Michael,

We are to pray for one another and I have been praying for you.  I trust that the Lord will see you through this difficult time.  Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.  I have been very distracted after coming back from vacation.

If he would have only apologized as I asked him to, we would not be in this position.  I have no idea why apologizing comes across to these folks as a sign of weakness.  I believe that it is a scriptural thing when one has done something wrong.  You apologize and move on.

Update, Diane has now made Matt’s post to me private.  She has also stated that “if” he decides to communicate it would be on the private post.

So back to Don’s post and point #3, in the end Diane convinced Matt that his agreement to meet with me regarding the Matthew 18 request was not advisable apparently since he allowed me to post his list of sin.  Diane has removed the entire post and since I haven’t received any communication from Matt Slick, it appears that he has rescinded his offer to meet with me.

What is quite interesting to me is that Matt claims to be the authority on his own discussion board and Diane is claiming that it is her board. She tells him not to meet with me.  She has the entire post removed after advising Matt on what he shouldn’t be doing.

My response to Matt’s post:

My pastor is very, very interested in finishing his communication with you in person. He is not back until August. Anytime after mid August is fine. There will be no need for us to come to Twin Falls as the Mormon opening will be finished. I would like to meet with you, your wife and your pastor in the Boise area. My pastor will also be there along with my husband. Please state publicly that you agree to meet with me regarding this Matthew 18 request and follow through with your scriptural obligation.

Matt you are fully aware of your sin as I have already personally confronted you.

For the record here is the list:

1. You have sinned against me by publicly falsifying what I believe on your radio show. You were completely aware that I did not believe the falsehood as it was something that you made up for illustration purposes on our second “debate”. Then you took this falsehood and said that I believed it and taught it. Your action was public and done in a willful way. My pastor has already called you to account for this sin and asked you to repent. You have refused to repent of your sin when you have been confronted by both myself and my pastor. I have given you all the documentation and your “correction” on your radio show you just turned into another attack on me claiming that you were right and I was wrong about my “correction”.

2. You have sinned against me by calling me a heretic publicly on the radio.

Heretic:

1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

I do not maintain religious opinions contrary to those accepted by my church nor do I have religious opinions that are rejected by the church as a whole as unacceptable opinions that would make me outside of Christianity or outside the primary doctrines of faith that are accepted by all born again Christians. There is no such thing as a person who is a “heretic” because they are a Calvinistic or a “heretic” because they do not believe in a mid-tribulation rapture and there is also no person who is a “heretic” merely because they believe that women are allowed to teach the bible to men with the authority of 1 Peter 4:11. My pastor has written you that you are wrong in labeling me a heretic and you must repent. You wrote me inviting me onto your radio show and promised me that you would be kind and then broke your promise by attacking me publicly by calling me the name that is reserved for those who destroy the basics of our faith. You did not tell me the truth when you brought me onto your radio show and your attacking me with the term “heretic” must be repented of. You have no documented church wide evidence that attaches the name “heretic” to a person who believes as I do. Your claim that I am a heretic is unwarranted.

3. You have sinned against me by failing to maintain authority over your “staff” who has been given free reign under your authority on your own discussion board to publicly malign me as an enemy, a liar, “evil Cheryl” and many other accusations against my sanity and my Christianity, my character and my motives which I can document when we meet. You are asked to repent of your failure to discipline your “staff” against un-Christian behavior with the attacks and name calling. You are asked to publicly make amends for the name calling and to take your authority over your own discussion board to either have your “staff” repent of the names that you have allowed your “staff” to publicly malign me and to attack me or to publicly repent on their behalf because the actions were done under your authority.

I would also like to call you to account for the way you have allowed the CARM discussion board to be used to attack many other Christian posters who disagree with you in secondary issues. There needs to be a repentance and a turning toward Jesus Christ and his ways because Paul says that those who correct the errors of others are to be kind, able to teach, patient when wronged:

2Ti 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
2Ti 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

This is a time for repentance and a turning away from the “style” of attack that you have employed for years. It is not Christ like. I would like to speak on behalf of every poster here who has been hurt by unkind, unloving words spoken with name calling and false accusations. This must stop.

So when will you be able to meet with me? Please give me a time to call to speak with your wife to arrange for her participation so that she can be assured that she will be not be treated unkindly but is requested to be there to support and love you as you go through this Matthew 18 experience.

Cheryl Schatz

Don,

Interesting that you list #3 Do not give an inch. This is where some of them are and they really don’t care how scripture tells them to deal with other members of the body of Christ.

Case in point regarding my request for a Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick. Below was his response today on CARM.org asking me to list his sin and asking me when I wanted to meet him at Twin Falls, Idaho.  After I listed again his “sin”, Diane allowed it to stay on CARM for a couple of hours and then convinced Matt to have it removed.  See Matt’s original request below:

So, when do you want to meet at Twin Falls?

List EXACTLY what sin you’re accusing me of. Make it good.

Btw, I think that your teaching on women as pastors and elders is heretical.

Look at dictionary.com. Heresy…..

1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. 2.the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine. 3.Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. 4.any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Now… wim, are you a Christian? sure. Are you at variance with orthodoxy in the women as pastors and elders thing? you betcha. You continue to maintain that doctrine in error. You speak in contradiction to the historical (and biblical position).

Will I apologize? No because that is what I believe.

Lin #13,

The issue is one of control.  For those who must be able to control others they simply cannot keep be banned because they would not be able to have a hope of “controlling” me since they cannot control this blog.

Thisis a great problem for Diane and Matt on CARM.  I have the documented evidence of Matt’s sin (including his allowing sin to continue on his discussion board over which he has authority) and I won’t back down until Matthew 18 is followed.  They have no idea what to do with me.  Matt has stated publicly on his radio show that he practice “run-fu”.  This is a take-off on “kung fu” and is his way of describing that he runs away from situations that he has no control over.  I happen to think that Matt is his own worst enemy.  He is consistently saying things on his radio show where he describes his sin and he is the one saying it not someone else.

Diane is trying her best to do damage control but she cannot control this situation for Matt.  If she shuts me down she only proves what I have been saying about the control tactics on CARM.  She is in a precarious position and the world is watching.

12 Lin,

This is the big problem with CBMW…their rules cannot be found in scripture.  One has to keep checking their books or emailing them to find out what the latest rule so that the individual churches have tied themselves to CBMW to be their decision-making body.  It certainly has become a Christian Talmud.  Heaven forbid that their literature would disappear and their organization cease to exist because we would have to go back to the bible to make our decisions on what all “sons” of God are allowed to do.

Paula #11,

Great point!  Paul could have said that he only rejoiced when men preached the gospel no matter what their motive was even if it was a motive to hurt him.  Your point was well taken Paula that if even Paul did not limit the preaching of the gospel to men or to men with good intentions, then we can know that we too should rejoice when the true gospel is preached by anyone.  It is the truth of the gospel that will stand and it is not limited by gender, by race or by social standing.

If anyone is wanting to keep up with the Matt Slick problem, see how complementarians handle authority given out to “staff” to handle those who call Matt to account. It’s on going at http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=108945&page=3 and http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=116749&page=11

Lin #7,

Absolutely vital points!  The authority does not rest on us (the messenger) it rests on the inspired word and the Holy Spirit who has inspired the word.  It is no wonder that Jesus said that the twelve were not to lord it over others and be like the world.  Assuming authority over others is the stepping stone to abuse.

Lin,

Great points!

It is also interesting to note that although some comps believe that the “prohibition” is only for a church building i.e. the regular worship service; women are allowed to teach men in their own home.  CBMW however does not allow this.  Even though they would allow some teaching by saying that it is under the husband’s authority with him taking the lead, in essence they still would not allow this to happen in a “regular” manner.  They are concerned that she will come across as appearing as the “teacher” of the study.  CBMW responded to an email about what was allowed for men regarding a teaching DVD done by a woman.  Their response was that men from the bible study could individually watch the DVD and be instructed by the woman but the men were not allowed to get together and all watch the DVD at the same time because it would then appear that she was the “teacher” and this is not allowed.  Here again it is a matter not of what “building” she is teaching in but how many men watch the DVD at the same time.  It appears that there is “sin” in numbers when it comes to a gifted woman teacher.

Pinklight,

CBMW believes that “once” is the key.  Here is what they say:

“For all we know, this conversation with Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened only once, whereas Paul is surely addressing teaching that happens in the regular gathering of the congregation”

So apparently it is only a sin if you do it more than once 🙂

Well as many of you know, I am BACK! It was a good break away but not too restful.  I am feeling quite overwhelmed at all the emails I have to answer and posts that have been pointed out to me to look at on other blogs so I may take a bit to give an answer to those who posted here.  Thanks for your patience!

Tiro #12
I am not familiar with that particular ministry at all.

Lin,
The Denny Burk post was one of the longest I have ever read. I am surprised that he has given free reign to those who are egalitarians without seeming to restrict what they said.  Interesting!

Hi Don,

Thanks for responding! Here is my answer:

If Paul told the church orally before he wrote the “law” in 1 Timothy 2 this wouldn’t change my question any since it still would show that there was no “law” before Paul and thus Priscilla acted in faith with the gift that God gave her without restriction.

Many hierarchists do not see 1 Timothy 2 as being only about a building. I know that CBMW does not see it this way because they restrict a woman from teaching men in a bible study in her own home. In fact they say that a woman is restricted from teaching doctrine to a man in any place at any time for any reason. Also since there were no Christian church buildings at the time of the early church, anywhere that believers met was the assembly. Lastly Paul’s appeal to the creation account takes this outside of being an application pertaining only to a church building.

If some one would say “So it is not surprising that this “principle” continues” my answer is that we are not talking about a “principle” but about a “law”. When God sets out a law it is specific, it is understandable and it is enforceable. God sets his law apart for our benefit so that we are clear what is forbidden by God.

Good points in reply to my questions, Don. Of course we know you don’t believe this “principle” because you are an egalitarian. Anyone else want to take a stab especially anyone who actually believes 1 Timothy 2:12 is a “law” set up by God to forbid all women from teaching biblical doctrine to men?

Thanks Greg!

Michael,
The name of the 2 DVD set is
“The Trinity – Eternity Past to Eternity Future
Explaining Truth & Exposing Error”

Thanks again for your support.  This is a very important project and we sure do need prayer support.

Okay, back to the comments on questions from post #12

The question is what did Paul mean by the 12. I agree it is possible he meant the 11, but it is also possible he meant the 12 at the time of his writing 1 Cor and the way the whole church understood the term, that is, to include Matthias.

It is clear in scripture that “the twelve” was at times used as the name of the group. This is the way Paul uses it in 1 Cor 15 because it is clear that he is giving the order of the appearances of Jesus to the legal witnesses (again women were not considered legal witnesses so they are not included). As an ordering list, it is impossible for “the twelve” in 1 Cor. 15:5 to be anything other than the name of the group since there is scriptural evidence that Thomas was not there when Jesus first appeared to “the twelve”.

So the question is whether Matthias saw Jesus, my assumption is he was certainly one of the 500, being a disciple from the beginning. The question is what did Paul mean by the 12. I agree it is possible he meant the 11, but it is also possible he meant the 12 at the time of his writing 1 Cor and the way the whole church understood the term, that is, to include Matthias.

I think it we can agree that Matthias had to have seen the resurrected Christ. He was certainly one of the 500 and the apostles could not have picked him as a candidate to be a witness of the resurrection if he had not seen the resurrected Christ.

Even is Matthias was present with the other 10 when Jesus first showed up (and I do not believe there is any evidence that he was there), that would still make them only eleven. This means that Paul uses the term “the twelve” as a term of the name of the group and not the number that were present.

In any case, it is clear (to me) that Paul when he wrote 1 Cor did not consider himself one of the 12.

This is the reason we are having this discussion. I do believe that Paul was fighting for his authority as a true apostle one of the ones who was an apostle of Jesus Christ picked to be a witness to the resurrection. He gives all the claims necessary to being one of the twelve witnesses and I happen to believe that this is what he claimed and why Paul’s apostleship is the only one ever challenged in scripture.

3. Paul is making his special claims to counter the false super-apostles. He wants the Corinthians to make the right decision.
   The Bible says believers will do GREATER things.
   I do not see Paul as a secondary apostle, he is my hero, but that does not mean he is one of the 12.

We can also agree on this one thing – Paul is also my hero! I too do not believe that Paul was a secondary apostle. However this is also where we have a problem. Only the twelve apostles had a special authority from Jesus to lay the foundation of the church. No other apostle had authority. Paul claimed to have authority. Paul also claimed to have great revelations and his writing in the NT can be compared to the influence of Moses on the OT. So having no other apostle claiming to have authority we would have the three groups listed this way:
1. The twelve apostles
2. Paul
3. All the other secondary apostles

This would put Paul in a class by himself. If we broke the groups down not by the kind of apostle they were but the authority they had we would have only two groups:

1. The twelve apostles of Jesus Christ + Paul
2. All the other secondary apostles

The fact is that Paul’s authority matched the authority of the other twelve. Paul then appears to fit the model of the twelve and either he is in a class by himself with the exact same authority as the other twelve or he is a true apostle of Jesus Christ picked by Jesus as the twelfth witness of his resurrection. I believe there are only two groups of apostles and Paul was part of the twelve. The facts just don’t make sense to me any other way.

I think if I am not mistaken, that I have finished answering your points. One last point that I would like to make is the importance of the vacancy of Judas’ calling that was left open for at least 43 days. Jesus apparently did not see any problem in having the “position” filled immediately since he did nothing about appointing a replacement for Judas while he was here in his resurrected body.

“The twelve” also did not have any sense of urgency to take an authority upon themselves to appoint a replacement while Jesus was here in his resurrected body.

Jesus told them to wait for the Holy Spirit’s power. For some reason before they were given the indwelling Holy Spirit with power to fulfill their mission, they decided that the scriptures should be fulfilled now. I see no scriptural injunction in the OT for a group of men to make the decision to fulfill scripture when Jesus himself didn’t take it upon himself to fulfill the scriptures at that time. Would things have been different if they would have just left things alone? I believe they would have. I take my belief from what happened to Abraham. God had given him a promise but God seemed to be slow to fulfill that promise. Abraham and Sarah took the authority to fulfill the scriptures for themselves. The result of humans making the decision to take authority over something that God alone has authority over caused great trouble in the world because Ishmael was born from Abraham’s actions. Yet God didn’t stop Abraham from acting out his plan nor did he say that Abraham sinned in trying to fulfill the prophesy. What God did say was that he would bless Ishmael as Abraham asked, but Ishmael would represent man’s way while Isaac would represent God’s way.

I believe that we have in the NT another example of the same thing. The disciples acted as Abraham acted. They were acting in faith but they used human means to accomplish what only God was meant to accomplish. God also did not berate them for their actions just as he did not berate Abraham for following his wife’s urging to procreate a child by Sarah’s Egyptian maid.

But God also made a clear distinction between what man has accomplished and what God brings about in that he called Isaac Abraham’s only son.

Gen 22:2 He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

Just as Abraham’s decision to procreate a child by natural means without the work of the Holy Spirit caused a persecution of the Spirit-born son, so too I believe that Paul, the apostle who was “born of the Spirit” (i.e. as an apostle), like a child born out of time much later than all the other apostles who were witness to the resurrection, Paul found himself greatly troubled by having to prove himself a true apostle because of the “fleshly born” apostle who came about by the actions of the apostles. Yes, they too acted in faith, but they acted in a fleshly way. They too did not wait for the work of the Holy Spirit just as Abraham did not wait. In Paul’s case as in Isaac’s case the fleshly born “son” brought trouble for the Spirit-born “son”. I believe that there is every indication that Paul was the twelfth apostle and if the apostles had not already picked Matthias by lot, I believe that Paul would have been readily accepted as the twelfth apostle because of his testimony, his miracles and his great revelations.

I think I have pretty much laid out my argument and why I believe as I do. For the many who find this post and who are interested enough to read through all the arguments, I just ask you to consider whether the 11 apostles were just as capable of stepping ahead of God as Abraham did. Abraham was a great man of faith yet his preempting God was a sign that he still had clay feet. All I ask is for you to consider whether the eleven disciples also had clay feet even though they operated with great faith. Did they preempt the Holy Spirit’s work by choosing a replacement for Judas by taking an authority for themselves that wasn’t theirs just as Abraham did? Why do you think that the method of choosing a replacement is a documented OT method but was not a practiced NT church method because it was never again used once the Holy Spirit came upon the church? Is it possible that in Matthias we have a NT example of Abraham’s lack of waiting? Abraham still acted in faith but the resulting child was not sanctioned by the Holy Spirit and Abraham’s actions could not make his offspring to be the one ordained by God.

The last question I always ask is to give this the “so what?” test. What difference does it make? I believe the difference is whether we accept Paul’s authority or not as a foundational apostle whom the church was built upon. Was the church built upon Paul as well as the other apostles of Jesus Christ? There are some who will not listen to Paul and will only read the gospels. They say that Paul was wrong and that he was a woman hater and influenced by his Pharisaical upbringing. Some even today are willing to ignore Paul’s words and they do not believe that Paul had authority to set the foundation of the church. I disagree with them. I believe that Paul had that authority and that it was given him by Jesus Christ himself. I also believe that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection is the clearest witness of the gospel 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Without Paul’s authority to set a doctrinal basis for the church there would be much missing from God’s word.

Was Paul the twelfth apostle? I sincerely believe that he was.

Sorry for being so long winded.  We are getting ready to have a couple week R & R time and I didn’t want to leave answering this until we got back, hence the extended answer all in one place 🙂

Don,

You said:

On 2, lots may be votes or they might be random, it is not clear. Even if random the lot is in the hands of the Lord as they were acting in faith.

There is no other place in scripture where lots means voting so the ordinary meaning must stand. They used the random lot to make the decision. This was the question of my point. If choosing Matthias was an action of their authority, they did not exercise their authority by this action. I agree that they thought they were acting in faith. The question is still whether they had the right to make this decision and thus were exercising their authority. It appears clear to me that they did not come to a consensus regarding whom the group wanted to put into Judas’ place. They could not exercise this authority because they said that they did not know the hearts of these men. Since the decision was a matter of the heart, they did not have the authority to make the decision and were trusting that God would by the casting of the lot choose for them. The very act of casting the lot proves that were not taking their authority.

Before one might think Paul was the 12th you need to knock Matthias out of the running. The question does not even come up if Matthias is the 12th.

This has been my point all along. Paul would have been accepted as an apostle by the church because of his claims, because of his authority and because of his miracles if Matthias had not been chosen by the apostles as one of the two candidates that they cast the lot for. It was because of the apostle’s actions and the subsequent naming of Matthias to the twelfth position that Paul had to defend his apostleship. There is no other reason why Paul had to fight to be accepted as an apostle. It does no good to claim that Paul wanted to be considered as high as the false apostles. Paul was not arrogant. Whether people considered him as high as others was not his point. The point was that he was a legitimate apostle thus his claim that he was picked by Jesus himself and not by men. No one else had to fight for their apostleship. That is because everyone else was a secondary apostle not one of the ones specifically picked by Jesus himself. So it was Paul’s claim to apostleship that was in question not how high up he was in that apostleship.

Here Jesus promised to be with the 11 (the you is plural) always. Here is one reason I claim the 11 acting as the 11 COULD NOT make a mistake in choosing Matthias.

Jesus said that he would be with them. Does this mean that he would make them infallible in everything they do? And is this just for the twelve? Jesus said the same thing to Paul:

Act 18:9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent;
Act 18:10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.”

Jesus promised to be with all of us because he would indwell us. This is the blessing of belonging to God. It does not mean that whoever Jesus will be with can never make a mistake.

Since Jesus said that he would be with Paul, why would Paul submit himself to being tested by scripture? Paul commended the Bereans for testing Paul’s teaching against the OT scriptures. Paul didn’t claim that the apostles were infallable.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Paul says that if an apostle or even an angel were to preach a gospel contrary to what has already been preached (and which lines up with the OT scriptures) that apostle or that angel is to be accursed. Everything is to be tested by the foundation that has already been laid and no apostle can lay another foundation and claim infallibility. Paul says even if “we” preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached. Here he lays the claim that even if they all agree to another gospel in agreement as a group, they are not infallible if the new “gospel” is contrary to the gospel already preached. This means that everything must be tested by the scriptures and the foundation that had already been laid.

So my question is now and still is, where do the scriptures say that the apostles have been given authority to pick the twelfth apostle?

On the authority to do so, there is the bind and loose verse.
Mat 18:18“Positively, I say to you*, whatever [things] you* bind on the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever [things] you* loose on the earth will have been loosed in heaven.

Okay, so let’s test this out to see if this passage gives the apostles ultimate authority in everything that they do. What is the context of Matthew 18?

Mat 18:15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
Mat 18:16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Mat 18:17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

In this passage Jesus is giving a general principle about how to handle conflicts between Christian brothers. When a brother sins against you, Jesus said, go to him privately to confront him about his sin. If he doesn’t listen to you take one or two witnesses with you so that you fulfill the “two or three witnesses” requirement of a judicial matter. If he still won’t listen take the matter to the entire church. If he won’t listen to the church then treat him not as a Christian brother but as an unbeliever.

Jesus then goes on to promise that he will be with the church as they are gathered together in his name. Although scripture already promises that Jesus will be with us individually because he will be in us, he is now promising that he will be with the body of Christ that is gathered even if the body is only two or three strong. The binding and loosing is given to the church not only to the twelve. This is not a promise of infallibility of a few but a promise of Jesus to be with the church as they act in discipline against an erring brother. The binding refers to restricting that person outside of the fellowship and the loosing refers to forgiveness. This entire passage is referring to a brother sinning against another brother and the discipline that the church takes regarding that sin. The proof in context that this is what is meant is the very next verse. After Jesus has said that two or three strong would constitute the body of Christ in a setting and after promising to be with them in making judgment calls regarding a charge of sin, Peter then gives a question about the “loosing” or the forgiving of the sinning brother. Peter asks:

Mat 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”

We can see the act of “loosing” a person’s sin when Stephen forgave those who killed him. Jesus also “loosed” his Roman executioner’s from the sin of killing him. Jesus says that if we fail to forgive and give mercy to those who ask us for forgiveness, then we will not be forgiven.

The passage has nothing to do with infallibility of the twelve. It has nothing to do with decision making of the apostles as a whole. It has to do with church discipline, the necessity of forgiving (or loosing from the charge of sin) towards the repentant brother and the binding decision to cast an unrepentant brother out of their midst.

Where in this passage is binding and loosing given only to the twelve? Where are the twelve given infallibility in any action that they do as a unit? It certainly isn’t in this passage.

Another point that I had made previously was that the Holy Spirit was necessary for the apostles to get the job done. The foundation of the church would not be built without the Holy Spirit. I believe that they would not have made the decision to appoint the twelfth apostle if they had waited for the infilling of the Holy Spirit since he would lead them into all truth.

Joh 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
Joh 16:14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

The apostles needed to wait for the Holy Spirit. If they were infallible before the Holy Spirit came, then he really wasn’t needed.

This is using rabbinic terms to say that they (you plural again) can make decisions on things that have not already been decided. They use this authority in Acts 15 and I claim they also use this authority in choosing Matthias.

While Acts 15 could be taken as a church disciplinary decision to deal with the men who were trying to bring in legalism into the church, it is a united church that debates the issue and checks scripture to make sure that they are right (Acts 15:15-18).  It wasn’t just the twelve that came together but the apostles and the elders.  They had much debate.  They checked the scriptures and they listened to the testimony regarding how the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit as they had and the miracles that were done amongst the Gentile believers.  All of this brought them to the decision that if God accepted these believers as they were and they were accepted in the family of God by faith just as the Jews were, then there should be no burden placed on them other than what is needed to not be a stumbling block to the Jews and to keep themselves from sexual sin.

This passage cannot be used to say that only the twelve had infallibility because it wasn’t just the twelve who made the decision.  The reason why their decision was infallible here was because the scriptures were looked to for guidance and the witness of the Holy Spirit was accepted.  Was this something special given only to them?  I don’t think so.  We too can make judgment calls by testing all things by what has already been written.

Paula,
Yup, Eve did follow Adam out of the garden so she did “turn” towards or “longed for” him as God predicted in Genesis 3:16.

Don,
I think one thing that we need to realize is that we are created imperfect.  Eve was created without sin and as perfect as a woman can be without a sin nature.  Without the mental deterioration that we all have as we grow older, she would not be forgetful or ignorant of simple facts.  She was an amazing perfect woman who was deceived by the master deceiver without anyone to come to bat for her to reveal the deception.  As a helper, she was a perfect fit for Adam with a perfect ability to meet his needs.  A perfect woman is not incapable as we are.  If we measure Eve by our standards, I think we will miss the entire picture.  We are imperfect yet God loves us, yes.  Eve was perfect and became imperfect only after sin entered the picture.  Before she ate the fruit, there was nothing bad that we could charge her with.  She understood God’s simple command and she spoke with faith to the serpent.  Her faith was destroyed by the destroyer, not because of any inherent weakness in her humanity.

I think this is where we miss the boat sometimes.  We look at the creation of the earth and of humanity and think that they were somehow exactly the same as us with our weaknesses.  That isn’t so.  We can hardly even imagine what it would be like to be sinless even for a day, yet they experienced it.

Tiro,

I agree that women who are caught up in the hierarchical mindset have difficulty seeing the abuse that is inherent in that system.  Often these are precious women whose only desire is to be pleasing to God and to their husbands.  They are also the ones who can feel their own condemnation if they don’t submit with a good attitude.  It is difficult at the best of times to have your person taken over by another person’s will without freely making each choice along the way yourself so that it is then a joint decision.  Sometimes it takes years to see this system for what it is.  Sometimes a woman will go into depression and not even know why.  In listening to several CBMW tapes where some of the key players of the hierarchy movement admitted that their marriage was in trouble and they had to seek help.  The problem was their making decisions for another person in essence dismantling the wife’s own personhood.  She may as well be a robot because her decisions are not used.  The leaders who spoke about their marriages had to back off and give their wives more room to be a person.  What does this tell us?  It tells us that even those who are dedicated to making hierarchy a godly system are incapable of taking authority over a woman without it affecting their marriage and her very being as a person.  The entire system is flawed because no matter how much they push this as godly, it is not God’s way.

God’s way is for the two to work together as a one flesh union each honoring the other and making decisions together.  Sometimes the solution is that we just don’t wait on the Lord for help when we cannot come to a joint decision.  To give all the power to the one who has been prophesied in scripture to be an abuser of that power, is not a wise move.

Thanks Greg!  I had a seminary prof dialog with me on the Genesis account and I asked him who told him that Eve messed up God’s command by adding to God’s word?  He had never thought this one through before and he admitted to me that he believed it because he had been taught it.  When I went through my reasoning with him from the scriptures (not from tradition) he said that my point was well taken and well argued from the scriptures.  He said that I had really pushed him to think outside the box.  Up until that point he had not realized that his thinking about Eve was from tradition and not from the documented scriptural facts.  It has really made me wonder how much I am guilty of accepting tradition in areas that I may still be blinded to my own faults, instead of reading critically through the text.  I want to root out any false presupposition that I have so that I can understand what God has to say on the matter.  What God has to say should be sufficient for us to understand what God wants us to see.  Since God is the only one living who has given us his word about what happened in that creation period, I do not want to let any person influence me to doubt God’s word.  I want God’s word to be true even though every man could be flawed with their own false thoughts.

I believe that the creation accounts have all the information that we need. 1 Cor 10:11 says that the things written were written for our instruction. If we needed more, more would have been written.

“It is possible the man taught the woman wrong.”

The prohibition was a simple command. There were not multiple trees to avoid but one tree with one fruit. If the fall of Eve was due to the man’s failure to communicate then man was created incapable of even leading in a small way. It would make man an incredible goof-up and I don’t believe that God created the male that way.

“It is possible the woman misunderstood.”

This isn’t possible unless the woman was created childlike and incapable of understanding a simple command. If she couldn’t even get a simple command right from Adam, then how could she be depended on to raise children and help Adam rule the world? She would be an albatross around his neck because he couldn’t trust her to “get” anything right if she messed up on a simple command. No I don’t think there is any evidence that the woman misunderstood. Neither God nor Adam claimed that she misunderstood the command. The only claim is that the serpent deceived her by his craftiness.

“It is possible that God gave the woman a different command from the man. FWIIW, I consider this the most likely, but I am not 100% sure.”

We already have documented evidence that God gave the command regarding what to eat in different ways and at different times. In Genesis 2 God spoke to Adam before Eve was created and told him what he could eat. In chapter 1 when God spoke to both Adam and Eve, God gave them additional things to eat and he encompassed the prohibition in the specific kind of fruit that they could eat. Since we can see that God gives his instructions multiple times (repetition is for our safety Paul says) and in different ways, we can be assured that the woman’s testimony about what God told her is true. I believe that this is the only proper conclusion to come to since God did not charge Eve with sin or stupidity or failing to obey Adam.

The difference between what Matt Slick does and what I do is that Matt Slick takes his presuppositions and makes them into facts. What I do is start with the documented facts and then rule out conclusions that do not match the facts. What is left is the conclusion that the documented facts leads to. If my view of the “facts” is wrong, I am always willing to be corrected. Yet I throw out conclusions that distrust the documented facts. For example I throw out the conclusion that Eve didn’t understand a simple command because there is no evidence for this, God created her one who has the gifts and abilities to provide assistance to the man in his areas of need. Such a one couldn’t possibly be a child-like one without a statement in scripture to tell us this. It just doesn’t fit the facts.

Lin,

This is the fallacy of the comp argument.  If they are willing to make Eve “weak” because she was deceived, even though Paul said that it was the crafty serpent who was responsible, then they have to be consistent in saying that all men cannot be trusted to spiritually protect women since the first man failed to publicly identify error and deal with it.

Fixed it for you Paula.

Don,

Regarding whether Adam gave the prohibition to Eve, we have evidence from scripture that we need to look.  We know for a fact that Eve knew the prohibition.  Did she get it from Adam and she got it wrong?  How is that possible?  If she couldn’t get a simple command right, then how could God say that she was one who had the capabilities of giving the needed assistance to Adam?  That would make her rather like a two year old who needs to be carefully watched and looked after so that she doesn’t bumble along making a mess of everything she does.  It would make the needed helper into one who was helpless.  No, the good creation of God was fulfilled in Eve.  She knew the command and she said that “God said…”  We have no reason to believe that she added to God’s word (a sin) or messed up a simple command that Adam gave her ( a command that even a two year old could understand thus making her a full-fledged idiot) or lied to the serpent (there was no reason to lie and she was a sinless woman at the time).  Since we also know that God personally gave information to both Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (Gen. 1:29) there is no reason to assume that he left out the most important information about the prohibition.  After all Eve’s testimony is that “God said…”  When our prejudice causes us to distrust what women say then we will also distrust a sinless woman’s testimony.  How sad.

Now regarding Adam’s “authority”, we have no direct evidence that God gave him this authority over Eve neither do we have any evidence from God’s testimony when he confronted both of them.  Adam did not speak about Eve’s failure to follow his “authority” and Eve did not give a testimony that Adam failed to take authority over her.  The only “evidence” one can have is what one reads into the text.  Don, you are certainly right in that the way one reads into scripture says a lot about their own thought process.  If we want women to be in subjection to men, we can make a subjected Eve through out own presupposition.

Not picking Matthias during the time that Jesus was explaining the prophetic application of scripture to his disciples, teaching and commanding them on what to do regarding their witness to the world, would not be an argument from silence. The fact is that if Matthias had been picked during the 40 days when Jesus was here to do this “ordaining of the twelfth apostle”, the disciples would have known it and Matthias would have known it. There would have been no need to “cast lots” for a decision. One thing we know for sure – Matthias was not picked by Jesus during the 40 days that he was here in his resurrected body on earth.

If Paul is the twelfth apostle, then Jesus picked him in the same way that he picked every other apostle – by his personal in-person appointment. If Matthias is the twelfth apostle, then this is the only apostle picked as a candidate by men and not directly picked in person by Jesus.

You said:

“God knows everything that we will do, including what the 11 would do. The 11 needed to start execising their authority, it is like learning to walk. And Jesus had given them authority to execise

Jesus did not give the apostles the authority to pick the twelfth apostle. Neither Jesus nor scripture says that this was to be in their power or authority. It is very obvious that they felt it was their obligation to fill the vacancy, but Jesus did not give them this obligation.

The things in their authority were offering forgiveness and reconciliation so that a person would be free from a charge held against them. Stephen, the very first martyr forgave those who were killing him. Stephen loosed the charge of sin against his attackers and what he loosed was also loosed in heaven. The charge was forgiven the men who killed Stephen. Forgiveness for sin against a person was in their authority.

There is not one word in scripture that gives the apostles the authority to pick an apostle of Jesus Christ. That authority belongs to Jesus alone. They cannot exercise an authority that is not theirs.

If it was an important act of quickly picking a replacement for Judas, then Jesus not only had the authority to pick Judas’ replacement, but he had the opportunity and Matthias was there to see the resurrected Christ. The fact that Jesus did not personally appoint Matthias during this time when the vacancy was there is a strong point that Matthias was not the one who would immediately fill the vacancy. If Jesus had spoken to the disciples and told them that it would be in their authority to pick a replacement, then why didn’t they pick Matthias? Why did they cast lots for Matthias instead of exercising their authority? The fact is that they did not have this authority. Scripture is silent on the apostles taking for themselves what has always belonged to Jesus alone.

You said:

There are lots of things Jesus did not talk about at all, or at least was not considered important enough to record. Most scholars say that this is because much was assumed by a 1st century Jew and so does not need to be stated.

You are absolutely right in that scripture does not give all the words of God or of Jesus.  For example scripture does not record the words that God spoke to Eve after he created her, however her testimony stands as a proof that he did speak to her. However there isn’t any testimony from the apostles that Jesus gave them this special authority. They also did not act in authority. They chose two from their human wisdom (they did not pray about who to pick for the two candidates) and only after picking the two, did they pray and cast lots. The end result was neither a personal decision by Jesus or an authority exercised by the apostles. It was an assumption they made in faith believing the bible had to be fulfilled but wrongly assuming that they were responsible for fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus is the fulfillment of prophesy and an apostle of Jesus Christ is there by Jesus Christ’s authority alone.  If it was the apostle’s authority then there are two logical questions that beg to be answered:

1.  Where does scripture say they had this authority?

and

2.  Why did the apostles give up their “right” to this “authority” by casting lots?  This appears to me to be abrogating their authority not exercising it.

Don comment #12,

“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Paul is commenting on order of appearance (to the male witnesses – females were not considered valid witnesses in that day). He is not giving groups of people that do not overlap. For example, Cephas (or Peter) is part of “the twelve” so there is an overlap here. The appearance to James is not recorded in scripture.

The next thing of importance is that Jesus appeared to many people over a period of 40 days. Jesus appeared to “the twelve” several times even when they were not all together. Thomas was missing during the first appearance of Jesus to “the twelve”.

During the period of 40 days that Jesus appeared to the disciples we can note that the number of “the twelve” was not complete. Although Matthias would have been around during that time, he was not appointed by Jesus to be the twelfth apostles while Jesus was here in his resurrected body. This is a huge point that should not be missed. Jesus walked and talked with his disciples and he explained the scriptures that were fulfilled by his life, death and resurrection. He ate food with his disciples and he gave them commandments. Yet never once did he say that Matthias would fill the empty space that Judas’ betrayal brought. Why is this? Why was it a full 43 days after Jesus’ death that there was no replacement of Judas? Why did the disciples not ask Jesus who he was going to appoint and why didn’t Jesus appoint a replacement? The answer is simple. The time had not yet come and the replacement had not yet come to salvation. There could be no other reason why Jesus failed to appoint Matthias during the 40 days that he was here on the earth in his resurrected body. There is also no command that Jesus gave to his eleven remaining disciples to chose a replacement that he had failed to chose while he was here in his resurrected body.

My contention is that Jesus did not chose Matthias during the 40 days that he was here and the vacancy was apparent because he was not Jesus’ choice. The time was not yet for the one “born out of time” who would be saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, meet the resurrected Christ and be taught by him and be sent out as a witness to the resurrection.

Don, I will get to your other arguments later. Perhaps you can speak to Jesus’ silence on the replacement of the twelfth apostle during the 40 days. I believe that there was a vacant spot for 40 days and there would continue to be a vacant spot for many more days until the apostle Paul was ready to be sent forth as the last appointed witness of the resurrection by Jesus himself.

Greg,

“In all good conscience and common sense, I must conclude that the Almighty is more concerned with cutting away the covering on my heart than he is with what’s on my head or not on my head.”

Great summary point, Greg!

Lin,
Thanks for the link!  I will want to copy the debate and read through the thoughts as I have time.

Don,
Very logical thoughts about why one would want to use the ESV with comps.

I have just finished a week of post production work on the first DVD in the 2 DVD set on the Trinity.  I am exhausted from the long hours, but so grateful to see the project come together.  The text, music, pictures, etc all come together to make a powerful statement that I think will be very helpful for a lot of people.  The next couple of days I want to catch up on my cleaning, preparation for a couple of weeks of R & R and writing articles and comments on my blog.  Thanks everyone for being so patient with me during this process.  I believe that the final product will be well worth the effort that I have put into this project.

I will have more to say later when my exhaustion leaves!

Paula,

Great thoughts.  This is also my conclusion from the text and the context.