports my view”.  So the “whole of the bible” supports that the man is in authority over the woman?  If this is true, then give me a statement that says this.  The “whole of the bible” is used by every cultist I have met and every one who is pushing their own agenda.  Funny how the entire bible (without specifics) can be used to prove anything.  Once one understands that these are classic “shut down” statements, one can formulate more questions that challenge the person.  It is easy to claim the whole of the bible teaches something but the proof of that from the text and the context of two passages in agreement is the standard “safe” way.  Two or three witnesses is for safety.  Every cultist has one verse alone taken out of its context.  Two witnesses are needed at the minimum and the context is the king.

One funny thing is that I have been dealing with a pastor who has been backpedaling on the women’s issue and he has stated that “context is king” to me but when I asked him to show me in 1 Cor. 11 where the context of “head” from 1 Cor. 11:3 is shown to be “authority over” in the passage.  I told him to check it out and see that there is no reference to someone’s authority over the other person in Paul’s writing about head coverings and hair length.  To that he replied that “context is king, but not always”.  No, context is always king.  If one’s idea cannot be supported by the context, then that is only a “pretext” for error.

This morning I received another fresh insight into what God has already written in scripture. I am eager to post my thoughts in the next article. If I get a chance I will do so today.  My children are coming today for the weekend so that makes my time very tight.

Don,
Amen!  The miracle is that the one who is unlimited could possibly use the ones who are so very limited.  I need to continue to remind myself that all things are possible, not by me, but by and through HIM!

Pastor Paul,
Thanks for your prayers!  I seem to be in a position to need a lot of prayers lately as I attempt things way too big for me.

Don,
If I were not dealing with someone who is refusing to admit his own faults it would not have taken me this long to have a meeting with Matt Slick. I cannot judge his heart to know why he is like this, but I do believe that having others there may help him to see another perspective if he is open to others. I believe that he has already shut his heart to me and if it were only Matt and I, I may as well save my breath and just finish with the final step. But I do not want to do that without making absolutely sure that I have done every possible effort possible to bring resolution and change. It will cost us a great deal to travel and stay over at least one night but this is my commitment to resolution and following the full Matthew 18 route. It is the way that Jesus set things up for disputes between brethren. If I had pegged Matt as an “enemy” as his vice-president has already pegged me, then I would not need to waste my time, money and energy. I know that some who are supporters of Matt and who watch everything done on this blog have already made judgment calls about my motives. I do not concern myself with people who think that they have a godlike gift of reading hearts. I have only to concern myself with pleasing my Lord and keeping watch on my own attitude. It isn’t easy, but I have a strong desire to serve others including women who may find my pursuit of this matter helpful to their own situation. Jesus must remain front and center as my example and my goal.

Don, I appreciate that you were able to see my point of view. As I said, I do not have the authority to make the decision for him but I can request what I believe to be wise.

Hi Ron,
That reminds me, I have a couple of emails from you that I haven’t gotten to yet. I am way behind on my email and will probably be hit and miss for the next couple of months until this DVD project is done.  I will get back to you in time.  I just have to sort through pages of unanswered emails.  This is the one thing that I hate about vacation.  It puts me farther behind.

I think there has been some very good thoughts brought up here.  Some of my thoughts are that some are living as if they are independent of the body and they don’t need some of us to supply their need.  When one sees an arrogant attitude unwilling to submit to learn from those whom they consider beneath them for some reason, we have a small glimpse into their heart.  For some it is a rebellious heart that will not be tamed.  When they are told they must love their brethren, they rebel and refuse to listen.

Those who are humble are also the ones willing to test all things.  They don’t just listen to what is taught and leave it at that.  They test all things by God’s word to make sure it is accurate.  When the truth is spoken and it is received with humility and then tested by the plumb line of God’s word, it will stand strong, immovable and will bring forth much fruit.  This attitude will not resemble at all the attitude that brings about a “wild olive branch”.

One thing that I have found that strikes me as very odd.  It appears to me that the ones who are the most forceful in pressuring people into submission can be the most unsubmissive people themselves.  They preach one thing to others and live another way themselves.  This is what Jesus spoke against when he encountered the Pharisees.  We need to live what we preach and live a life of openness to learning from others or we can quickly slip back into a Pharisaical attitude.  I want to guard myself against that and this is why I am willing to listen to suggestions and corrections from people here.  It is relatively easy for me because people here are so kind and compassionate.

Today I feel so blessed.  I don’t know who you’all are since I haven’t met most of you, but I feel a great sense of joy that you have blessed my life by being here.  I am also so grateful to God that my joy has returned.   What a wonderful gift from God!!!!!

🙂

Pastor Paul,

Thank you for your input.  I have not made it mandatory for Matt’s wife to be present because I have no power or authority to do that.  I do feel it is important for my husband to be there and my pastor.  I would not want to confront Mr. Slick on my own.  I believe him to be a very angry man who has no problem in verbally attacking another
Christian.  I do not know if he would be physically violent but I would not want to be alone with him.  Angry men need to be confronted but it is wise for a woman to get support.

I believe this to be true. Timothy knew what Paul meant because they were close to the situation and this was a personal letter to Timothy. I also believe that it was written for our benefit and for our instruction. If it had been a personal letter alone without benefit that we can derive from trying to make sense of some of the key verses (1 Timothy 2:15 for example) then God would not have included it in scripture. As such, even these hard passages are there for a purpose and God inspired them in the way that they were written. They definitely are hard passages but I sincerely believe we can compare Paul to Paul and use his own writings to understand what we were meant to understand. We were never meant to understand who the exact problem people were, but there are underlying principles that are very helpful for us today. To that end we need to work hard to study to show ourselves approved. Don, I believe that you have tried very hard to do that and you are to be commended.

In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, they were both guilty of sin.  Each was called to account separately and one did not answer for the other.  In Matt Slick’s case regarding his wife, I am not calling her to account.  I am concerned that she could be a good influence on him and help him with the needed changes that he needs to make.  If she is unaware of the full process that may be hard to do.

In the case of erring pastors, their wives are usually called by their side to be a part of the healing process.  This is my heart.  Spouses can be key to helping one see past one’s own blind spots.  She may not be able to help him, but from what I have heard of her from the radio when she did one show answering questions, she sounds like a lovely lady and one who wouldn’t be in favor of personal attacks and name calling.  I see her as being a stabilizing influence on Matt and he really does need all the help he can get.

Hi Charis,
I cannot presume to know God’s heart on this matter, but I think that it has something to do with God’s sovereignty and allowing evil to exist for those who want to practice evil.  I could ask the same question of why God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place when by his own foreknowledge he knew that Adam and Eve would eat of it?  Somehow God gets glory from our free-will choices.  If there is no opportunity for evil then there is no real opportunity for the free will choice of good.  It appears to me to be empowering people to do as their passion desires.  For those who wish to see the truth, there has been much evidence in scripture that shows that God uses women along with men for his praise and does not restrict women from flowing in their gifts.  This helps us all to know at least what 1 Timothy 2:12 cannot mean even if for many centuries we did not know exactly what it does mean.  Sometimes it is just as helpful to know what a passage cannot mean as it can be helpful to know what it does mean.

All in all, my thought is that this is destined for God’s glory.  God has given women this passage in order to prove their value to the body of Christ.   When women dig into the text and work through the hard passages of scripture and men who have an open heart to God see the wisdom that God has given to his female “sons”, God will get the glory in the end even through these difficult passages.

When I get to heaven I think I would like to ask God these questions to see if I understood his purpose.  It is God’s ultimate glory that will get the praise and honor and anything that brings God glory is a wonderful and holy thing.  We women have to fight hard to use our God-given gifts because of the prejudice that comes from this passage.  That makes us stronger.  It can be for our own good and ultimately for the glory of God.

One other piece of news that won’t be a surprise. Diane Sellner from CARM withdrew my ban from the CARM discussion boards for a short while. This allowed me a way to respond to the continuing attacks against me on that board. Diane continues to say that this blog attacks Matt and herself and that people here speak hateful things against them calling their motives evil. I asked her to prove her accusations or apologize. She banned me again. I guess she isn’t planning on apologizing.

I have really appreciated the gentle nature of the people who post here. For Diane to accuse the lot of you as people who attack others and who attribute evil motives to herself and Matt is way over the edge. I think your restraint has been godly and your Christ likeness has been very encouraging to me. The bible does say that good will be spoken of as evil and evil as good. I have come face to face with this very thing this past year after having tried my best to speak respectfully to someone who has made this an issue to divide over:

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

This verse brings me great hope:

2 Corinthians 6:8 by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; regarded as deceivers and yet true;

We move on no matter what the opposition is. The Trinity DVD is being edited as we speak and the opposition against me because of the DVD that has been so oppressive to me has finally lifted! I can only give God the glory for giving me mercy to carry on. When we are called names for the sake of righteousness we will have the opportunity to grow the fruit of the Spirit because of the trials we endure. God allows trials for our own good. He also gives us strength to endure. It is a joy to suffer for Christ but sad that it is at the hands of someone who calls themselves a brother in Christ.

Don,
I believe in a one-flesh union and if one member is being called to account for his/her sin, the other member should be there.  That gives them the opportunity to support their spouse and/or understand why the discipline is being given.  I will be calling Matt Slick to publicly repent of his attacks against me.  If he does not do that I will have no further option but to go to the church (the body of Christ) and give the details of what Matt has done.  I am hoping that he will chose to repent and make his repentance public.  I am not holding my breath.  Whatever the outcome, I believe that the public repentance or public rebuke (taking it to the church) will help others see the folly of attacking Christians over something that is not an essential of our faith.  I hope too that it will be encouraging to other women also fighting the same battle of attacks from the complementarian camp.  Enough is enough.

Also for those who have been following the on going saga of Matt Slick and CARM, I would like to say that finally after months of trying to get Matt to do his obligation towards me in order to resolve the hostile name calling and attacks that started on his radio show and carried forward onto his discussion board (I didn’t even know that I was being pulled onto his discussion board until I was notified on this blog that Matt had posted several “To Cheryl” posts on CARM’s discussion board), Matt Slick has finally agreed to meet me in person to have a Matthew 18 meeting.  He is refusing to bring his wife along with him stating that he wants to protect her from me (?) but he will bring along his own pastor.  I spoke to Matt’s pastor this morning to set the meeting for the last week of August.  The exact date will depend on when my pastor will get back from vacation.

The interesting thing about all of this is that my pastor was a complementarian a year ago.  He had been looking for help to refute my DVDs and was expecting to get some substantial help from Matt Slick because of the radio debates scheduled.  My pastor was very disappointed in Matt’s performance and wrote Matt that nothing he said in the debates was helpful at all in refuting me.  However the debates did help him to see the vitriol that has one side of the debate (complementarian side) attacking the other side without Christian charity.

Recently my pastor has announced that he has become a full egalitarian.  Praise the Lord!  We had many opportunities to debate this issue and issues surrounding this one and I want to publicly state my great respect and love for my pastor who has come a long way in his understanding of women in the church.  While we had many passionate debates together, he has never run away from me or treated me as if I was the enemy.  Even in the beginning he amazed me by saying that some of the things that he heard on the DVD set were the best teaching that he had heard on a particular passage (1 Cor. 14).

So things have come full circle.  We arrived in our new city just over a year ago, and it has taken about one full year to go from having a pastor who was passionately fighting for complementarianism to someone who has become a friend and supporter eager to go with me to confront Matt Slick on his sin.  I am overwhelmed.  All I can say is praise the Lord!

Tami,
It is indeed important to not ignore chapter 1 in our understanding of the original purpose of the male and female and marriage.

There are three options regarding why the woman had more information that what appeared to be given to Adam.  Since I will be discussing these things in the next post, I will leave my comments for my article.

Pastor Paul,
Thanks!  I have also wondered how people could add so much into the actual text without paying attention to what the text actually says.  I know I used to believe differently because I was taught man’s tradition instead of digging myself into the text.  What I found by checking the text and the context made me very surprised.

Don,
I have changed the article to reflect for the most part “man and woman” with only Eve added in the beginning.  I like that you reminded me that God gave them both the name “Adam”. One name and one authority.  Kind of reminds me of the Trinity.  One name and one authority.

Lin #35,

Another way to look at this besides this being their pet doctrine is for this to remind us to always check all teaching.

You are so right! We need to test all things and hold fast to what is good. No human can have it all right even though we may think we do. But we can learn to grow by testing everything and rejecting what doesn’t fit the scriptures in context.

Recently, I read a post at Steve Camp’s blog about Piper and Mahaney preaching that Jesus’ words on the Cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me” is the ‘Scream of the Damned” This was a concept both of them used at a conference.

I haven’t had a chance to see this yet, but it disturbs me greatly. Makes me see the teaching that has Jesus sent to hell for three days after his death. Not true at all. Jesus on the cross was in control and freely gave up his own life. the term “scream of the damned” gives an idea of a victim not the victory suffering alone.

I bring this up because we all have to be so vigilent. It is NOT a sin for us to question these famous, well loved guys and point out with scripture the error. Even though many are saying that ‘cursed’ and ‘damned’ can be interchangable.

AMEN! We are commanded to test all things using the only standard we have and that is the scriptures. Everything else is a rubber ruler including the charismatic words coming from a well-loved preacher.

By the way, I have no doubt you are experiencing extreme warfare over this DVD. Anything that elevates, lifts up and proclaims Christ’s Name above all Names is going to be fought. I will be interceeding for you many times. I give you my word on that.

THANK YOU so much!  I NEED all the prayer I can get.  The attacks this time have caused me to despair.  I really need the Lord’s strength to get me through.  I have experienced this before in both the writing phase and the editing phase of WIM and I came so close to giving up the project because of the overwhelming roadblocks I experienced.  This time it was very hard during the writing stage but I made it over the hump and now the editing stage on my own DVD is taking my breath away. I have no doubt that the Lord will use this project to set many people free and bring them to the place where they will also see the doctrine of the subordination of women fall to the floor as well.  Keep praying for me because I cannot do this on  my own.

This is all I can muster tonight. I am drained and must get some sleep to carry on the project tomorrow.  I will try to finish the comments tomorrow.  Great comments, by the way, I love interacting with you all!

Greg #29,

You said:

Dr. Grudem says “It’s a matter of obedience to the Bible.” (50),

It is a matter of obedience to the bible but we need to make sure that our obedience is to the intended meaning of the passage, not what we think an verse means isolated from its context.

and “The Bible has to say something only once for it to be true and God’s word for us” ( 362).

While it is true that the Bible only has to say something once for it to be true i.e. a historical fact may not be repeated for example the raising up of the dead bodies of the saints after Jesus died is only mentioned in the book of Matthew, it is a different story concerning a prohibition. A prohibition is in a different category as every judicial matter must have two or three witnesses. Jesus himself made a big deal about having to have a witness to the fact that he was the Son of God. If Jesus had to have a matter confirmed then how can we ignore the fact that every prohibition of God is confirmed by two or three witnesses as required by law but the “prohibition” of no women teaching men has no confirmation. We cannot just say that something in the bible can only be said once and then ignore Jesus’ words to the contrary. Judicial matters must have judicial witnesses and no one can be condemned without the required witnesses. If God broke his own law regarding witnesses for even one prohibition, then God has failed his own standard. I do not believe that God failed the test because applying the test to the supposed “law” shows that it is a misunderstanding of the context, not a valid God-ordained law for all women for all of time.
So in a nutshell, Grudem is completely wrong that there doesn’t need to be a second witness. I would challenge him to point out even one other universal prohibition that has no second witness. There is no such law. This makes the “prohibition” in 1 Timothy 2:12 not only suspect but impossible. The onus is on those who make it a “law” to explain why it is the only law even given by the mouth of God that fails the two or three witnesses. Let them try to explain. I have never yet heard a valid explanation and the opposition’s mouths have been stopped.

The good news is that through the efforts of free and open blogs such as yours, more and more Christians are not taking what they’ve been taught through tradition as some sort of Protestant Papal Encyclical on gender roles. We are succeeding, we are helping to free brothers and sisters from mind tyranny, one human being at a time.

Amen!

Don #28,

“But the non-egals are losing and they know they are losing, so one response is to rachet up the rhetoric. This is why they try to connect egal with liberalism; they say if you do not agree with us, the bogeyman will come and get you, where the bogeyman can be any number of things. And if you really do believe that a bogeyman is coming, it only makes sense to warn others.”

This is exactly right. Even the non-egals admit that they are losing the battle. In my mind I wish it was even faster because it is painful to have to fight this battle with our own brothers.

I see this battle as the same kind as I fought with the JW’s. Sometimes I felt like I was hitting my head against the wall, but others times I made such good insight. The problem is that they were trained to not let you know when you gave them a good point to think about. Sometimes it only takes one point to plant a seed and the Holy Spirit is able to make it grow. It can be the same thing with non-egals. We don’t know which thought we can give that will plant a seed within their heart. It is in a hidden place and we may not know for a long time, but God can make it grow. This is why I am always looking to find a different way to say the same thing. I want to turn the problem position over in my mind and look at it from every possible angle. What may cause one comp to see something he has never seen before may do nothing for another one. Yet the two biggest keys are an open heart that desires truth more than tradition and God’s Holy Spirit who can make ANY good seed grow.

I will try to get to the rest of the comments within the next day. There are so many good comments here.

One request I have is for any of my readers here is to pray for me. I do not want to go into any detail, but I am really in need of prayer regarding the DVD on the Trinity that I am working on. There are spiritual attacks coming my way that have caused me great distress. I need to continue my work unhindered and if any of you feel inclined to hold me up in prayer I would be greatly appreciate it.

Lin,

You asked:

Really, we are seeing more of this from other Christians than we are from the secular world: Name calling, hate, sarcasm, lording it over, deception, lying, etc. All of this to advance a secondary doctrine that we should NOT divide over to a primary position that is drawing more lines in the sand. Why?

I have pondered these same questions and I think what is happening is that some Christians are so connected to their own “pet” doctrines that any attempt at trying to pull at their security blanket brings a very hostile response. Their comfort zone requires that their “pet” doctrine is not challenged especially not with well thought-out questions that give them trouble.

I know a man who had problems as a child because he was small compared to all the other boys. He was the last one to be picked when teams were chosen and he felt threatened in his manhood as he grew up. If he was playing a game with his wife and he lost he would throw the board game. If he lost a game of racquetball against his wife, he would throw the racket across the court in anger. It was humiliating for him that he wasn’t good enough to win even against a female.

Men who have this attitude will hold onto the one doctrine that gives them an “edge” against women. They are blessed to be of the gender that gets to be the teachers, rule others and be in some way superior. If they feel in some way inferior to other males at least they get to feel that there is a group of people (women) who are below them so they are no longer the bottom of the pile. Yet in Christianity we are taught that we are to see others as better than ourselves. We are also taught to submit to one another’s gifts because no eye can say to the hand “I do not need you”.

It is difficult for a man who has a normal tendency to have a big ego, to humble himself to fully embrace a doctrine that will not allow him to keep that big ego. It is comfortable for them to see build their egos instead and claim that this is a sign of maturity instead of immaturity in the Christian faith.

You also asked:

“If this is not of the flesh, then what is? How could we ever ‘worship’ in Spirit and Truth with folks who do such things?”

The only answer I have here is that it is all about grace. God’s grace. In the natural it may be impossible but with God all things are possible.

I remember when I was still studying the scriptures on the hard passages regarding women and I was listening to and reading the arguments of complementarians. The way they focused on one or two verses taken apart from their context started to make me ill. As I listened to more and more audio tapes and read more and more from their point of view, I could clearly see how they were making unwarranted applications from verses taken out of context and the applications were restrictive, Talmudic in nature and they were responsible for taking away my joy in serving God. This caused me to not want to read or listen to anything else these men had to say even when it was on a different topic. I mentioned this to a pastor’s wife and she responded back to me with grace and wisdom. She said that I needed to come to a point where I could see outside my own prejudice and learn from and appreciate these men in the areas that they had things to teach me. At that time I was too tender to ever believe that I could read from these men and appreciate their gifts when they were so wrong in this one area. I have changed. It has become a real maturity issue for me personally. I have now come full circle and although I can still see their glaring errors in the women’s issue, I can appreciate the truth that they share in areas where they are gifted. I can celebrate that strong doctrinal stand some of them take against other false doctrines and I can rejoice with them. Truly I have come to the place where I can honestly say that as scriptures says, the eye cannot say to the hand “I don’t need you”. I have come to believe that I need everyone that is in the body of Christ. I am learning how to love each one of them while still strongly contending for the truth of scripture that they have not yet learned. They belong to Christ as I do and if I can have grace in dealing with them, then God will grow me to maturity in order to love the sometimes unlovable. In the end I know that I too need to receive God’s grace.

If by saying this I offend anyone who is still at the stage that I was a few years ago, let me encourage you to work on getting past your hurt. These men are not easy to love because they attack us, discredit our motives and stop us from participating in our areas of gifting. We can call them to account and earnestly contend for the truth of scripture but we are not to hate them. One day these men WILL love and accept us. It may not be this side of heaven, but it will happen because the body of Christ will be united, will be one and will be completely filled with love for one another. One day.

Michael,

Your question is a good on on Genesis 3:7.  If the opening of the eyes came from eating the fruit as it appears to be the case, then it would make sense that the opening of their eyes would come when the fruit became digested and into their system.  That would likely happen at about the same time for both of them.  After all God said that the “day” that they ate of the fruit they would die.  He didn’t say that the instant they ate the fruit they would die.  If we consider the fruit to be like a poison, the poison then becomes effective once it gets into our system.  Again, since she ate and then gave the fruit to her husband, their systems would digest the fruit at about the same time.  Once it started to become a part of them, the fruit did it’s work.

I hope that helps 🙂