I should add that the fact that scripture is multi-layered is the reason why we need each other and can learn from each other.  Each person is able to unpeel part of the onion.  When I read your take on a verse it is like “iron sharpening iron”.  I am able to see a perspective to the verse that I may not have seen before.  This isn’t a conflicting view of scripture but an unlayering of the text that allows me to sharpen my own focus.  I also believe this is why Paul said that we are all allowed to prophesy.  Each of us has a perspective that allows us to see the verse from a different angle.  When we put it all together we can see the meaning of the text from the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.  Nothing should conflict.  It all fits together like a giant puzzle piece.  We really do need each other so that we can see outside our own individual “box” that at times causes us to be blinded by a perspective that we may have missed.  In the end it is not a bunch of people sitting around and giving conflicting meanings but Christians giving additional depth to the passage by uncovering the layers.

Don,

You said:

But it IS possible for people of faith to make different choices for the meaning of some words and phrases and each has a different understanding in good faith.  Many of the meaning choices made by non-egals are possible, it is just that they are not required.

While I agree that Christians may see a different meaning for some words and phrases, the question is not what a word could possibly mean but what it means in the passage.  I think too often we take a verse out of its context and try to determine the meaning of the words from a limited view.  This is where we run into trouble.  I really appreciate the apologist and author Greg Koukl who says “Never read a bible verse.”  What he means is that we should never try to figure out what the verse means without reading it in its complete context.  If we followed this advise, I think Christians would find themselves in much more agreement.

I did this experiment with a JW elder recently and it worked very well.  I never let him read a proof text without looking at the passage.  I got him to read the chapter before, the chapter the “proof verse” was in and the chapter after and the context disproved his point.  It really frustrated him because even he could see that his text lost all of its weight by looking at the context.  Once we read the context he had to move on to another point.  I would say something like, “Well this verse doesn’t say what you said it means in its context.  We can mark that one off.  Do you actually have a passage that says your point?”  He had already agreed with me that there must be two or three witnesses to prove a point.  An isolated “witness” (pulled out of its context) is not enough to prove any point.

I would also like to add that while scripture has one intended meaning that is put there by the author, scripture also is special in that it is like an onion.  You can peel the layers back to see more and more revelation.  In some respects this is where our differences come in between denominations.  One Christian sees the outer layer of truth and another peels the “onion” back to see further insight inbedded within the text and the inspired words of the text.

On context of verses, I agree with pericope context and Biblical subject context, but another is the cultural context of the time the book was written.  This is one that is missing for many discussions on meaning but can be absolutely critical.

I whole heartedly agree with you!  While understanding the cultural context is very important with each verse, at times it is so absolutely critical that one cannot understand the verse without it.  I think the perfect example of this is 1 Cor. 14:34 where no “law” can be identified in scripture that Paul is referring to.  It isn’t until one knows the tradition of the Jews and the culture of that day that the complete understanding of the passage is unveiled.  This makes the passage a very hard passage.  Paul is one author that has written some very hard to understand passages that require much digging and an understanding of the culture.  These passages are for the mature and they are true meat and not milk passages.

The Bible gets to define and refine the words it uses and when it does we are to use that, but it does not contain a complete dictionary of all the words it uses.  The only way to know what those words meant is the way they were used in the culture of the time.

Yes, this is true.  The most outstanding example of this is Paul’s writing where in several instances he uses a word that is completely unique to the New Testament and at times the word is very rare even in the usage of that day.  We must be extremely careful not to set up our doctrine using one verse in isolation that has one word with limited verification of its meaning.  Without a second or third witness we are treading on dangerous territory.

Don,

You said:

Everyone SHOULD have a current understanding and should be teachable, but if something does not convince them, then it would be bad faith to pretend it did.

I agree completely.  We all should be teachable and we should have an understanding of what we believe.  I also think we should be able to explain why we believe as we do.  What specifically in the passage convinced us that this is what the Holy Spirit meant in that passage?  If we go by feelings alone, we probably should work a little harder to find a textual reason for what we believe.

Also most of the stuff that we are discussing is important but is not essential to Christianity or to our salvation.  One can be a Christian without believing that Eve was deceived.  Therefore while we can passionately defend our position from scripture, we are not to divide over it nor to treat others with disrespect or name-calling because they do not agree.  If we cannot find a way to convince the other that our view fits perfectly with the context, the grammar, the inspired words and the entire scope of the passage and the whole of scripture, then we can leave it and move on.

You said:

I am convinced there are believers that do not believe the same as I do about the milk things of the faith in Hebrews 5; BUT I am still to treat them as believers.  How MUCH MORE for the things that are beyond the milk stage.

Amen!  This is also where we can grow in patience because we get to love and respect those who may be opposite us in the secondary issues of faith.

You said:

One way to see my point is that God COULD have spelled things out step by step.  Instead of ONLY having the woman’s quote God could have written words showing how God DID say what the woman said he did and then have her say them and it all fits together, as we might wish.

Yes, that is true.  However if God would have done that, then we would not have given the woman as much credit in being a true witness.  This way we have only her testimony and so we must concentrate on what her testimony is instead of just moving on because we can see that it fits with what was actually said.  We have to work through the issues.  Did she add to God’s word or did she not?  Was she truthful?  Was she mistaken?  The answers to these questions, I believe are there within the text most in plain view.  We just have not given the evidence much weight because the world culture has historically been distrustful of women.  It is so easy to think that Eve lied.  We don’t trust her.  We are like Adam in that we can put the blame squarely on her shoulders.  But without a direct quote we are forced to face our prejudices and work through the issue of whether she can be believed or not.  I for one am grateful that God left it out.  God allowed the first woman to be a witness regarding the truth of his word and Jesus deliberately chose women to be the first witnesses to the resurrection.  God sees an importance in women as true witnesses and this started in the book of Genesis.

You said:

In my words, there are gaps in the account about things we might wish to know; and how one fills in the gaps tells others about oneself, not necessarily about God or what the Bible says or does not say.

I agree.  This is why I always want evidence of a person’s view.  If a view has solid evidence from the context, the grammar and the inspired words, I respect that view even if I don’t agree.  But if there is no evidence for the view, and a person is filling in the gaps by their own presupposition, I can get a feel for what the person’s own values and mindset are from listening to that view.

Sometimes I sit on a view for a long time before I accept it.  I like evidence and if the evidence isn’t solid or supported I tend to file it away until I find what is solid or I find a scripture that solidly supports the view from another portion of the bible.  Hosea 6:7 was one such scripture that filled in the gaps for me as I saw God’s personal view of Adam’s sin.

You said:

And if my words do not convince you, nor your words mine, we each go in peace, I see this as a very small piece of the puzzle, there are much bigger fish to fry.

I agree to a large extent.  I do not give up so easy and my background in working with the cults has me look at the problem from every direction.  I will look through the back door and open a window and peer around from that angle.  I will explore the problem from underneath and from the top view.  Once I have hit every angle that I possibly can, I admit that is all I have and leave it at that.  I am not responsible to convince everyone.  If another person has information for me that I can test and check out, I welcome that.  If there is no evidence but only speculation, I tend to stay back in the background.  I am a big “fact” person and I end all my testing with a “so what?” test.  Why is this important to God and why did he place this in the scriptures?  What meaning is there in the passage for us and how can I learn to be more of a faithful person because of the lessons I have learned?

My personal presupposition is that for every spiritual problem, God has the answer in scripture.  I may not know what the answer is right now but if I work hard and trust the Lord eventually I will be able to find it.  I have found many answers that others have not seen before in the areas of working with the cults because I have been persistent and wouldn’t give up.  I believed the answer was there because that is the kind of God we have.  He cares and he is also a detail person. When I am done my research, my work is thorough and persuasive because I have been diligent in my homework.  I have turned over every stone and checked out every corner.  I want all the facts and I want to know that I know the mind of God.  Personally I won’t let a matter go that is important to me until I have worked it through.  When I am confident in my understanding I will work to help others understand too, yet always keeping in mind that I am not infallible.  I can learn from others.  In fact I have learned from many here on this blog including yourself.  You have been an “iron sharpens iron” person for me personally.

One of my temptations is to try to get everyone to agree with me-me-me since I am right-right-right and I end up being unloving.

Personally I see you coming across as even keel, loving and kind.

I too value a loving approach.  While I passionately contend for my view, I realize that my goal is not to make everyone like me but to put a “stone” in their shoe that will cause a person to be uncomfortable with the contradictions with their view.  Getting someone to think for themselves outside of their box is about the best I can do with many people.

Yes, Jonah did not want Ninevah to repent, so he went minimalist with his prophecy.

You hit the nail on the head.  While Jonah was quick to run away from his assignment at Ninevah and he quickly headed off in the opposite direction, he did not run away from Ninevah after he gave his prophetic warning from God.  He wanted to see what would happen and it appears that Jonah was actually hoping that Ninevah would not repent so that they could be destroyed.  But God had a plan to teach Jonah a lesson about compassion and he provide an industrious worm to reveal Jonah’s own hardened heart.

On Mark, it is important to see truncation as a possibility in Hebrew thinking as Mark and Luke have no exception clause for divorce, while Matthew does.

I can see your point here.  I also bless God for Matthew.  I really relate to Matthew.  He is all over the map telling one story and then finishing with another story that happened years later so his “timeline” is mixed up and all over the map.  Yet Matthew is also a detail person and he relates details about events that others did not pay attention to.  The book of Matthew has been extremely helpful for me in unraveling some of the doctrine of the cults.  I really love Matthew.

Don,

You said:

I used to think there was ONE RIGHT WAY to interpret each verse in the Bible, but more and more I see there are “clouds” of various ways to understand various verses and a believer is to give grace to another with both are in the cloud but not the same.

I believe each verse has been inspired to have the intention of the original author (the Holy Spirit).  I also believe that we may understand that meaning through the help of the Holy Spirit and a lot of work on our part to rightly divide the word of truth.  I also believe that we should have patience with each other as we are all on that journey to understand God’s word exactly as he inspired it.

What I don’t believe is that we have an option for a private interpretation.  I believe that the scripture was meant to be understood within its inspired context, within the boundaries of the inspired words and the inspired grammar and then within the complete context of the entire bible.  Any interpretation that contradicts in any way these parameters needs to be rethought in my opinion.

Today what is popular is people sitting around asking what a verse means to them and everyone shares something different.  My focus is first on working hard to understand why the verse was inspired in the place it was and within the context it belongs.  Once all the evidence is in and I can rule out what the verse cannot mean, it becomes much clearer what the passage actually was written to mean.  Then I can take the next step and apply it to myself and ask what it means to me.  If we start with the personal without first building the foundation of the meaning within the context, we may go way off base.

When I look at giving leeway for other options I always ask for evidence within the passage.  Someone could say that Eve was open to believe the serpent because she had a previous relationship with him and he was a trusted friend.  They could also say that the serpent had been right in the past about things that Adam had been wrong about so Adam did not feel free to contradict the serpent because he was sure his wife would believe the serpent over him.

These are all speculations and we could say that they are “possible”.  However true possibility must come with some kind of evidence.  What is the evidence in the passage that would seek to prove the speculation as a valid option?  If there is no evidence, then I would move on.

It isn’t that I am such a hard nut to crack but I want evidence so that I can verify the theory.  When I say that I believe the passage shows that God spoke to Eve about the prohibition, I provide as evidence:

1.  God spoke to Eve about what she could eat.  Genesis 1:29
2.  In the permission to eat, there is a blanket permission given that must make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to have no seed bearing fruit.  This implies a prohibition of that tree.
3.  Eve said “God said…”

Now I think these three strains of reasoning and this evidence is more than enough to make my “theory” a viable one that is based on the text itself instead of mere speculation.

I am happy to admit that there are other options if I can see evidence from the passage.  I have yet to see any evidence that Eve was mistaken.  If there is evidence that I have missed, I am always open to reviewing the evidence.  I just am not very open to mere speculation.

An example of my openness is regarding “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12.  Here I can see that “a woman” can mean all women in general.  I do not believe this is what it means in the passage because of the specific wording and grammar of 1 Timothy 2:14, 15, however I can see why people can believe it is a prohibition regarding all women.  While I may push them to consider things that they have never thought of before that would disallow “a woman” to be all women in general, I cannot say that their interpretation has no evidence at all.

I will speak more about this in my next post as this will be the theme of my post.

tiro,

One must repent of being an egalitarian in their minds or else….

Don,

The link is herehttps://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Is-Complementarianism-a-Merely-Personal-Conviction

tiro,

I too have seen the “dark” side.  When a respected Christian theologian who is a hierarchist writes me that God should have mercy on my soul, merely for exposing the differences between hierarchists and egalitarians regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, the dark side is clearly shown to me.

Jael,

You have been a real encourager to me always believing the best and knowing my heart!

Thanks!

Elizabeth,

I missed commenting on your post yesterday.

I pray that the outcome of this meeting will be for the ‘greater good’. A difference of opinion between believers is OK but when some try to force their opinion on others by fear and intimidation and even lies, that is not good.

This is so true.  Thank you for your prayers!  We are allowed differences of opinions and we can even passionately argue these opinions, but we are not allowed to disrespect, or force our opinions by fear and intimidation onto others.  If what we have is truth, it will stand on its own with the evidence from scripture.

It is also not easy to love those who attack you.  But God hasn’t called us to what is easy.  Loving those who consider us as enemies is what Jesus calls us to.  When he changes our heart to realize they are not our enemies but they have been deceived by the tradition of men, then we can have compassion on those who do not have compassion on us.  While we may not be loved here in this life, we will have much to lay at the feet of Jesus in eternity.

Don, Amen!!

Hey Lin,
I know how you feel.  I have been floored by what I have read on Ben Witherington’s blog.  He and I have had a few go-arounds over the last year or so.  I took exception to his claim that the early Christians “noodled” with the original Greek text of the New Testament.  His comments cause people to question the reliability of scripture.  By the way he has a copy of my DVD but it is far too conservative for his liking.  He doesn’t like that I hold to a fully inspired bible with inspired words and inspired grammar.  He does not hold to such a high view of scripture so I am not in his good books.

In my own study of the “LORD of hosts” for the Trinity DVD, I was so overwhelmed with the presence of Jesus in the OT that it blew me away.  It did the same thing for my pastor who read my script.  He said that he saw Jesus in the OT in a way that he had never seen him before.  Is Jesus there in the OT?  Absolutely!  And those who would seek to take him out and make the OT live without the imprint of Jesus in all of the divisions of its scriptures are blinded in my opinion.  I do not know what has blinded them, but I believe they need to be witnessed to.

Don,

I wanted to make it perfectly clear for everyone else reading this post and the comments that Adam was without excuse.

As far as judging the sins of omission, we cannot set ourselves up as judge and jury of others.  God is the ultimate judge.  We are to judge ourselves and test ourselves so that we can stand before God without shame.  My post was not mean to be an indictment of anyone else but Adam.  At the same time I set myself up as a judge of my own inadequacies.  Where is it that I should have spoken up when I was silent?  What happened to Adam is a strong warning for me to be faithful.  God doesn’t just look on my sins of commission but he sees what I know and understand but have failed to share with others.

Hi Don,
As you have said in other areas, the Hebraic way is to have the logical assumption implied.  Yet still in scripture we have enough evidence to charge Adam.

1. We have God’s charge of sin in Adam listening to the voice of his wife.

2. We have God’s charge of treason (treacherous) in Hosea 6:7

3. We have Paul’s confirmation that Adam was not deceived in 1 Timothy 2:14

4. We have the scripture telling us specifically that Adam was with Eve (Genesis 3:6)

Putting it all together we have a very sad state of affairs.  We have a man charged with guarding the garden but who is silent when his wife is being taken captive by the enemy.  He was not deceived by the lies of the enemy but he knew and understood the truth the entire time that his wife was being taken captive by the lie.  Adam cannot say that he was guarding the back door when the enemy came in the front door.  Adam was right there at the front door.  He failed to guard the door and he failed to sound the warning.  If he had spoken up and warned Eve of the danger, I have no doubt that things would have been different.  Yet God is still sovereign and God made provision for this deception and the sin that came into the world through Adam’s failure as a watchman and Adam’s deliberate choice to eat the fruit.

I am constantly in amazement at how our Christian culture allows us to make excuses for Adam and yet we are willing to charge Eve with sin without any evidence that she added to God’s word.  We need to lay the blame solely at the feet of Adam because that is the only one that God charged with treason.  God’s wisdom in this matter is the key since God knew Adam’s heart and all of his actions.  God gave Adam no wiggle room out of the charge of sin.  Because of this, Adam’s sin stands without excuse.

Thanks Don, Truthseeker, Greg and tiro.  I appreciate all thoughts and your prayers.  I am believing that what I am doing by going the full way with Matthew 18 will be an encouragement to others who have also been mistreated merely because they believe that women are allowed to teach the body of Christ with the authority of 1 Peter 4:11.  If we do not confront those who separate from us because of a secondary issue of faith, then they are going to keep doing the same thing to others.  I believe that it is a loving thing to challenge this kind of sin.

Here is an update to all those who are following the CARM / Matt Slick / Diane Sellner issue where egalitarians have been mistreated badly as if they weren’t even Christians. I have a Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick scheduled for August 22, 2008 at 9 am in the Boise, Idaho area.  My pastor will be traveling there with my husband and I to bring the last witness to Matt Slick regarding his public sin against me.  Would you please be in prayer?

Please pray first of all for Matt Slick and CARM that God will be glorified in what happens and that there will be a change of heart in Matt Slick from his position of attacking brothers and sisters in Christ to one of love and compassion for the entire body of Christ.  I know that it sounds impossible from what has carried on over the past about 11 months, but we have a great God who is not willing to put out a smoking reed.  If Matt can be helped and encouraged to change his ways that includes attacks against the brethren, this is the first concern and the goal of our meeting.

Secondly pray for us as we travel a long distance to confront Matt.  Pray for our safety as we travel a long distance on August 21 and prepare for the meeting the next day.  Pray also that Jesus will keep our hearts tender to show Matt love even though he has shown nothing to me but contempt.  Perhaps he can be reached with love when all else fails.

Pray also for the inevitable attacks against my person.  Matt has made it clear to me that he plans to continue his attacks at this Matthew 18 meeting.  He has already publicly twisted my words and I have been accused of being an enemy via his discussion board and accused of all kinds of things that have no basis at all in the truth.  Pray that I “count it all joy” when I encounter this trial.

James 1:2  Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
James 1:3  knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

Most of all, please pray that Matt Slick will be willing to repent of his ways and seek reconciliation and peace in the body of Christ.  Matt is not coming to me for reconciliation.  I am coming to him.  I am coming at my own expense and I am making the effort to reach out to him. The bottom line in these kinds of disputes should be peace and brotherly kindness considering that we show Jesus love by showing love to one another.  Yet in all of this there must be accountability and I am holding Matt Slick accountable.  I grieve at the way CARM has treated so many godly Christians and I grieve that apparently Matt has not had enough Matthew 18 meetings to bring an erring brother to an account for his sin.  Pray for Matt that he will be brought back into proper relationship with the entire body of Christ and he will no longer attack his own “flesh and blood” family.

While I am still working on my next post, I pose a slight digression for those of you who are as passionate about the Trinity as I am.  Ben Witherington has posted a very liberal view of the Trinity at http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/jesus-as-unifier-of-bible.html saying that Jesus is not the YHWH of the Old Testament and did not appear on the earth in a pre-incarnate form.  There is a whole bunch I can say but I did not want to dominate the discussion over there.  I will be responding back to Dr. Witherington, but if anyone else would like to respond other at his blog which is quite popular with others of that like mind, go ahead and jump right in.  The truth of the Trinity is worth fighting for!

Greg,

” But no system of thought will ever figure out or contain the LORD of HOSTS.”

After being immersed in the subject of the LORD of hosts for about 9 months now, when I read your comment, my spirit within me leaped for joy!  All I can say is AMEN!!!!  What a mighty God we serve and we get to enjoy him for eternity!!!

We could also say that Adam was confused about guarding the garden. There is a lot of things we could say, but the question is, what can we prove from the context?

I don’t think that Adam was confused about the prohibition.  Neither was Eve.  Adam knew the truth and so did Eve.  That is until she was deceived.  Then she no longer believed the truth.  We know this because this is what the bible says.  Adam was not deceived but Eve was.  She was deceived by the serpent, not by her own inability to understand the command.

There is so much more to consider.  I will work on the next article and if the grandkids give me a break, I will try to get it up by the end of the weekend.

Don,

The real question is whether we should trust Eve’s testimony.  Eve said “God said…”

In Jewish tradition, woman was not to be trusted.  The woman was not to be believed in court because women were considered to be unreliable.  Is it possible that we are inputting this same tradition into scripture?

I am the kind of person who is willing to look at all the evidence, but I need evidence.  Is there evidence in scripture that Eve lied?  There is no evidence per se, but some have put Eve’s testimony into question because they want to reconcile the discrepancies between what Eve said “God said…” and the words that God said to Adam before Eve was created.  I say that we can reconcile the differences without making Eve to be either a liar or childlike.

If we start with the view that we can believe what is said unless it is contradicted, then we can accept Eve’s testimony as truth.  We already know that God added additional food to what he had given to Adam so it is already logical and truthful that God can and did add to what he said to Adam.  God’s words then to Adam are not the entirety of what God had to say.  When we make God’s words to Adam as the entirety, we are left with a contradiction.  Rather we should realize that Genesis 1:29 is an addition not a contradiction.  In the same way the woman’s testimony regarding what God said is also God’s addition to what he said to Adam.  This is the easiest and simplest way to reconcile scripture.

Do I give hierarchists the ability to see other things from the text?  Yes, I do as long as there is something that would be considered evidence.  Is there any evidence at all that Eve lied?  Is there any evidence at all that Eve had a lapse of memory or got God’s command wrong?  If someone could show me what the evidence is, I would gladly look at it.  IN the meantime I just take scripture for what it says in context.  Eve gave testimony that I do not have liberty to not believe without any proof that she was wrong.  When we see Eve as being truthful instead of thinking that women should not be trusted in giving testimony, then the foundation of women hearing God’s words and giving out truthful testimony is found in Genesis.

So the problem I must have proof.  I must have evidence.  I have never had a hierarchist give me evidence that would allow me not to trust Eve’s words.  Until I see evidence, I will believe Eve.

5 Anonymous,

I think that your questions deserve to be answered in an article instead in the comment section so that more people are able to read it.  I will use your questions as the basis for my next article.

I appreciate that you found my articles logical and thought-provoking.  These are the same comments that I have been getting from my DVD series.  The basis of my argument comes from the passages themselves but from things in the passages that others appear to have missed.  It is the gift that God has given me and I am blessed to help others to logically think through these issues from a different angle.

pinklight wanted to rewrite a comment so I deleted her original comment that originally was #28.

Don,

1. In 1 Cor. 15 we see several very interesting observations that will help us to understand this passage. First of all we see that each “group” of listing of people does not meaning that it is entirely new people. Peter is listed first as “Cephas” who is apparently the first of the men who saw the resurrected Christ, but I think we can all agree that “Cephas” is not excluded from “the twelve”. So we have Peter listed first and then the twelve with Peter being a part of the twelve.

Now at the time of the first appearance of Christ to the “twelve” (as the order is given as a time order), Judas was not there neither was Thomas. This means that “the twelve” is a title for the twelve apostles, not a number of who were present. Matthias would not be included in this number since he was not “picked” at this time.

John Gill brings out the same claim as I do that “the twelve” are the “name” of the group not the number that were present.

“then of the twelve; though there were then but eleven of them, Judas being gone from them, and having destroyed himself; and at the first appearance of Christ to them, there were but ten present, Thomas being absent; and yet because their original number, when first chosen and called, were twelve, they still went by the same name;”

Remember that Paul is listing the appearances in order of the men whom Jesus appeared to. I do not believe that there is any evidence at all that Matthias was counted as one of the twelve during the resurrection appears of Jesus with the other eleven disciples. If he was, then there would not have been a need to draw straws to pick him later. The fact that Thomas was not present but the group is still called “the twelve” shows that the number does not prove that Matthias was there with them.

Then we find in order of appearance that Jesus appeared to 500 brethren and then:

“1Co 15:7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;”

The understanding is that the phrase “then to all the apostles” means that Jesus appears to the eleven that now included Thomas who had been missing when Jesus appeared the first time. With the apostles were others, likely the 72 disciples whom Jesus had sent out two by two. This is the last recorded appearance of Jesus so this would be the ascension into heaven. Some consider the term “all the apostles” to be just the 11 apostles and some consider the number to include all those who were present. I don’t think this is an issue since we both agree that there were other apostles besides the 12 apostles.

Lastly Paul says that he saw the resurrected Christ. Paul considered himself abnormally born because he lacked the “gestation” period of having been with Christ during His earthly ministry. (The Bible Knowledge commentary).

2. It appears odd to me that Paul would be fighting to compare himself only to the false apostles since Paul considered himself in within the group in 1 Cor. 15:8

Albert Barnes on the 2 Cor. 11:5 passage says that Paul is saying that he is equal to the very top apostles. He paraphrases Paul:

“For I suppose … – I think that I gave as good evidence that I was commissioned by God as the most eminent of the apostles. In the miracles which I performed; in the abundance of my labors, and in my success, I suppose that I did not fall behind any of them. If so, I ought to be regarded and treated as an apostle; and if so, then the false teachers should not be allowed to supplant me in your affections, or to seduce you from the doctrines which I have taught. On the evidence that Paul was equal to others in the proper proof of a commission from God;”

John Gill says:

“the very chiefest of the apostles: such as Peter, James, and John; who seemed to be pillars, were eminent apostles, of great note among them, and such as Christ, in the days of his flesh, took particular notice of. This he says, not to exalt himself, but to show, how weakly and injudiciously the Corinthians acted in setting up the false apostle above him;”

John Gill then goes on to include the false apostles as making themselves equal to the twelve. It appears that even if Paul is equating himself with what the false apostles claim, it isn’t who they really are that Paul is equating himself with. It is with their “claims” that he is equating himself with. The claims are to be equal with the very top apostles and that would be the twelve.

Paul appears to be claiming a position of apostleship, one just like the other eleven as he claimed to have genuine miracles, signs and revelation.

3. While we do not know what signs and wonders the other apostles did, we do know that it was important to have signs and wonders and miracles and to have seen the resurrected Christ to be an apostle of Paul’s caliber. We don’t hear of any other apostle that claimed the things that Paul claims. If having signs and wonders must be a sign of a regular apostle today and if it was also a sign back then, then there is no evidence that a regular apostle had these signs either then or now. The only evidence of signs and wonders was from the hands of the twelve apostles and Paul’s claim to these preeminent signs, wonders and revelations puts him in the class of the twelve if not in the best of that class as none of the other apostles did as much as Paul did. Why would Jesus give a secondary apostle preeminent signs and revelations than he gave to the others of the twelve? It doesn’t make sense to me other than that Paul’s claims to being preeminent are true.

4. As far as Acts 1:22, I believe that the requirement to have been there the entire time of Jesus’ ministry was a requirement to have been under Jesus’ teaching. Every single one of the eleven had been under Jesus’ entire teaching and were witnesses of the resurrection. While I do not think that the eleven saw past their own experience to understand at that time that Jesus would raise up one who received the same teaching as they did and who also saw the resurrected Christ but who had not been with them for one minute. Yet Paul claims to have been taught by Christ and he claims to have seen the resurrected Christ so his experience with Jesus matched their experience during the time that they were with Christ.

You said:

“If you reject the process of choosing Matthias, it is ironic that you use part of this process to justify your position.”

I believe that it is Jesus himself who said that the twelve were to be witnesses to his resurrection. While I can take the partial understanding of the eleven, my foundation on the selection of the twelfth apostle is on Jesus’ words, the OT prophecy of the selection of the replacement for Judas and Paul’s testimony that he was selected by Jesus to be a witness to the resurrection, to receive teaching by Jesus himself and to be an apostle who has more miracles and more revelation then the other eleven. I believe Paul makes his claims in this way because the twelfth position has been taken and his claim appears to make him an interloper to position taken by Matthias. I do not believe that he would take the opportunity to brag about himself just to make himself an equal to the false apostles. Paul’s authority was from Jesus alone and no other secondary apostle had this kind of authority.

While I can appreciate why you do not believe that Paul was the twelfth apostle, especially because you do not want to see the eleven as having made a premature act of picking a replacement, I do not see any proof in the passages that Jesus himself chose and commissioned Matthias. This is very important to me because if Jesus had chosen Matthias surely there would have been an ordination from Jesus as he had personally ordained the rest of the eleven. I see this ordination in Paul and Paul’s “proofs” have convinced me. I see no verification that Matthias was Jesus’ ordained pick.

I also really feel for Paul because I can see how hard it would be in that day and age where the replacement for Judas was already a “done deal” to try to convince others that he was legitimately picked by Jesus as an apostle of the resurrection with the same mandate as the other eleven. No wonder so many didn’t believe him. No other mere apostle ever appeared to have to defend their apostleship. Why did Paul have to defend his apostleship? Personally, I believe it because he wasn’t just an ordinary apostle. I believe that we will witness his name written on one of the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem and I believe that he will be sitting on a throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel just as the other eleven will sit.

Now if Matthias had claimed to be personally picked by Jesus as one of the twelve and had claimed that he was one of the twelve and proved it was so by his signs and miracles, then that would help. His ordination was an ordination of man’s choice brought before God. The disciples didn’t ask God if he wanted one of these men. They simply asked him to chose which one and then they didn’t wait on his voice, they cast lots. This doesn’t sit right with me and it doesn’t match what Jesus did for Paul. If Jesus personally picked Paul, and Paul was merely a second class apostle, then why couldn’t Jesus have personally picked Matthias too in the same miraculous ways as he did for Paul? The mode of picking plus the inspired words in the OT that say that the one is to “take” his place not be elected to the position, just leaves things hanging and seems misplaced compared to Paul’s claims.

If the only thing that would stop me from believing Paul’s ordination, is that the eleven couldn’t be wrong, I have no problem accepting that they could have stepped outside of their authority and made a mistake before they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. If not, why did they even need the Holy Spirit? He wasn’t needed in picking the replacement…or was he? If he was, then his job was done after Pentecost and Paul is right there in our face 🙂

Don,

I am trying to figure out what you are actually claiming.  Are you claiming that in 1 Cor 15:5 that Peter is not part of the 12 since he is named before the twelve?  Or do you understand that the “12? is a name for those who had been picked by Jesus to be his witnesses of the resurrection?

Are you also claiming that Paul said that he saw the resurrected Christ and that he had signs and miracles only because he wanted people to think that he was just as good as the false apostles?  Sort of a one-up-manship?  I gave a lot of verses to you and I am not sure if I understand your point.  Are you saying that all the verses I gave you are there only because Paul is claiming to be equal to the false apostles and is not claiming to be equal to the true 12 apostles?  If so, that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Did you answer why Paul claimed to be a witness to the resurrection and why every other apostle other than the twelve did not claim to be an apostle of the resurrection or claim that they had signs and wonders to prove their apostleship?  If you did answer this, I missed it from the verses that you quoted.

I do not think that there is any relevance at all that the eleven saw Jesus between the resurrection and the ascension.   Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ and since the witness chosen by Christ had to be a witness to the resurrection, I don’t see any relevance at all to having to witness the ascension.  Are you making a claim here that this is important?

The claims of Paul that I wanted you to address are his claims to having the signs and wonders that make him a true apostle and the fact that he claims to being picked as a witness to the resurrection by Jesus Himself.  I don’t see anyone else making that claim other than the other eleven disciples.  Can you comment on this?

Don,

“Paul wrote Scripture, so signs and wonders help confirm him as speaking for God as God did things thru him. If anyone today would claim to write Scripture, I would expect similar signs and wonders as part of the confirmation.”

What miracles and signs and wonders did Luke do?

Miracles with signs and wonders was not a requirement for writing scripture. Paul didn’t use it to prove that he wrote scripture. He used it to prove that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ.

The apostles thought that the replacement apostle had to be with them from the beginning because it had to be someone who was given as a witness to the resurrection. They had no idea at that point that Jesus could call Paul into heaven to witness his resurrection and learn from him as they had learned from Jesus. but Jesus picked Paul anyway as a witness for the resurrection. I believe that Jesus’ choice stands. I don’t think that you answered the following questions:

1. Why does Paul appeal to the fact that he saw the resurrected Christ as necessary for him being an apostle?

2. Why does Paul appeal to the fact that he had the necessary “signs and wonders” of a true apostle?
   The questions have to do with Paul being an apostle, not about writing scripture.

I know these are hard questions. I admit that. But I do believe they deserve to be answered. They are very important to me.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Don,

You said:

“The reason I said it was a mistake to couple these ideas is it makes it easier for the non-egals to dismiss 1 by dismissing the other. The idea of Paul being the 12th apostle is not common. So you are giving your opponents a “slow pitch” even if you believe it to be true. There are many things that I might believe the Lord showed me that I would never bring up in an argument.”

We each have our own way of argumentation. My way of argumentation is to use the scriptures and prove from them that men’s authority does not make a pastor nor does men’s authority take away the gifting of a person as a pastor. Perhaps you could show me how you teach from the scriptures that men’s authority cannot make one a pastor nor can it take away one’s calling. If you have a better way of seeing this from the scriptures, I would be open to seeing it. I believe that the fact that Paul proved his apostleship when he was not ordained by man is very applicable to the fact that one can be what one is called to be without having to be ordained by a body of men. I also believe that although Matthias was an apostle of the eleven, he was not called to be an apostle of the resurrection as Paul was called so his ordination of men did not “make” him what he was not called to be by Jesus. If you have a better way to show this from any other text of scripture, I am very open to hearing it. I am assuming that you believe that men cannot “make” one a pastor nor can they invalidate one’s calling. If you don’t believe this, I would be open to hearing why you don’t hold to this either.

Iron sharpens iron. it is always good to be pushed to show what we believe and why we believe it. It stretches us and causes us to keep our focus on the text and the context.

Hi Don,

” The lot was an accepted way to make decisions and besides being random it might mean they voted.”

While the “lot” was an accepted way to make decisions in the OT, it is not shown to be an accepted way for decision making in the NT. It is only shown one time and in the disputed area of Matthias as an apostle. The other thing you have not dealt with is that the apostles were the ones who picked the candidates. It wasn’t until they had the candidates that they prayed and asked God which choice he wanted. The problem with that is that if neither one of these choices was God’s choice (i.e. if Paul was the choice and neither one of the other men) then they were forcing the lot to be God’s decision. If you notice the decisions made by “lot” in the OT were not the same as the decision over the twelfth apostle. For example in each case all were brought forward and the lot “chose” the one that was to be picked. In the apostles case, not all were brought forward so the “lot” was skewed. It would have been similar to bringing only a couple of the tribes up front and casting the lot over them while ignoring all of the other tribes. If all are available for the choice, then the “lot” is skewed. When all are there, then the “lot” is in the hands of the Lord. Do you see the difference?

As far as Paul claiming the same thing as the eleven, consider this:

Acts 1:22 “beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

Acts 2:43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

Acts 5:12 At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people…

Acts 19:11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,
Acts 19:12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.

John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
John 15:27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

Acts 10:39 We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
Acts 10:40 God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
Acts 10:41 not to all people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
Acts 10:42 And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses of these things….

Paul writes:

1 Cor. 4:9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

2 Cor. 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.
2 Cor. 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

Romans 15:18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me…
Romans 15:19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

1 Cor. 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

In 1 Cor. 9:1 Paul equates his seeing the risen Christ with his apostleship which is a direct connection to the requirement of being a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.

1 Cor. 15:8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
1 Cor. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1 Cor. 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Paul compares himself to the other apostles who have seen Jesus and he says that he is what he is (an apostle) by the grace of God. That grace of God caused him to work even harder than all of the others.

Again the requirement of seeing the risen Christ was the requirement for being a true apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul considers himself the least of this group who are to testify of the resurrection.

1 Cor. 15:15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up – if in fact the dead do not rise.

Here Paul includes himself in those who are are to testify of the resurrection of Christ.

Paul claims to have authority from Christ:

2 Cor. 13:10 For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not tearing down.

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

Gal. 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man,
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:1 Paul a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle, separate to the gospel of God
Romans 1:4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead,
Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship….

Paul received his call by Jesus Christ himself to be an apostle of the resurrection.

So the questions that you need to answer is:

1. Why does Paul appeal to the fact that he saw the resurrected Christ as necessary for him being an apostle?

2. Why does Paul appeal to the fact that he had the necessary “signs and wonders” of a true apostle?

If Paul was an ordinary apostle who was like those who went out and started churches, then why did he need to appeal to the signs of a true apostle? None of the other secondary apostles ever appealed to these signs nor did they ever claim that they were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. These are questions that must be answered.

Don,

One last thing I don’t think I answered very clearly.  It is in regarding to your question about why God didn’t show displeasure in the apostle’s picking of Matthias.  I think this belongs in the realm of why God allowed divorce and why he didn’t push people to quickly in the areas of slavery and polygamy although each of these areas is clearly wrong.  I believe that God allowed Paul to “take” his place as one of the apostles of Jesus Christ to be a witness to the resurrection.  He did not have to advise the apostles that Paul would come along and claim to be this last witness.

I also believe that by God allowing the disciples to chose their own replacement by choosing the two candidates, this is an example to us that men who are fully dedicated to God can make errors based on their assumptions and their faulty presupposition.  This doesn’t mean that God rejects them.  It just means that the truth will be found in the text, not in our presupposition of what the text should say.

Again, I want to assure you that I am submissive to be corrected.  I just have a high standard of allowing the text to correct me, not our assumptions.  My pastor has found out that I do humbly admit that I am wrong when I am proven wrong.  I love receiving truth and I love those who love me enough to correct my error.  I both love them and respect them.  But those who correct me have to use the text itself in context.  That is my foundation and that is what I want to be corrected from.  Until I see the text correcting me, I will hold to the claims of Paul.  I too believe that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ picked as an apostle of the resurrection.

Don,

Your questions are good as always although you and I disagree on the issue of the twelfth apostle.

I disagree with you also about wanting to be ordained in a church that has problems with ordaining women.  In the comments made by the sister, her denomination does ordain women however the Pastor in the church she is in is against women as pastors so he will not allow for a woman to participate in his church.  While I can completely understand why someone would leave a church like this and move on, I can also support someone who would work to change the mindset of the church.  I think it is a person’s decision on how they wish to work through this issue.  For example Paul saw Peter’s way of holding back from eating with the Gentiles as not a leadership decision but a sin issue.  If all the leaders were on Peter’s side they still would have been wrong.  Paul was not going to move on because it was an issue that needed correcting.
.
Don, although you do not see Paul as claiming to be one of the twelve, I clearly see it.  Paul’s claim to be an apostle picked by Jesus himself to be a witness to the resurrection is the claim of the eleven.  We find here two important things:

1. Paul claimed to be an apostle for the exact same thing as all the other eleven (all were apostles of Jesus for the witness of the resurrection).

2. No one else claimed to be an apostle of Jesus for a witness of the resurrection.

Paul also was the only one in scripture who found the need to defend his apostleship.  The question we need to ask is why?  Why did only Paul claim to have the same mandate as the eleven?  Why was only Paul made to have to defend his apostleship?  These are questions that anyone needs to ask who does not believe that Paul was the twelfth apostle.

“If the 11 acting in concert after refrring to Scripture and praying could make this big a blunder, how do we know anything they did later makes any sense at all?”

There is a difference between what the apostles did later and what they did before they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  If we are going to say that the disciples could not make any mistakes before they were filled with the Holy Spirit’s power then we will have to go back to when they thought that the kingdom was going to be set up by Jesus in their lifetime.  They all appeared to be in unity on this issue but they were all wrong.  The difference comes at the time when they are all speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit – that is the time when they could not be wrong.  Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit came upon them, he (the Holy Spirit) would lead them into all truth.  Did Jesus promise that they would not make any mistakes before that time?  I don’t think so.

So if Jesus promised the eleven that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, then once the Holy Spirit came upon them, they would not make any mistakes because it was the Holy Spirit’s responsibility to lead them all into all truth.

What is the difference between the Holy Spirit’s leading after Pentecost and the decision that they made regarding Matthias before Pentecost?  Let’s consider the differences:

1.  They were led into all truth after Pentecost and no decision that they made in unity was ever wrong.  There was no promise that they would be lead in to all truth before the Holy Spirit came upon them in power so questioning their decision before they were empowered does not open up a whole can of worms.  It would only be questioning of their humanity instead of questioning the Holy Spirit’s leading.

2.  Before Pentecost they collectively had wrong ideas that were corrected in time by Jesus.  These wrong ideas did not taint their leadership because their leadership without error came from the power of the Holy Spirit.  Because of this what happened before Pentecost was in a different category from what happened with them after they were empowered by the Holy Spirit.  If they were perfect before Pentecost then it was their own power and their own ability that made them perfect, not the power of the Holy Spirit.  This was not the way it was to be.

3.  When they prayed to God to make the decision, they gave God choices instead of waiting for him to give his choice. That would force God to pick one of their choices instead of picking someone that they had not even thought of as a candidate.  If God had answered their prayer by a miraculous leading to pick Matthias, then we could be sure that the disciple’s choice of only two men was correct and there was no a third option.  But God did not answer miraculously and if the disciple’s decision to only pick two men at that time and not three (Paul certainly would have been a choice available later on), then we cannot assume that the disciples had the mind of Christ before they were empowered to know his mind.  I think that it is reasonable to question a decision that the disciples made before they were empowered.  To not question their decision before they were empowered seems to me to make the apostles to be icons in their own right.  It would make their own collective will (their decision to pick only two men for God to choose from) as equal to God’s will.  Why should they be empowered then with the Holy Spirit if they had the ability to collectively know God’s will before they were empowered to be led into all truth?  The Holy Spirit then would be not needed since they could do his work as long as they were collectively in union?  No, I don’t think so.  They were human and were susceptible to error before they were empowered as a unit to be the foundations of the church.

4.  No other decision that they made after they were empowered by the Holy Spirit is called into question.  There are many who call into question the choice that they made before they were empowered.  For example many call into question their decision to cast lots.  This method of understanding God’s will was never used by the Holy Spirit as a method of making a decision.

If the eleven apostles could pick their own human choices for the twelfth apostle, then should this be an example of how we are to pray?  “God, I am not sure if I should marry Janet or Sue. Please show me which one is your will.  I will cast lots to know.”  What if God wants you to marry Barbara?  How will casting lots work in this situation?  It can’t.  We are not to limit God to our own understanding but allow him to work beyond our human understanding.

“There is no indication of God’s displeasure with their choosing of Matthias that I can find. ”

God allowed them to have their choice, but he was not restricted by their choice since it was his decision not theirs.  I believe this is the only way to properly understand Paul’s claims.  Paul claimed two things that will need to be explained away by anyone who does not believe that he was claiming to be the twelfth apostle.  The fact is that Paul claimed to have the exact same mandate as the eleven – Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ to be a witness of the resurrection.  The second thing is that Paul was always having to defend his apostleship.  It is understandable that Paul had to defend his apostleship since the one picked to be the last apostle of the resurrection was Matthias.  If Matthias was the twelfth apostle of the resurrection then Paul’s claim to being an apostle of Jesus Christ as a witness of the resurrection was bogus.

In my mind, I can either accept Paul’s claim to being an apostle of Jesus Christ as a witness of the resurrection or I can accept that a group of men had infallibility to choose an apostle of Jesus Christ before they were given power by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  I see no can of worms here since I do not see the apostle’s infallibility coming before Pentecost.  I also do not see the wisdom of deciding on two men and then asking God to pick.  Nothing in the OT tells them that it was their responsibility to pick a replacement and nothing in scripture makes the apostles infallible before Pentecost.

Don, I really have a lot of appreciation for you and I have grown to love you as a brother in Christ.  When you said this, it made me smile:

“I also think it is a mistake to try to couple the idea of Paul being the 12th apostle (and consequently Matthias being therefore man’s choice but not God’s) with the issue of women being able to be leaders in church.”

Since this is my blog, I reserve the right to give my strong opinion. 

I will allow myself to be corrected if I am wrong but my correction will come from the text itself and not from fear of questioning.   I do not believe that I am wrong.  If I am wrong, then you will have to prove that the disciples had infallibility before Pentecost and then explain why they even needed Pentecost.  You will also have to explain why the need for the casting of lots if they collectively all had the mind of Christ before Pentecost?  Lastly, you will have to explain to me why the inspired scripture never even hints that a group of men would have the power to pick candidates for the “office” of witness to the resurrection when the scriptures say that the one who is to take Judas’ place is to do the “taking” himself.  You will never convince me that there is a can of worms to open by challenging the humanity of the apostles before Pentecost.  I am not the first to question their wisdom nor will I be the last.  The answer will be in the text itself.  It will not be in fearing to question their humanity before their empowerment by the Holy Spirit.

I also see a very strong application to the women’s issue.  I am known for seeing things outside the box so I won’t force you to follow me on my pathway.  All that I would ask you to do is to understand that it is okay to see the humanity of men even of the apostles before they were given the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  I have given many reasons for why I believe as I do.  Paul’s claim to being an apostle of Jesus Christ for a witness of the resurrection is something that I cannot ignore and I choose to take him at face value and believe that he was exactly what he said he was.  He was the twelfth witness chosen by Jesus Christ himself to be a witness to the resurrection and one who replaced Judas who failed to be a faithful witness.

Even though we disagree, I still love you a lot!!!

“Called”

I am separating the threads so that it will be easier to follow.  I look forward to finding out who you really are 🙂

Don,

I would like to continue to discuss the Paul/Matthias issue. I just have my mind going in so many different directions right now that I want to respond to your reasons with clarity. Your well thought-out proposals deserve a well thought-out answer. I pretty well know how to answer you, but I do want to meditate on your points more especially because I respect you a lot and don’t think we have to rush this discussion. It isn’t a discussion that should get me the “honor” of being banned from my own blog, eh? I have really appreciated your ability to passionately fight for your opinion and even your caution to me. I do not believe that you need to worry about my fight for recognition of the apostle Paul as a detriment to someone’s belief in women in ministry, but I respect you for sharing that. My plan was to get back to this discussion later on today. I really love this back and forth discussion as it is truly a push to dig into the scriptures and should result in a two-way result of iron sharpening iron.

**Note the comments about whether Paul is the twelfth apostle or not have all been moved to the comments under http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/06/11/pauls-ordination/

Don,

Yes, I guess it is a true honor because this “honor” is granted at CARM for those who push for truth. My push for truth was regarding Matt’s statements that the Holy Spirit can inspire errors in the grammar on purpose and that the “errors” in 1 Timothy 2:15 were put there on purpose, inspired by the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul because of Paul’s ignorance of the Greek grammar(!) I don’t think so! Matt attempts to qualify 1 Timothy 2:15 as a piece of “poetry” when it is obviously not poetry but instructions by Paul to Timothy, absolutely boggle my mind. My pointing out this unorthodox attempt at looking at the Greek grammar in an “attempt” to refute me and also my request for a meeting with Matt to resolve his attacks on my character was too much for them to handle. Honestly, I can only say that Matt appears to be a runner who isn’t about to be called into question for his actions. Fearful men run away when they are challenged to work things out in person. I used to think that Matt was bold, but I think he is only bold when he thinks he has control and can win. If he is called to admit that he made an error or called to account for his abusive language against a sister in Christ, he is nowhere to be found. That is certainly not bravery. He is not interested in following the biblical method to resolve these problems. I feel very sorry for Matt.

Of course they will still continue to monitor my blog as they always do, in order to read what I have to say. But now they can’t even respond to what I write because they kicked me off their discussion board and they have vowed not to comment here. They have even less control now then they ever did before. 😉