Cheryl Schatz

Jesus is both man and God. As husband of the church he is the resurrected man. And I am wondering if we are making a mistake by using “over” instead of “of”. He is head “of” the church, not head “over” the church. He puts all things under His feet (and we are His feet) so that all things are under the body. The “over” comes in regards to everything else and the “of” is in regards to His body. Make sense?

Jesus is God. As God He is Creator and has all authority and because of this He must be the oneleader.

Thanks Fritz for posting the link, and welcome to my blog!

I know that NT Wright has been a very strong supporter of women in ministry and for that I am grateful. I haven’t read through the entire article yet, but I do have a problem with a couple of things that I did read. Wright says:

And that salvation is promised to those who contribute to God’s creation through childbearing, just as it is to everyone else.

This view doesn’t fit the grammar which makes “childbearing” a noun and not a verb and it is a definite childbearing since it is a definite noun.

Secondly Paul advocated singleness as the best way to serve God if one is able to bear this and for him to say that salvation comes through bearing children doesn’t fit the gospel message.

Also Wright said:

15She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.

This is one of the views of verse 15, but it fails the test of truth since many godly Christian women are not kept safe through the process of childbirth so it appears to be a false promise (or false prophecy). We can better understand the verse if we keep in mind that it is “THE childbirth” (noun) which quite easily fits to the One who came through the woman – the Messiah Himself.

Using the term “bondservant” would be very Biblical. But we have to make sure that we measure up since a bondservant is one who is fully sold out to the Lord Jesus. There is no playing games if one is a bondservant and no turning back. (I am not saying that anyone of us is playing games with the Lord, just making a general comment about the kind of leadership that we often get in the churches).

LMB,
I think that the definition is a good one and helping people to become like Christ would mean that the leader would need to work on his own Christlike-ness first so that he/she can help people follow Jesus as he/she has already set as an example.

Mara,
Excellent observations!

gengwall,
Funny I have never read any of your comments as “divisive” so I can’t imagine why people would think that about you. I guess it is just a case where people are already convinced of their view and they take a dim view of anyone who might bring a view that threatens the soundness of their own view. Unfortunately it appears to be human nature to harden the heart to anything that is truth outside of our own comfortable view. It is sad.

Thanks for the link A. Amos Love. He has a good point that I have been showing here for years in that we need to pay attention to the grammar. The singular and plural must not be disregarded.

A. Amos Love,
You must mean “Oh what a fool am I”?

Mark,
You said:

As you are all aware i have been slow in response and the comments here seem to reflect that i am avoiding answering questions, thus my view is terrible, i treat women unfairly.

I think we can understand the slowness when you tell us how busy you are. I have had such times of busyness myself that I wondered if I ever had time for this blog. Often I haven’t posted here until between 1 am and 3 am because that was the only free time I had. So I do understand and am compassionate with someone who is busy.

However the failure to address the issues was concerning to me along with an apparent misunderstanding of my own questions and/or answers. Perhaps you just read the words too quickly and that was a cause for misunderstanding. However with all of this, I don’t think we could say that you treat women unfairly. I for one don’t know how you treat women. Some have a biased and prejudiced view of women (I am not talking about you) yet they never act of this prejudice. How you actually act out your view is not altogether clear. We can know what you believe by your defense of your position, but we haven’t heard how you practice living out that position so it would be unwise for us to assume that you are unfair to women.

I think it would be a very good thing to go through each of the questions, the rephrased questions and additions questions brought up by your answers and try to answer each point. I do think your idea would be helpful. Also answering one at a time is helpful to keep us focused on that one question.

I look forward to your comments and hearing the answers to the questions that you have not yet addressed. Thanks!

TL,

I have prayed for you that you will be restored to health. At least you are not in the cold as we are. It is unseasonably cold here and the electrical system is overloaded as many heat their homes with electricity. The electricity has gone out several times the last couple of days so I haven’t been able to be on line much. It is very frustrating.

gengwall,
I also couldn’t understand the statement either. Couldn’t make head nor tales out of it so I just kept silent. I thought there was probably more intelligent people than myself out there who could figure it out 😉

The problem with MacArthur is that he thinks he has a quick solution so he isn’t looking further. And while many men will agree that Adam wasn’t deceived, they are quick to say “by the serpent”. Many believe that Eve seduced or deceived Adam so he was deceived by the woman but not the serpent. But Paul said that Adam was not deceived. He was not deceived by the serpent and he was not deceived by the woman. He simply was not deceived. That means that Adam knew the truth and this fact is necessary to understand the treachery that he was accused of by God. He abandoned his watch and did nothing for his beloved wife when she was being harmed. But if men are able to pass the blame to Eve – that she deceived Adam – then they can still look up to Adam as a hero of sorts. That he was the designated male who was to rule the woman. Men today are being deceived by the original liar.

Kay said:

Mark wrote: “10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?”

Why would Mark ask this question? What does it matter to him, which doctrine Cheryl is teaching? -because according to him she isn’t supposed to be teaching any doctrine in ‘formal church’ anyway.
Looks like a smoke screen to me.

The way I take it, it seems to me that Mark is hinting that I will be punished for teaching especially teaching women that they may use their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. Can you imagine that? I teach people to follow Jesus and use their gifts for His glory. I teach women that when God gifts them, He has also given the authority to serve the body with their gifts and apparently according to Mark, God is going to punish me for that. Perhaps even send me to hell for encouraging women to serve the Lord Jesus without paying attention to man-made tradition?

I just shake my head in amazement at men who think that women who teach the truth of God’s word will be punished because they are women. What should we do about that?

Romans 14:16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;

We are not to let our good works be spoken of as evil. We speak out in a gentle and respectful way as we speak the truth with love.

Under question #10 I asked:

If Adam was a leader of his wife, then he would have to be called to account for his failed “role” as a leader. Eve also would have to be called to account for failing to follow her “leader”. Did Eve get chastised for failing to follow Adam?

Once again you completely failed to address my questions. Instead of answering these questions you said:

10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?

We are each accountable for what we do, but we are not accountable for what others do. I will certainly be held accountable for the use of my gifts along with the teaching that I do, but please tell me how do you connect that together with being accountable for your wife? Where do you get that from the Scriptures?

You said:

a. Also you said “And no, Adam does not name her until sin enters the world. God names her “woman” first (Genesis 2:22) and Adam merely confirms that she is his uniquely own flesh and bone hence the God-term of “woman”.”
Really Cheryl? Where is it recorded that God call her ‘woman’ and not Adam. You say 2:22 but its not there.

You have twisted my words and claimed something that I did not say. I did not say that God called her woman. God named her woman. That is what I said. I have no idea of what God actually “called” her by name as the Scripture is silent on that. The fact is that Genesis 2:22 shows that she was namedwoman before Adam affirmed her as his flesh and blood. Would you please deal with this and answer it? How do you get Adam taking authority over Eve by his agreeing that she was “woman” as his own flesh and blood? Where does Adam or God say that this was an act of “leadership” instead of an acceptance of her very nature?

It says God made a woman not that God called her woman.

Honestly Mark, I think that you must just take what I write and it goes right over your head. Why else would you misrepresent me? The fact is that God created a “woman”. Do you agree?

When Adam speaks in verse 23 he names her ‘woman’ “she shall be called woman”. So Adam’s naming is pre-fall not as a result of his sinful nature to dominate her.

“Woman” is not her name. And God has already created her as “woman” so Adam’s recognizing that fact cannot be used to create an authority over her that isn’t there. God never tells Adam to take authority over Eve. Why?

In fact he gives her a glorious honouring name after the fall. There is no indication that her naming is due to sinful domination.

The fact is that Adam agrees that she is the mother of the living (in contrast to him being the father of the dying). However his “naming” her Eve after the fall cannot be used to prove his authority over her before the fall. The fact that he took sinful domination over her after the fall is undisputed. Even comp writers will agree to that. Whether Adam’s “naming” her Eve is a sinful act of not is not the issue here. The fact is that he didn’t “name” her before the fall so it cannot be used to prove that God’s plan was for Adam to have an authority over Eve. Can you prove otherwise?

“Give me just one verse that says that a husband has leadership over his wife.”
Simply Eph 5:22-23. Again you dismiss these type of passages because of the debate on ‘head’ but honestly how is the husband the source of his wife. Why is headship and submission related back to Christ and the church if it is only about ‘sourceness”. Makes absolutely no sense

So you have shown that there is not a single passage that says the husband is to take authority over the wife. And you make “head of” to mean “authority over“. Adam is the source of Eve. Is that disputed? How can a husband be the “head of” his wife in the time that this was written? By sacrificing for her and supplying as the source of her nourishment. He feeds her and cares for her as he does his own body. How is this same passage applicable today? The husband can still be the source of his wife by sacrificing to give her everything that she needs so that she can use her gifts without restriction and thus he lifts her up.

My husband has sacrificed for me and he has stood up for me when men tried to silence me. My husband has acted as a source of supply to open the door for me whenever he could so that I was allowed without hindrance to serve God. He became to me a source of encouragement and a source of life as one who lays down his life for his wife so that she (me) can bloom.

In what way have you sacrificed so that your wife can be all she can be in the Lord? What doors have you opened for her to serve that others tried to shut in her face? In what way have you lifted her up when she needed someone to speak on her behalf to stop someone from being prejudiced against her? How did you make sure that she could serve the Lord Jesus in every way that He has gifted and called her? Or have you made sure that she knows her place? Have you made sure that the doors are shut for her so that she cannot go through them? Where is a husband ever told to stop a wife from serving the Lord?

Finally regarding Hosea 6:7. You said that God calls Adam’s sin treacherous, but have failed to show 1 verse which explicitly has God saying ‘Adam’s sin was treacherous. The prophecy is targeted at Israel not Adam, so to emphasise Adam as the primary interest is wrong. A comparision is simply made to the covenant breaking of both Adam and Israel.

I didn’t say that Adam was the primary interest. I said that Adam’s sin is called treachery in Hosea 6:7. When Israel’s terrible unfaithfulness is compared to Adam’s sin, they are said to have sinned with treachery just as Adam did. Now can you please explain why the terrible sin of Israel is compared to Adam’s sin? Why are both called treacherous acts? Why do you ignore Adam’s sin as treacherous? Why do you equate Eve’s sin as equal to Adam’s sin? Is it because Adam must be lifted up in the eyes of complementarians in order to “prove” a male leadership in creation? Is it right to downplay the treachery of Adam in order to promote him as “leader”? How is it that God would take the treacherous one and make him the ruler over the woman? If he failed her before he ate the fruit, then how could God have confirmed a “leadership” and “authority” of the man over the woman after the fall?

I am not thrilled that we waited so long for you to answer but you have ignored almost all of my questions. Are you ever planning to actually answer the questions? If the comp position stands strong, it will not be by ignoring the hard questions. The truth is willing to answer questions no matter how hard they are. Error tends to skip over the hard questions because error is afraid. I trust that you are one who has a good heart which follows hard after the Lord Jesus. I encourage you to use that good heart to answer the questions without fear.

Mark,
Under question #9 You had originally said “The curses show who is MORE responsible for the fall.”

I answered:

Says who? Where does God say that the man is MORE responsible for the fall? Since sin comes through the man alone, and sin does not come through the woman, then the buck stops with him and she has no responsibility not less responsibility for bringing sin into the world. I know that you know the Scriptures well about that sin comes through 1 man, not one man and a little bit through the woman.

You had said that Adam was more responsible for his own sin and I answered your comments and asked further questions:

So the serpent had a higher role given by God that made him more responsible? What is Adam held more accountable for? His own sin? Is Adam more accountable for his own sin than Eve is for her own sin?

You also said “There is no mention of God distinguishing between a moderate sin (Eve) and a bad sin (Adam)” and I answered and questioned you with this:

Really? Treachery is not a bad sin? Being deceived in ignorance is on the same level as Adam’s sin? Then why did Paul say that those who sinned in ignorance (himself) could receive mercy while those who sinned wilfully (the lying false teachers) were to be kicked out of the church? Does God really ignore the heart and judge all sin alike? Is this the message you want us all to know about God?

It appears that once again you have not answered almost all of my questions. Why?

You said:
9. Gen 1-3 shows male headship in the following ways. Adam is made first. Eve is made from Adam and for Adam. Adam names his wife. Adam is addressed first. The curse because of Adam affects all of creation. Adam bears the primary resposibilty for the fall. Paul uses Gen to prove male headship in two of his argument (1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2).

All you have done is presented a claim to leadership that is never claimed in the Bible. Paul does not say that Adam is leader because he was created first. Where do you get that from? You also say that “Adam bears the primary responsibility for the fall” when I questioned you where you got that from? Adam never bears “primary” responsibility but the full responsibility. Once again you have merely by-passed by questions. I wonder if you are even seeing the questions, or if you are to busy to pay attention? Why would you consistently evade the questions and give facts that have no bearing on leadership? The Bible never ever states that the first one is to be the leader. King David was the last child, not the first. What’s with that if the Bible principle is that the first is the designated leader?

Now you said “Does God really ignore the heart and judge all sin alike?”

My response is absolutely! “No one is righteous, not one”.

You are bypassing my question AGAIN! We are not dealing with righteousness, but how God judges between sins. What you are claiming about God is that He has no interest in our heart…that He judges deception the same as rebellion. You, my friend, have misrepresented God. Perhaps you would like to answer these Scriptures.

Matthew 10:15 “Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

Joh 15:22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

Joh 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

Act 17:30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Jas 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

1Ch 28:9 “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I could go on and on about God looking on the heart and the intentions of the heart, but I think these verses should suffice. How do you answer the Scriptures where God judges the heart and the intentions?

None of us deserve anything from God except punishment- this is the gospel.

You are going off topic. The issue is not about deserving good things from God, but about the punishment for sin and the differences between different motives. Did God judge differently between Adam and Eve’s sin or not? What will you do with all the Scriptures where God says that he deals differently with ignorance than with rebellion? Why do you deny that God is fair and just in this way? Why do you wish to uphold the righteousness of Adam as “leader” and want to make Eve to have part of bringing sin into the world when the Scripture is clear that she had no part and Adam bore the blame alone?

Mark,

Under Question #8, you again have failed to answer my questions. Why? Here is what I asked:

Please give the verse that says that “the man” had a “leadership position”. Please give the verse that says that God “dwelt” with Adam and Eve in the garden. Please do not ignore my questions. I would like Scriptural proof, not your opinion.

We are the temple of God, but the garden of Eden is never called a temple. Can you please give scriptural proof that the garden was the “temple” of God?

After not answering my questions, you responded this way:

8. You seem to be implying that sin done in ‘ignorance’ is not as bad as rebellious sin. And i know you use 1 Tim 1:13 as your proof text. However Paul identifies himself as the ‘worst’ of sinners in verse 15.

God looks at the heart and Paul himself said that sin done in ignorance is eligible for mercy. The fact that Paul said that he was the ‘worst’ of sinners does not mean that Paul contradicted himself. Rather being the ‘worst’ of sinner is because of the deed not the heart intent. Paul put Christians to death. This is a very bad sin. But Paul also said that he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. So the sin itself was very bad, but God judged Paul’s heart and because Paul did the sinful deed ignorantly and in unbelief, Paul found mercy from God.

God Himself always looks at the heart. He does not see the deed done without also seeing the intent and God judges in a righteous way by judging both the deed and the heart.

It is God Himself who judges that sin done in ignorance is not as bad as sin done willfully. In fact in the Hebrew willful rebellion against God is called sinning with a high hand. There is no sacrifice given for sinning with a high hand.

Therefore according to your definition of sin, and if you are going to be consistent then since Paul is the ‘worst’ and he was deceived, wouldn’t that make Eve’s sin worse than Adam’s since her’s was deception. So is sin done in deception worse or not?

You have confused the sin with the intent. Sin done in deception is not worse than willful rebellion. You err because you have not understood the Scriptures on God’s separation of sin and the heart.

Your argument falls to pieces here because Paul as a deceived sinner calls himself the worst. I think you have a wrong understanding of sin.

Not only have you not deal with 1 Timothy 1:13-14 but you completely contradict God’s Word on the seriousness of willful rebellion. I have put the passages together so that they do not contradict, but your view has to ignore Paul’s words on ignorance and in contradiction to the Scriptures you make all sin to be the same. My friend, I can only assume that it is you yourself who have a completely wrong understanding of sin.

Under your answer to question #7 (which was originally my question #6) I asked:

We have inherited the sin of rebellion through Adam, but there is no place in the bible that states that Eve’s sin was rebellion. She is only ever credited with sinning through deception. You are only giving your opinion that Eve had to be expelled to stop her from eating from the fruit. This is not biblical proof but only your opinion. Do you have any proof?

The Bible doesn’t say that sin corrupted Eve’s nature. If her nature was corrupted, then why did Jesus come through the woman and only the woman? Why was no man allowed to be the father of Jesus?

You answered:

7. Now Eve is a sinner. Paul explains that as a sinner we are dead(eph 2:1) spiritually and physically.

The Bible never calls Eve a “sinner” as if she continued practicing sin. It says that she fell into transgression. If she had a sin nature of rebellion, why does the Bible never say so? Why does her rebellion then never pass on to her children?

Therefore we are in rebellion to God, because death is the punishment for sin.

Eve’s death was the result of eating the poison – the fruit that had no life that was forbidden for her to eat. However never once is she said to have been “in rebellion” to God. If I have missed something please show me a verse that says that she was in rebellion. The sin nature that is passed on from Adam to all of us does not affect Eve. If you believe it does, please show me how Eve could have inherited Adam’s sin nature?

Paul also explains that none seek God, none can understand God and that all have turned away (Rom 3:10ff). Now Cheryl, is Eve included in this?

No. First of all the quote from Romans 3 is taken from the OT where it says that the fool says in his heart there is no God. No fool seeks for God. All of them turn away from God. But there are many God-fearing people who did seek for God and Eve is not one who was said to be a rebellious person against God Himself.

If so how can you continually claim that Eve is not a threat as a sinner and is able to obey God as a sinner without the help of the Spirit.

Show me where Eve is said to be a “sinner”? Where is she said to have a sin nature?

She couldn’t even obey him as sinless, yet you hold that she can as a sinner when we know that sin is complete rebellion to God.

She didn’t obey God because she was deceived. Paul said that even sinners (he includes himself) can sin ignorantly. It is not true that all sin is complete rebellion to God. How do you answer Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 1:13, 14?

Do you hold to Pelagianism which taught that it was possible to obey God without the help of the Spirit?

God clearly wants us to obey him and He is willing to work on behalf of everyone who will respond to the call of repentance that he provides to everyone.

I respectfully ask you not to make my blog an argument about Calvinism. This is an issue of women in ministry and God’s work in His women through gift thing, empowering them and sending them to be obedient to Him. Any offshoot argument is not appropriate here. I assure you that I am not a heretic or a Pelagian and we can just leave it at that.

Under #6 Question I asked something completely different than you answered. It looks like you got #6 mixed up with #7. So we will fix that up in the next comment field. Regarding your “answer” to a question here is what you said:

It is no surprise that if one dismisses the passages restricting the roles of women in the church, then of course there is nothing to stop them. However i think the texts are pretty clear and do give ‘witness’ to women not teaching. (now i think my numbers are muddled up…hope you can follow)

Who is dismissing the passages that seem to restrict women from teaching or even speaking in the assembly? No one here is dismissing them. We are taking the inspired words and the inspired grammar and taking the full context to understand the passages. Once one takes the context and the grammar, then the importance of my questions are understood.

However I find you very befuddling. You say that the hard passages on women are “clear” yet you have refused to answer many of the questions that would show how your “clear” understanding distorts the texts themselves. You also say that it is not a sin for women to teach even in the church and now you are once again that there is a “witness” of the texts to women not teaching. So what is it going to be? Are women allowed to teach or not? If they can teach in the church, how many times can they teach before it becomes a sin? Please do answer because your appeal to the text is “unclear”.

Mark,
Under question #5 I asked,

5. Homosexuality is a “thou shalt not” command. Where does God ever say to women “thou shalt not” teach the truths of God’s word?

You completely ignored my questions and answered this way:

5. No i don’t think single men are excluded from the pastoral office. If this is your strongest argument to support women pastors it is weak. The majority of men were married in Paul’s day, so it isn’t a surprise to see him addressing the majority situation. We know it is not a sin more a single man, because we have the example of Paul himself.

So while not answering my question, you dealt with single men here, let me ask how you can ignore the “must be the husband of one wife” and force that to mean that women are not allowed to do the work of an overseer, while single men are? If you are going to take the “must be” as a quality of character then you cannot use it to disallow a woman because that is prejudice. It is not a weak argument at all. It is an argument showing the prejudice of men. Now if you would just as strongly disallow single men as doing the work of an overseer, then at least you would not be prejudiced against women in favor of males. Unfortunately it is your argument that is weak as an argument that has women being in sin for doing the work of an overseer.

Paul isn’t addressing the “majority” of men because he said “must”. The fact is that Paul is stating a moral characteristic which fits both men and women. The moral characteristic is faithfulness.

So I would like to ask a question regarding the “majority” of men as married. What is it in the passage that would allow for men to be free to do the work of an overseer without being married? What language in the text do you use for that exception?

Mark,
Regarding question #4,

You answered:

4. Cheryl, i would encourage you to look at the way that ‘presbyter’ and episcopos are used interchangeably in the NT because you said this
   “Eph. 4:11 does not mention elders. An overseer is something that someone “strives” for. A “pastor” is a spiritual gift given to whomever the Lord wills.”

You seem to be contradicting me, but are you going to agree that Ephesians 4:11 gives the onus of the gift to the Holy Spirit? Is it not true that Ephesians 4:11 says that “pastor” is a gift given?

Now I see that you have once again completely ignored my questions. I showed you that there is not two or three witnesses that forbid women to teach the Bible to men. I asked you:

Please explain how 1 Tim. 2:12 qualifies as a universal witness and how 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 not even speaking about teaching but about commanding of complete silence can be God’s law? Where is the law that it references?

You ignored my questions from question #4 to talk about elders. Why did you do that? Are you unable to answer my questions? Please Mark, I ask you to answer my questions as they are very important questions. It is vital to have two or three witnesses to establish a doctrine of sin.

In Acts 20 Paul addresses elders (v. 17) and bishops (v.28) and they are obviously the same group of men. Peter writes to ‘presbyters’ urging them to ‘fulfill the office of bishops’ (1 Peter 5:1-2). Titus 1:5, 7 refers to elders and bishops interchangeably. Now since elders are to oversee (bishop) and shepherd the flock (pastor) it is easy to see that pastors are elders who’s primary responsibility is to teach. They are the same thing, only the Catholic church adopted a wrong interpretation to give rise to the papacy. Surely you don’t agree with them?

Acts 20 establishes that the Holy Spirit is the One who makes people overseers. Can you please explain why men want to hold back those who have been established as overseers? Those who were given the approval as elders were already doing the work as elders. No one is “made” an elder so that they now must become one. Rather those who take the lead by example are those who are gifted and called and desire the work of being an overseer. Do you disagree that the Holy Spirit and not man is the One who empowers a person to do the work of oversight?

gengwall,
Yes, it is an issue of cross-threading again, however there is one issue that does fit. It is hard to know what to do since Mark rarely shows up and has already said that he won’t be around much for the next couple of months.

Perhaps I can leave the questions here for Mark as I already linked where they were originally posted over to this thread. The rest of us can discuss the issue of Adam until Mark shows up again. At that time, I will likely create a new post for Mark’s answers, our questions, his answers, etc, etc. So since Mark’s claims that the issue of women in ministry comes from Adam’s preeminence before the fall and that Adam and Eve were both kicked out of the garden, I think we can get away with a little diversion while we (mostly) deal with the Adam only question. If for some reason we cannot keep on topic, anyone can suggest again that we start a new post.

Mark,
Concerning Question #3. I asked you where the Bible says that only elders could teach? I also asked you if single men are in sin for being pastors? You did not answer these questions. I would like you to answer the questions, please.

Let’s see what you did answer:

3. Acts 20 show the responsibility of Elders. They are overseers, they have to keep watch and gurad against false teachers by knowing proper doctrine.

Well, it is interesting that not only is the work of an overseer something that all may strive to according to 1 Timothy 3:1, but also the chapter that you reference above (Acts 20) shows that it is the Holy Spirit who who is the one who makes people overseers.

Act 20:28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

When we desire the work of an overseer, it is the Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to do the work as He enables. This is why women can be apologists who work hard at doctrine and the defense of the faith and who expose the lies of the cults and the aberrant movements coming into the church. This is my job. I work hard to protect people and many pastors have come to me for help. Are you now telling us that only men may protect the church and only men may work hard at the teaching of doctrine and exposing error?? Are you telling me that I am in sin because I have been gifted by the Holy Spirit and called into a ministry of protecting the church and teaching doctrine?

You said:

1 Tim 3 is interesting because all the ‘qualifications’ for a elder except for one are personal characteristics. The one exception is that they be ‘able to teach’- a very important responsibility.

1 Timothy 3 is about the work of an overseer (1 Timothy 3:1) and the ability to teach is a very important responsibility. It is a gift given by the Holy Spirit to both men and women. Are you saying that “able to teach” is restricted to men?

Now someone said that the masculine pronouns mean nothing because the bible uses them to refer generically. I totally agree that the bible does such a thing. Interesting though, why isn’t femine pronouns used for generic humanity- is this a hint of the resposibilty of men.

You are “hinting” that men alone are responsible, but that isn’t true. Secondly language comes from a patriarchal society and we do not get “godly hints” from language that God wants only men to teach or protect the flock. This is an extremely weak argument and it presupposes that God should not gift women at certain things because they are “male” only gifts. This is not Biblical.

Now in relation to how this fits 1 Tim 3 lets look closer. We know it can’t mean generic me and women who can be elders because of the various qualifications. For example they are to have ‘one wife’.

Of this disqualifies women and single men, then you have a lot of problems. Do you join any movement that comes against single men as elders and overseers? Do you see them as being in sin?

Also women were Deacons in the early church yet the exact same “qualification” relates to a deacon. How do you explain this?

The “personal qualifications” are rather that of faithfulness to one’s spouse if one is married.

To add to this by verse 11 we are introduced the ‘the women likewise’ which is a clear indication that the verse above are to relate ONLY to men. It is most definitely not generic. Cheryl, i meant 1 Tim 5:17 not 5:7. I apologise for the error.

On the contrary, the “women likewise” shows that the women are NOT to be excluded from the preceding words. The Holy Spirit is showing that women who desire to do the work of an overseer are not missed out. Women must also be faithful spouses and may do the work of an overseer with their qualifications as also personal faithful and upright qualifications. The “women likewise” is a problem to the complementarian position because it says that women are not exempt from 3:1 “desiring to do the work of an overseer”. It supports the egal position and makes the comp position very hard to maintain.

So I will ask you to answer the questions again. Are males who are unmarried sinning against God if they become overseers? Are “women likewise” also allowed to do the work of an overseer as 1 Tim. 3:1 allows? If not, why not? How could we hold back a woman as being in sin but not hold back a single man as being in sin? Please answer these questions, Mark and do not ignore them as you have as they are very, very important questions to us.

MarK,
On question #2, I said:

You asked me to prove that Eve was not kicked out. How can I prove something that doesn’t exist? I showed you that there is no evidence to prove that she was kicked out of the garden and I asked you to prove that she was kicked out. I am still waiting for your answer.

Your answer was this:

2. So as to not beat a dead horse about whether Eve was kicked out i will not comment extensively about it since the rest of you are engaging in that debate.

Now I find your non-answer here very interesting. Susanna seemed to think that my position might open up a door for a comp to see more authority for Adam, but your comment makes me think that you are agreeing with all of Susanna’s views thus using her viewpoint to prove your comp view. Is this true?

Mark,
Regarding question #1 my continuing questions to you asked:

Let me take this a step further. How many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin.

You did not answer my questions. I am not concerned that men and women can teach each other in “various ways”. I am asking about a gift of teaching the Bible for the benefit of the body. Since you say that women may teach men, I am asking how many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin? Would you please answer the questions that I actually ask instead of answering questions that I am not asking? I think that my questions are appropriate because God does gift His women with the ability to teach His Word. I am asking questions about how that can possibly be a source of sin.

Okay that was a restatement of question #1. Please, Mark, I would really like an answer to my questions especially on #1.

Here are Mark’s answers that he posted over at the other post and I will be answering his “answers” on this post as the other one is already well over 400 comments long. My answer will likely come in pieces as I deal with each one of Mark’s 10 comments.

I want to just respond back to the 10 questions Cheryl asked me to answer.
1. I have said all along that men and women teach each other in various ways. So for example if a woman prays or prophecies (in the spiritual gift of the NT) sense then of course she will ‘teach’ a man something. However the office of elder should only be held by men. That was my point.
2. So as to not beat a dead horse about whether Eve was kicked out i will not comment extensively about it since the rest of you are engaging in that debate.
3. Acts 20 show the responsibility of Elders. They are overseers, they have to keep watch and gurad against false teachers by knowing proper doctrine. 1 Tim 3 is interesting because all the ‘qualifications’ for a elder except for one are personal characteristics. The one exception is that they be ‘able to teach’- a very important responsibility. Now someone said that the masculine pronouns mean nothing because the bible uses them to refer generically. I totally agree that the bible does such a thing. Interesting though, why isn’t femine pronouns used for generic humanity- is this a hint of the resposibilty of men. Now in relation to how this fits 1 Tim 3 lets look closer. We know it can’t mean generic me and women who can be elders because of the various qualifications. For example they are to have ‘one wife’. To add to this by verse 11 we are introduced the ‘the women likewise’ which is a clear indication that the verse above are to relate ONLY to men. It is most definitely not generic. Cheryl, i meant 1 Tim 5:17 not 5:7. I apologise for the error.
4. Cheryl, i would encourage you to look at the way that ‘presbyter’ and episcopos are used interchangeably in the NT because you said this
“Eph. 4:11 does not mention elders. An overseer is something that someone “strives” for. A “pastor” is a spiritual gift given to whomever the Lord wills.”

In Acts 20 Paul addresses elders (v. 17) and bishops (v.28) and they are obviously the same group of men. Peter writes to ‘presbyters’ urging them to ‘fulfill the office of bishops’ (1 Peter 5:1-2). Titus 1:5, 7 refers to elders and bishops interchangeably. Now since elders are to oversee (bishop) and shepherd the flock (pastor) it is easy to see that pastors are elders who’s primary responsibility is to teach. They are the same thing, only the Catholic church adopted a wrong interpretation to give rise to the papacy. Surely you don’t agree with them?
5. No i don’t think single men are excluded from the pastoral office. If this is your strongest argument to support women pastors it is weak. The majority of men were married in Paul’s day, so it isn’t a surprise to see him addressing the majority situation. We know it is not a sin more a single man, because we have the example of Paul himself.
6. It is no surprise that if one dismisses the passages restricting the roles of women in the church, then of course there is nothing to stop them. However i think the texts are pretty clear and do give ‘witness’ to women not teaching. (now i think my numbers are muddled up…hope you can follow)
7. Now Eve is a sinner. Paul explains that as a sinner we are dead(eph 2:1) spiritually and physically. Therefore we are in rebellion to God, because death is the punishment for sin. Paul also explains that none seek God, none can understand God and that all have turned away (Rom 3:10ff). Now Cheryl, is Eve included in this? If so how can you continually claim that Eve is not a threat as a sinner and is able to obey God as a sinner without the help of the Spirit. She couldn’t even obey him as sinless, yet you hold that she can as a sinner when we know that sin is complete rebellion to God. Do you hold to Pelagianism which taught that it was possible to obey God without the help of the Spirit?
8. You seem to be implying that sin done in ‘ignorance’ is not as bad as rebellious sin. And i know you use 1 Tim 1:13 as your proof text. However Paul identifies himself as the ‘worst’ of sinners in verse 15. Therefore according to your definition of sin, and if you are going to be consistent then since Paul is the ‘worst’ and he was deceived, wouldn’t that make Eve’s sin worse than Adam’s since her’s was deception. So is sin done in deception worse or not? Your argument falls to pieces here because Paul as a deceived sinner calls himself the worst. I think you have a wrong understanding of sin.
9. Gen 1-3 shows male headship in the following ways. Adam is made first. Eve is made from Adam and for Adam. Adam names his wife. Adam is addressed first. The curse because of Adam affects all of creation. Adam bears the primary resposibilty for the fall. Paul uses Gen to prove male headship in two of his argument (1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2).
Now you said “Does God really ignore the heart and judge all sin alike?”

My response is absolutely! “No one is righteous, not one”. “the wages of sin is death”. The human heart is utterly corrupt- how can you not see this in scripture. “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. None of us deserve anything from God except punishment- this is the gospel. But thanks be to God that he would sacrifice His Son to redeem his lost people. Are people essentially good or have a good heart in your view? The only reason we can do anything to give glory to God is because he enables us to do it through the Spirit.
10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?
a. Also you said “And no, Adam does not name her until sin enters the world. God names her “woman” first (Genesis 2:22) and Adam merely confirms that she is his uniquely own flesh and bone hence the God-term of “woman”.”
Really Cheryl? Where is it recorded that God call her ‘woman’ and not Adam. You say 2:22 but its not there. It says God made a woman not that God called her woman. When Adam speaks in verse 23 he names her ‘woman’ “she shall be called woman”. So Adam’s naming is pre-fall not as a result of his sinful nature to dominate her. In fact he gives her a glorious honouring name after the fall. There is no indication that her naming is due to sinful domination.
“Give me just one verse that says that a husband has leadership over his wife.”
Simply Eph 5:22-23. Again you dismiss these type of passages because of the debate on ‘head’ but honestly how is the husband the source of his wife. Why is headship and submission related back to Christ and the church if it is only about ‘sourceness”. Makes absolutely no sense

Finally regarding Hosea 6:7. You said that God calls Adam’s sin treacherous, but have failed to show 1 verse which explicitly has God saying ‘Adam’s sin was treacherous. The prophecy is targeted at Israel not Adam, so to emphasise Adam as the primary interest is wrong. A comparision is simply made to the covenant breaking of both Adam and Israel.

My error, I just see that Mark has put comments on the other post. I will have a look at his answers at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/#comments Perhaps we can respond to his answers here as the other post has so many comments already.

Hey Mark,
The fact is that comps don’t want to dialog with us not because we don’t “understand the teaching” but because we ask questions they can’t respond to. Many of us (if not the majority) used to be complementarians so we do understand the teaching and what was expected of us. Perhaps what you really mean is that we don’t understand the “heart” of men complementarians. If that is what you meant, then yes, no one can see another person’s heart. The motive is hidden from us but the fruit that we see can be tested and no matter how badly comps treat us we certainly should not say that we know exactly what each one does things. None of us certainly know your heart and you don’t know ours either. It is by the grace of God that we can love one another even while we are in the other “camp”. It is only because of Jesus that dwells in each of us.

Personally I try not to make general statements about the problems of men’s lust for power yet still I can’t get a comp to dialog with me either. So what’s the problem? I can’t help thinking that when we ask the hard questions that really do need answering, they aren’t comfortable in answering. Perhaps it is because it might mean that they would have to look rethink their own position to answer the questions. It is difficult for many to rethink their own position because people’s positions are often made with long held cherished beliefs and they are not up for discussion.

The fact is that this statement is absolutely true: “And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.”

Now men who don’t lust for power or authority over women don’t even bat an eye lid because it doesn’t refer to them. It isn’t about all comps or all men. It is about those who lust for things that place them in a rulership position over others. Why would that statement be offensive? Perhaps there are other men here who could help me. You are men too. Did the above statement come across as attacking all men?

The other statement was about manipulating the Bible to keep power. Perhaps it is a statement of frustration because we have asked comps to please show us where Adam had authority over Eve since this is what they claim. None of them ever gives a Biblical answer but only gives statements that they do not back up with the Bible. Why is that? What would be the reason to claim that something is Biblical and then refuse to answer the question of where in the Genesis account it is shown?

So just for the record, I am going to stick my neck out and answer the suggestion that women here (and all evangelical egalitarians) think that all complementarians lust for power and manipulate and downgrade women. Not all comps are like that. Some are gentle respectful comps who have no desire to take rulership over anyone. They are comps only because their conscience compels them to believe that this is what the Bible says, but they do not personally practice shutting women up or stifling them or taking authority over them.

Yet for those who follow the complementarian way from their heart and they love what the doctrine tells them about men’s unique rights to have and use the gifts that God gives them, then women can be easily downgraded and the Bible can be used as a weapon against women to force women to be silent about their Biblical arguments and their Biblical questions about our equality.

I think this is because the complementarian way is not really complementarian. It is separation and division. Men are given the privilege of having and using every spiritual gift but women have the wall built in front of them. They are not allowed in most comp camps to teach men in a Bible study. They are also not allowed in most comp camps to use their gift of pastor and they must stifle the Holy Spirit within them to listen to the complementarian rules. This hurts women and divides the body against their gifts. It also hurts and grieves the Holy Spirit when His gifts are disregarded.

So for the comp men who come here, I think that it isn’t so much a dialog that we are looking for but for them to get real and deal with honest-hearted questions like the ones that we have asked from Genesis. When comps refuse to answer the questions the red flags go up in our minds. We wonder why they cannot or will not answer the questions?

Also this blog is about Christianity and equality as Christians not worldly feminism. I do not use the term feminism because it has too much baggage. If you look on the side bar, I have been willing to take on some of the errors of “feminism” when there has been arguments that go beyond what the Bible says. This blog is about Biblical truth and I am willing to speak out against error from either camp because I believe we all need truth. When we embrace truth we can be assured that we are on the right road.

So I am wondering if you are going to answer the questions that I have posed with my comments to your answers that I gave to you on the other post? If you are busy but intend to answer, just let me know. If you don’t want to answer my questions then it would be good to have a reason why the questions are not worthy of being answered. But please do not use anyones frustration with men who lust for power as a reason not to answer the questions. Just be graceful with your sisters in Christ who have been hurt by men who have treated them in an un-Christlike fashion.

In other words, the quote from God was “Where are you?” The quote did not include “human” or “man” or “Adam”. It was simply “Where are you?” (singular). It is a point well taken.

Last thing that Paul says about Adam is in 1 Cor. 15. “In Adam” all die.

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Now let’s take a look at Genesis to see where Paul got all of this information.

The curse on the earth comes directly because of Adam’s sin.

Gen 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
Gen 3:18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”

This is judgment and condemnation because of the one man. God says “because” Adam listened to the voice of his wife (his silent listening was the watchman doing nothing) and then the designated watchman on the wall not only failed to sound the alarm but also openly participated in a rebellious act. Because of this act, God has pronounced judgment on the whole earth because of the one man’s sin.

The next question is how the “one man’s disobedience” affected him. These are the verses under dispute in Genesis 3.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”–
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Is God’s reaction to Adam a sign that Adam now has a sin nature that makes him untrustworthy? The fact that God drives only the man out of the garden shows that he possesses a rebellious sin nature that will be passed on to us. If Eve had been designated as a rebellious sinner and was also removed from the garden because of her propensity to sin, then Paul could not say the words he said about Adam. Paul could not say that it was the transgression of the one man.

Paul has identified that it is the transgression of the one man and this corresponds with the identification of Adam’s sin as treachery in Hosea 6:7. Adam’s rebellious sin was an act of treachery that brought sin into the world and we were all condemned “in” Adam.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that Adam’s sin was worthy of condemnation. Adam’s expulsion from the garden was a result of his rebellious nature and his punishment to work by the sweat of his brow was a condemnation because of his treachery.

It was Adam and Adam alone who was the father of all dying. In contrast it was Eve who was the mother of all living. Through Eve would come the Messiah who would be the faithful watchman who would sacrifice Himself to protect and save us. He was the last Adam who succeeded where the first Adam failed. Jesus became the victor and the one who purchased back what the first Adam lost.

Those who point to Adam as a designated “ruler” and “leader” of the woman have completely failed to recognize that Adam’s place is not one of honor but one of disgrace. God did not designate the one who was unfaithful as a watchman to now be a sole “ruler” intended to take control of his wife. Instead of obeying God’s design for the man to be loving and sacrificing for his wife, Adam practiced his sin nature by ruling over her as a controller and dictator. It was Adam alone who sinned in rebellion and Adam alone had a condemnation upon him as the only one who had the nature that would cause him to continue to practice his rebellion.

If we take the Genesis account as it is written and understand that it is Adam alone who experienced a condemnation from God as a rebellious traitor, then Paul’s words about the one man who brought sin into the world fits perfectly.

The next thing that we note from Paul is that death “reigned” through the “one”:

Romans 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

How did death reign? It was through one transgression and this transgression resulted in condemnation to all.

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Lastly Paul says that it is one man’s disobedience that resulted in our being made sinners.

Romans 5:19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

So we will be looking for the disobedience of the one and the condemnation of the one that Paul referenced. Where is it found?

I am off to a funeral now so I won’t be able to finish this until later.

Paul doesn’t just call Adam’s sin as “the offense of Adam” but he also says that it is the “transgression of the one”:

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

So there is a transgression of the “one” (just one) and because of this transgression of the “one” there is a judgment that came about.

Romans 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

So from “the one” came “one” transgression and this “one” transgression resulted in “condemnation”. Where will we find this information in the Old Testament? What does the Scripture say?

The next thing that we learn from Paul is that there is a specific offense of “Adam” (the one man).

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Notice here that Paul says that death came from Adam even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam had sinned. What is the offense of Adam that is different than the offense of Eve? And where will we find this located in the Old Testament? Again we will be looking at this one shortly.