Mark,
Again there is a huge difference between attacking a person or disputing and refuting their position. This blog is about giving a reason for the hope that is within us that allows women to freely use their gifts in the body of Christ and for refuting the complementarian position by showing where it doesn’t fit with the Scriptures.

As far as the open debate with Mike Seaver, it went very well. Mike is a very likable brother in Christ and I think we will have a friendship even though we do not agree on this issue. Mike did admit to several things that brought a bridge-building attitude into the debate which was very much appreciated.

Mark you said:

The evidence to suggest that Paul is quoting a Corinthian standard is very very limited.

I didn’t say that Paul was quoting a Corinthian “standard”. What I said was that Paul was quoting from the letter from the Corinthians that was written to him. It is a common understanding that Paul quotes from this letter several times in 1 Corinthians. The fact is that there is zero evidence that there is a “law” in the Scriptures that silences women in the assembly and makes their voices considered as filthy. Such a law is found in the Talmud or the oral law of the Jews.

You give a link to Don Carson who you say deals with the questions but this is not true. He does not adequately deal with the questions nor does he answer the contradictions of his own view. He points out that Paul never quoted the Jewish oral law and this fact supports my own view not Carsons. The quote then is not Paul’s quote but a quote from the Corinthians. There is no other such “law” found in the Scriptures so Paul could not be quoting such a law. Carson completely fails to present such a Scriptural “law” that would make the words as coming from Paul himself. Secondly Carson admits that the beginning of verse 36 is “probably” a disjunctive particle. It most certainly is a disjunctive particle and it is used to refute the preceding verses. He tries to make Thayer’s say that it isn’t refuting the previous verses but agreeing with them but this is not not true and makes Carson come across as being deceptive. The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament gives the same meaning and it even lists 1 Cor. 14:36 as one of the examples of such a question where a negative answer is expected.

c) n is used frequently to introduce rhetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected (Matt 7:9: “Or is there one among you … ?”; 12:5: “Or have you not read … ?”; cf. 20:15; 26:53; Luke 13:4; Rom 3:29; 6:5; 7:1; 9:21; 11:2; 1 Cor 6:9, 16, 19; 9:8; 10:22; 2 Cor 11:7; 13:5; Jas 4:5; a double question in 1 Cor 14:36).
Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament.

Carson’s position simply cannot hold up under scrutiny. He has not refuted the position that verses 34 & 35 were quotations from the Corinthian letter and he has given no place where we can find a law in the OT that restricts women in the assembly. Where is such a law located? Carson says that it is not in Genesis 3:16 as so many think but “probably” is referring to the creation order in Genesis 2:20-24. But there is no such “law” in Genesis 2:20-24 and God’s laws are not indistinct and unclear. God’s laws are not “probably” but clear, distinct and enforceable. Carson has struck out in the very important area of defining the “law” of 1 Cor. 14:34. He has failed as every other complementarian has failed to identify the law.

The fact is that it is identifiable in the oral tradition of the Jews. Since Paul never appealed to this tradition, it must be taken as a quote from the Judalizers who had infiltrated all the other congregations trying to bring the Christians under the Jewish law. No other explanation fits the inspired words in this passage.

Psalms 68:11 is about God’s command that women were to publish the good news. God’s law has no limitations on place or race, class of people or social standing that women are to publish the good news too. If there is to be a Scripture that refutes Psalms 68:11 then it must be distinct that God has forbidden women from publishing the good news in the assembly. There is no such law against this so God’s command in Psalms 68:11 stands.

I hope this helps!

22 Mark,

I am so glad that you are on the “egal” side of the comp position. Praise God for that! I pray that in time you will come to see that your sisters in Christ are to be free to serve in anyway that God has gifted them.

You wrote:

In my experience comps have tended to raise these issues in order to Glorify God, and unfortunately most egals i encounter merely point to how stupid comps are.

I have seen that most egals are interested in glorifying God by not denying the gifts that He has given them. They also have love for their brothers in Christ and do not want to deny these precious brothers the benefit of these gifts. Since this the position that most come to, I believe that most are living out the mandate to glorify God. I also very much want to see the body of Christ united on this point. It is when we all work together with our gifts that we bring the most glory to God.

Hi truthseeker,
I would encourage you to continue to look at this issue from both sides and not just from one side. There are a great deal of contradictions on the side that says there is no such thing as a sin nature or “the old man” nature. This can be very dangerous for several reasons.

1. It may cause us to disregard the Scripture and think that we can trust our own hearts as if we have not been affected by the old man.

Jer 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

2. It may cause us to reject Biblical teaching like the virgin birth. If there is no such thing as a nature that is inherited through Adam, then a virgin birth without a human father would no longer be necessary.

3. We may find ourselves thinking that if we do not have an inherited sin nature, then it is possible for us to live a sinless life and we may find ourselves deceiving our own selves.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The “have” no sin is in the present tense. Denying that we have sin is a deception that we can do to ourselves. Many have gone down this path before and lived in deception.

4. If we deny that we have inherited an “old man” nature from Adam, then the very sign of the foreskin as a sign of sin is meaningless. The pictures of sin related to the flesh of the male then become unnecessary, useless and meaningless. We need to challenge this view and test it thoroughly by the whole counsel of God.

5. The denial that we have an “old man” nature that comes from our father Adam would challenge the need for a kinsman Redeemer. If we are not connected to Adam in the consequences of his sin through an inherited nature, then there is no need of a kinsman Redeemer who had to come through the line of the woman.

6. How do we put off the “old man” if we do not have an “old man” nature? (Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:22)

There are definitely things that are affected by the rejection of our common “old man” nature that comes through the line of Adam. The contradictions that the opposing side has, the failure to answer the Biblical questions and the consequences of having to reject portions of Scripture are all red flags

Blessings!
Cheryl

Frank,
Good words and a good song!

I can also see from your story that you argued your position from the Scriptures. Having someone confront us and even say that we have heresy in our teaching isn’t a bad thing if they are speaking in love and can prove their point from the Scriptures and correct us. But those who will denounce us and are not able to correct us from the Scriptures in context and without contradiction have no leg to stand on. I believe all of your retractors were legless!

Mark,

I would also like to thank you for your gracious discussion here. This is a very important subject and we are all motivated to have the truth of God’s word because of our love for God. It is challenging and fun to discuss this very important subject! Thanks for your input.

15 Mark,

You said:

I honestly think Cheryl has probably just worded this badly, because my point is that Jesus deity (man- ness and God-ness) can only be present when he is both. I am not saying Jesus didnt exist until his incarnation-that is complete heresy, do not think this is what i mean.

Mark, I think that you are likely wording this badly as it comes across as if Jesus cannot be God unless He is both God and man. Since He was not man in the OT, then was He also not God? You seem to imply this, but somehow I don’t think this is what you mean.

Perhaps I can reword again for you to understand better. The Word always existed as God and He didn’t stop being God when He became man. We call Him Jesus but He wasn’t known as Jesus before He became man, but none-the-less He existed as God in full and complete unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As a human He was not two persons but He had two natures as He was not 50% God and 50% man but 100% God and 100% man. If we want to know that the Word of God is within the Trinity we want to be careful to see Him as He is without confusing what He is with the human nature He took on. If we only look at His Deity in the NT as the man Jesus, then we may be confused and say that as God He has a will that is different than the Father’s. The fact is that God has one united will as God is one united Being.

13 and #14 TL

Very well done!

12 Mark,

You said:

Is this an oxymoron. Isn’t Jesus deity his ‘Godness’ and his ‘humanness’. How can you see the ‘full complete deity of Christ’ in the Old Testament- his deity didn’t exist yet! Have i explained what i am trying to say !!!!

Are you talking about seeing the character of Jesus in the OT before his incarnation, so seeing the full ‘God’ side of his character before his incarnation. And that his incarnation only represented his human side?

Let’s word it this way: Jesus had no beginning as God. As God he was The Word or the LORD of Hosts. As the Word of God in the OT as the second person of the Trinity we see his full place of God in the Trinity without a connection to the humility that He took on as a man.

It is important that we do not look to the manhood of Jesus and say that this is what He is as God. For example Jesus in his humanity had to sleep, yet God does not sleep. We cannot say that Jesus as God showed that God has to sleep. Also we cannot show that the human nature of Jesus is exactly what He was before He became man. This is not the correct way to see the full Deity of Jesus. The limitations of the man are often appealed to by the cults to prove that Jesus is not fully God. We want to be careful that we do not do that. We can clearly see His Deity in the OT and there is no submission of His will, nor any less authority or power shown in the revelation of the LORD of Hosts in the OT.

You asked:

Are you talking about seeing the character of Jesus in the OT before his incarnation, so seeing the full ‘God’ side of his character before his incarnation. And that his incarnation only represented his human side?

No, I am not saying that His incarnation only represented His human side. I am saying that His human side often hid His Deity because He was 100% human and 100% God so we need to be careful that we do not mix up His human nature with His nature as God otherwise we have a God who needs to sleep, eat, doesn’t know the future or who touched Him.

10 Mark,

thanks for the clarification of the ’source’, but im still not convinced if i am going to be honest. The implication is that Jesus is just some emination from God and not equally God. But i’m sure it is just another example of trying to understand each others ‘terminology’, becasue i know you clearly teach that Jesus IS equally God.

Jesus isn’t just equal with God, He IS God. But He isn’t just God, He is also the God-man. As God He had no beginning and He will have no end. As man, He came from God. As man He had a beginning and as man His source of origin is God.

Does this help?

9 Mark,

You said:

I’m not sure why you have come to the conclusion that there is only one will in the Godhead-where is your scriptural basis for this. I don’t believe it is right to seperate Jesus deity at any points, for the point of salvation is that God himself comes to earth to die the perfect substitutionary death in our place. If it was purely Jesus human side at the cross then his death is ineffective. Who was tempted in the desert- Jesus man or Jesus God.

There is only one united will in the Trinity because God is united as one Being although three persons. In the Old Testament there is never any difference of will between the persons. In the New Testament Jesus claims to be one with the Father.

Joh 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

Since one can never find disunity in the Trinity and since all agree and all work together and all are the one Being of God, there cannot logically be a opposing wills.

It wasn’t just “God Himself” who came to earth to die other than the person of the Word of God came to take on flesh. God cannot die. God also cannot be tempted so we can understand that it was the humanity of Jesus that was tempted.

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

It is incorrect to say that the death of the God-man would be ineffective if only the flesh died and God didn’t die. Since God cannot die, but He can take on flesh, it would be the flesh that died not God Himself. Yet as truly God, Jesus’ death had infinite value.

7 Mark,

Regarding what you said were “roles” I asked you who had the “role” of Creator? Who then is “called” the Creator? The one “role” of Creator is given to all three. Jesus is not the only one who “did” creation. Who did Job say made him?

Job 33:4 “The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Isa 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.

The work of creation and so the title of Creator clearly belongs to Jesus to:

Heb 1:10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Therefore all three are the Creator.

Who is the Savior? You said it is Jesus:

Saviour- Jesus functioned as saviour. John 17 shows the relationship between Father and Son and clearly the Father sent the son. Part verses 1-4 shows how it was Jesus who redeemed humanity. We cannot say that the Father was the one who died on the cross.

However it is God who is called Savior in the OT, not just the God-man.

Psa 106:21 They forgot God their Savior, Who had done great things in Egypt,

Hos 13:4 Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me.

Isa 45:21 “Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.

Isa 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.

Clearly it is the triune God who is the Savior, not just Jesus who died on the cross.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus and who raised Him, you said:

Resurrection- this is a good one, i have never really considered it to be honest, but we must clearly state that it obviously wasn’t the person of Jesus who did the raising. If we try and seperate Jesus deity at this point i think we may be wrong. For it was necessary for the Son of God to endure the wrath of God not merely his ‘human’ side.

It most certainly was Jesus who raised Himself. Jesus said:

Joh 2:18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?”
Joh 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
Joh 2:20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
Joh 2:21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Who raised the body of Jesus? Jesus said that He would raise up his own body. Yet we also know that the Father raised Jesus from the dead

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),

and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead:

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

There is only one God and that one God is Creator and the one who raised Jesus from the dead. That one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

There is only one God (not three Gods) and there is only one Lord (not three Lords). That one God has one will (not three wills) as God is united in one being. Three persons, one being, one will, one God.

Mark, you said:

Besides once resurrected ‘the christ’ didn’t then re-unite with the human Jesus. I’d be interested in your take on this?

The Athanasian creed says:

Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.

Jesus is still in heaven as the Christ, the glorified Son of God. He IS God and man and was resurrected as a man.

I am not altogether sure what you mean that “the christ” didn’t reunite with the human Jesus after the resurrection. It seems to me that you are denying that Jesus was resurrected as a man?

As far as showing that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit work together in all things, I have shown this throughout this comment. All are the I AM, The first and the last, The rock, The Savior, Lord of lords and God of Gods. They work together as God in unity. There is only one God, only one King and only one Glory and one Will. There is complete unity in the Trinity as the Athanasian Creed shows:

This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity…But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.

I hope this helps!

Hi Mark,
You said:

Father, Son and Spirit are all equally God but perform different functions.

While the incarnation was a difference in function since only the Son became human, I would like to challenge your view of different functions. The Scriptures reveal a unity rather than different “functions”. I ask you whose function it was to be “Creator”? Who functioned as “Savior” since the Father also called Himself Savior? Who raised Jesus from the dead?

The “role” issue is something that is commonly appealed to by complementarians but it isn’t Biblically supported since all worked together on everything.

The problem is people think ’subordinate’ means ‘lesser being’, which is not true because we know that Jesus and the Father are one in substance.

The Bible never describes the Word of God in the Trinity as subordinate. This is unsupportable and is Biblically wrong. Jesus is equal in Will, in Authority and in Power.

On the night before he was crucified, Jesus was pained with anguish because of what was before him, then he prayed (Mt 26:39) not my will but yours. Jesus was subordinate to the Fathers will, but was obedient because he was part of the Triune God

Obedience was not a part of His character as God. It was a part of His humanity. If it was part of God, then please show obedience of the Word to a command in the OT. You see there is no need for obedience in the Godhead because all have the same Will. There is no difference of Will that would make one command the other or take authority over another Person of the Godhead.

This is the traditional, orthodox view of the Trinity expressed throughout Church history.

No this is not the traditional orthodox view of the Trinity. There is no subordination in the nature of the Trinity. Only equality is emphasized in the Godhead.

The OT is a more difficult question obviously because the revelation of God the Son had not come in salvation history.

My portion of the DVD “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future” traces Jesus as The LORD of Hosts in the OT. It is an amazing thing to see what the LORD of Hosts does, how He uses His Will and there is not a single sense of subordination or less authority or will at all. I would recommend that you get a copy of the DVD to be challenged on who Jesus is in the Trinity.

It is clear to see the Trinity in the OT, but i think it is probably impossible to show His subordiantion there because the Jewish writers would not have had a full understanding of the Triune God.

Although the Jewish writers were used to write the Bible, they were not the Author. God used writers to record things that they didn’t understand themselves. To think that God was unable to express a revelation of who He is as God because He used human authors is a really bad idea. (Did I express this okay? That it is your idea that is bad, not your motive or you yourself?)

When understanding the doctrine of the Trinity the bible as a whole must be envisaged. The primary theology for the Trinity is in the NT.

But what you have missed is that the humanity of Jesus cannot be used to teach what He is in the Trinity. You must go to the OT to see the full complete Deity of Christ without His humanity.

Perhaps someone could outline how the Father is the ’source’ of the son more clearly.

God is the “source” of the Son as the Son came down from Heaven and God provided a body for Him. As the Son came out from God, the starting point is God. Just as the “head” as of the river is the source of the river, so God is the source or starting point of the Son.

I have to run now as I am still on the road. I will answer the other posts that you commented on when I have time to get back on the computer.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Mark,

I think you are being too hard on people here. I have read egalitarians on comp blogs and the comps attack any egal who would dare to comment. I don’t think you will find that here at all. Most try hard to be respectful to people who comment here. As far as theologians, it certainly is helpful to express the fact that their ideas are “dumb” while not trying to ascribe a “motive” to the person. I try hard not to overly moderate here so I leave the comments up to the commenter.

I guess I would ask you to consider the also the slander that is being responded to by egals here. When we are being equated to homosexuality and our teaching is said to be sin, then it is the slander of the comp position against their sisters in Christ that sets out the problem.

I do try my hardest to keep my own comments as respectful because I do believe that we are dealing with brothers in Christ, even if they are very wrong and slanderous against egalitarians.

Mark,
Welcome to my blog! I am just packing up for a ministry trip out of country. If I can get stable internet service while we are away I will respond to your posts. If not I will get back to you when I return to the office.

Kay,

Am I the only U.S. citizen participating here?

I know that Dave is from Australia and Frank is from the US. I don’t know where Mara is from. I think that most people who post on my blog are from the US. I am usually the only odd duckie.

Frank,

You are indeed a man of honor! I accept your explanation and I understand as my own memory fails me at times. Don’t you just hate getting older? My insides are not so old yet, but the mirror keeps me in line with the truth.

Wow, Frank, that is quite a story! Yes it is a hard thing to change a tradition that we have learned but which is in error. There is something inside us that wants to hold on to the familiar. So letting go of error is a difficult process, but so is holding on tight when you are standing firm for truth and there are those who want to tan your hide! Thank you so much for sharing that story with us!

Way to go Frank, I am proud of you. I have no problem claiming you as a “semi-Canadian”!

Interesting that my spam word today is “grace”.

About Mike…he can’t admit anything because in the position that he is in with his church, he could not remain a pastor and be an egalitarian. So learning things outside the boundaries of what he has accepted as truth could become a very serious issue.

I think this is why he is considering not continuing with our debate. The next part of the debate would give me the last word and that wouldn’t be comfortable when he hasn’t managed to get his point across yet. It just gives me more opportunity to show that his view is not the “clear” view that he thought it was.

But we should remember to think about what it would be like to be in Mike’s shoes. Changing his view would cost him many things including a job, possibly his friends, his standing in his denomination and with CBMW (they featured him as a writer on their blog). On top of that there is his ego and a feeling of shame for believing something that didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I also believe that the truth is a good enough reason to change no matter what the consequences, but I have a deep compassion for those whose lives would be turned upside down by changing their view.

So how can we pray for Mike and for others in his shoes? We can pray that the seed that has been planted will go deep within his heart. We can pray that Mike will not have peace when he remembers all the things that he was unable to answer. We can also pray that God will reveal to Mike how His Word is fulfilled in the freedom of God’s women “sons”. Lastly we can pray for courage for Mike to accept truth as God opens his heart regarding what he has heard. Many will close their hearts to the truth about women because they have comfort in their position and persecution awaiting outside their safety zone. Let’s pray that Mike will be one of the ones who values truth much more than comfort.

If Mike does come back for the next round, let’s surround him with prayer. God can do what seems impossible to us.

Kay,

Ya, I am a detail person, but I too can miss lots when I am up late. I have spent a lot of nights fixing errors at 2 and 3 am and I am starting to think that it was at 2 and 3 a.m. the night before that those errors were made! At least I’m done the late hours for now as my project is finished.

Kay,
The problem with Bailey’s use of chiamus in 1 Corinthians is that there are several things that are not answered by this approach. The first is that I haven’t seen him deal with or identify “the law” from verse 34.

Secondly the speaking in the assembly is said to be “shameful” which is a very strong word meaning something that is filthy. This is not only unlike Paul but it makes the passage outside of a parallel since the other silencing of people in this chapter is never said that their talking out of turn is “filthy”.

Thirdly he seems to gloss over the fact that verse 36 starts with a term that provides a contradiction to the verses immediately proceeding. In other words the saying from verses 34 & 35 is contradicted in verse 36. If Paul had written verses 34 & 35 from his own instruction, why did he write verse 36 in such a way as to contradict his own command?

These things are all unanswered by anything else that I could find except for the view that verses 34 & 35 are a quote from the Corinthian letter that Paul refutes.

If Bailey has written on the place of “the law” in verse 34 I haven’t seen it just as I haven’t see where he dealt with the contradictory wording of verse 36.

So because I am one who wants to pay attention to each inspired word and each inspired grammar, I myself do not consider that the chiamus view fits. The grammar of refutation, the addition of the term shameful (fillthy) and the appeal to the oral law are very serious problem areas without making this a quote from the Corinthians.

I hope this helps!

Karen,
Thanks for your good words! They are very encouraging.

Steve,
Many say that Paul’s meaning is “clear” and “simple”. The problem with this is that those who say that Paul’s wisdom is “clear” and “simple” may be of the ones who distort Paul’s words in their context.

The apostle Peter said:

2 Peter 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

If we do not want to be of those who distort the words of Paul then we need to make sure that our interpretation fits with the entire context. Those who cannot answer the hard questions that come from the entire passage including the extremely hard saying of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:15 need to rethink if the passage is really as “clear” and “simple” as they claim.

I also challenge my brothers in Christ who believe that I am wrong to show me where I am wrong. It is one thing to say that the passage is “clear” and my interpretation is wrong, but if they cannot show the holes in my argument, then they have failed in their oversight.

Blessings,
Cheryl

1 Mabel,

Hi Mabel, and thanks for joining in the discussion. Your post ended up in my spam box for some reason. I think it was due to a typo in your email address. Anyway it has been rescued and posted in the order that the comments came in.

Your questions are very appropriate. After all if a woman is in “sin” for teaching a man then if she risked teaching the Bible on the radio, or writing about the Bible in a book or even blogging as I am doing here, and there is anyway that a man might read her teaching then that would make her in sin for making her teaching available where a man might be tempted to read or listen. If we follow this teaching to its logical conclusion then we would be severely restricting women’s effectiveness to even reach out to women in a public manner.

It appears to me that there are more questions than answers and perhaps a whole ball of yarn to unravel that these men hadn’t considered.

Thanks for posting your questions! I would also recommend that you post them on Mike’s blog too on our last debate post http://rolecalling.blogspot.com/2009/09/building-bridges-schatz-and-seaver.html Mike to approve each comment so he won’t be able to say that he didn’t see the questions. 🙂

Lin,
You ask very good questions. The thought had also occurred to me that I would be teaching in the debate and would that be a sin for Mike to read? If we are to follow Mike’s application of the Scriptures, then it seems like Mike would have had to employ a woman teacher to debate me. Mike’s argument seems to be that women are the ones who are to evaluate women’s teaching so that men don’t have to hear women teachers and risk breaking the command.

However Mike did make a provision for a man to listen to and judge the teaching of a woman in order to correct him. But would it be a sin for a man to hear the teaching but fail in his “male role” of correction? Mike has not been able to correct me. In fact he has not been able to answer the challenges I have given him. So when does it become a sin for him? I suppose that this will now become an issue where CBMW will have to judge since apparently they are the only ones who can interpret the incomplete complementarian law which never makes clear the division between the what should be considered good and what is now evil or sinful. Trouble is CBMW doesn’t have the answers either. It is all a grey area where no one seems to know what is sin or what is not.

It all comes down to what Paul described as a unclear sound coming from a bugle call that is not understood. This describes the complementarian position to a tee. They have forsaken the biblical way of establishing a law and are now stuck with trying to work out a command that cannot be reconciled with the spirit of God’s law.

pinklight,
You are very welcome!

pinklight,
Adam (after Eve was created to be his ezer) was created in a place of “good” without sin, without flaw but with the ability to be a free moral agent to chose. We humans are not perfect. We are filled with flaws due to our inherited “old man”. One day we will be perfect, but we aren’t there yet.

Does this answer the question or were you looking for truthseeker to answer?

Frank,
I think I could read your mind because I totally got what you were saying.

Also I think Dave meant that you should post what you wrote on the Australian blog conference. That way your comments will not just be posted here on this blog but will be included in the conference PDF version. I think that is a great idea!

Amen Joel! I am glad to see men respond who also realize that a woman with no opinion and no personality who needs a leader to tell her what to do isn’t very attractive to godly men.

Thanks for your comment and welcome to my blog!

pinklight,

So I think there is a difference in nature between the way Adam was created and how we are born.

Yes, there is a huge difference between what Adam was first created as and how we are born. The really special thing is that although we are connected to Adam in our fleshly nature, we are now connected to Jesus in the spiritual. We are His seed and one day we will be fully like Him for we will see Him as He is. What a glorious day to know that we will be completely sinless one day and perfect!

Now for all those who say that they do not have a sin nature perhaps they need to rethink their position. If you say that you do not have a sin nature, then there is nothing to change to be like Christ. All you need to do is to stop sinning. But why can’t they? The reason is that we have not yet had this flesh changed. We are to live in the Spirit but we often do not consider ourselves dead to sin and to that “old man”. We feed him and nourish him when we should consider him a dead, stinking, old former nature.

Looking ahead to Jesus, we desire to live for Him so that it is no longer we that live, but Christ who lives through us. We really do need His life because our old nature will never see life. It is our “new man” created in His image that will live on.