Truthseeker,

What a wonderful word you have for us today!

What I think would be great is if CBMW would allow their blog to receive comments.  Although they ask for feedback they are not posting the feedback for those searching on line to see.  I think this is unfortunate.  What it does say to me is that they are so settled in their opinion that they are not interest in having the other side promoted in any way on their blog.  I highly doubt that they will even consider what people like us would write.  My opinion comes from experience.  I have tried to dialog with CBMW and they would not dialog regarding my DVD that they asked for and received and they stopped an email conversation with me basically just telling me to read their material which I had already read.  But I do agree with you that those who are searching do need to hear the “other side” but they are unlikely to get that from strong hierarchal sites.  If they are brave enough to read at places like this one, they will find wonderful people who may have differences but who are united together in Christ and passionate for women to be released into God’s service.

Here are my answers to your wonderful thoughts and questions –

Don: Recall that there were 70 sent out at one point and being sent out by Jesus meant that this group met one criterion for being “sent-out ones” or apostles.

True, but they were not the foundational apostles endued with authority for the foundation of the church. The 70 were sent ahead of Jesus to prepare the way for him while the 12 apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus’ miracles, his death, resurrection and ascension. They were given the authority to establish doctrine. Was Paul just one of the one’s sent to prepare the way for Jesus, or was he one of the ones who had authority for the foundation of the church and to establish doctrine?

Don: Paul never claims to be one of the 12.

While Paul did not say the words that he was one of the 12, he did claim to be one of the same group as the twelve. The 12 were set apart by Jesus for the gospel of Jesus Christ and for testifying of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Paul also claimed that he was set aside by Jesus Christ for a witness to the resurrected Lord Jesus.

Act 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.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,

1Co 15:6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
1Co 15:7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
1Co 15:8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

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

He claimed to be equal with the 12, 2 Cor. 12:11.

2Co 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.

The claims of Paul that he was equal to the highest of the apostles, chosen by Jesus himself to be a witness to the resurrection and he was responsible for establishing doctrine. No other apostle other than the 12 were given these responsibilities or made these claims.

2Co 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.

He claimed to be among the apostles of Jesus who were given special miracles as a sign of the gospel of the resurrection of Christ that they proclaimed.

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

Act 19:11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,

Lastly Paul called himself by the name given to the 12 – the apostle of Jesus Christ. It is the same name used of James and Peter

Jas 1:1 James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
Jud 1:1 Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ
1Co 1:1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,

No other apostle is said in scripture to call themselves an apostle or bond-servant of Jesus Christ except for the 12 who had the authority to speak for Jesus.

Don: Someone today might have a vision or Paul-like experience and see Jesus and become an apostle but that does not mean they are one of the 12.

An apostle today doesn’t have to see Jesus. The original 12 needed to be witnesses to the resurrected Christ. Paul said that he went to the third heaven and he saw the resurrected man Jesus. He was indeed a witness to the resurrection as was needed to be one of the 12.

Paula: I see an important issue with the choosing of Matthias as what Peter said in vs. 21-22, that it had to be someone who was with them from John’s baptism to Jesus’ ascension. Paul could not possibly qualify for that. And this was all Peter’s doing, not the group’s.

This was Peter’s qualification, yet the scriptures clearly show that the purpose of the 12 was to be witnesses to the resurrection. Paul was taught by the resurrected Jesus and saw him in his resurrected body so he qualifies as a witness to the resurrection.

Paula: Then they first prayed for God to direct the choice between two proposed candidates, and only then cast the lot. Lot casting of course was a legitimate method of finding the will of God in OT times, and at this early stage there was no other method, as the Holy Spirit had not yet come.

While the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, they had received the Holy Spirit through Jesus:
Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

I disagree that casting lots was their only way to hear from God since they had the Holy Spirit already given to them.

Paula: Paul, per his own words, was the apostle to the Gentiles, whereas the 12 were to the Jews. And he was uniquely commissioned to reveal the mystery, that is, the unity of Jew and Gentile into one Body. So his mission was entirely different from that of the 12.

All of the apostle’s mission was to be a witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus so Paul’s mission was not different than the others. While Paul specialized in the Gentiles and Peter specialized in the Jews, Paul always went to the Jews first and Peter was sent to the Gentiles by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:22) Who were the other apostles sent to? They were all sent to the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul said it was to the Jew first and then the Gentiles. We cannot separate Paul from the other apostles in the ones that they went to because they all went to both Jew and Gentile and they all had the same mission.

The questions we need to ponder and then answer are concerning Paul’s apostleship:

Did Jesus personally ordain Paul as his apostle?
Did Paul receive teaching from the resurrected Lord Jesus?
Did Paul claim to have authority given to him by Jesus Christ?
Did Paul shows signs of his apostleship?

The other apostles did not need to show signs of their apostleship and they did not have authority to establish doctrine.

If we reject Paul as one of the foundational 12 apostles, we would need to agree that:
Paul did not have the authority that was granted the 12 apostles. His authority was not equal to theirs but we see something different in the scriptures as Paul actually had a greater authority in establishing doctrine than they did and he received more revelations then they did.

If Paul was just an ordinary apostle but not one of the special 12 set aside as witnesses to the resurrection, then Paul was not different than all the other secondary apostles and shouldn’t have needed to prove his apostleship just as they were never said to prove their apostleship.

I believe that Paul has proven that he was one of the apostles of the Lord Jesus ordained to be a witness to the resurrection. He had the authority of Jesus Christ to establish doctrine and he did this more than any of the other apostles.

That’s about all that I need say on this subject especially since I must get back to video editing and keep my nose in it for a time.

I appreciate all of your opinions and your well thought-out reasoning. Each one of us can now go to scripture and search for ourselves which one of the two was the true 12th apostle of Jesus Christ appointed as a witness to the resurrection as was the mandate of all the twelve apostles.

It has been a stimulating discussion and if anyone has anything more to say, I will let you have the last word. My last word is here from Paul himself:

1Co 9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Oh and I forgot to say, Lin, good words of advice!  I will be ready for a written debate and it may be on another blog or web site, but other than that anything I do will be here on this blog since the respect here afforded to Christians by those who visit is so refreshing!

Lin,

“I say, let Matt have the last sarcastic word. That is what he is good at.”

This is also what he needs. Those who are strong in what they believe are not so easily threatened and do not always have to have the last word. In my experience I have noticed that often the ones who have the shakiest foundation are also the ones who know they don’t have all the answers. They cover up with jabs at the other person because an attack is considered by them to be worth as much as a good defense. I have noticed this especially with JW’s. Yet it seems to me that Jesus would say “It should not be so among you.”

“Matt is trying to save face (his).   Given that he does not even acknowledge his abuse and disrespect on his talk show, I think Mat 18 applies.  This does not mean not to interact with him, but be wise about it.”

Absolutely, wise words.  This certainly does follow under Matthew 18.  My Pastor also agrees and he is a wonderful pastor.

Don,

When Paul said that he is least among the apostles he did not say least among the apostles of Jesus Christ so I think it would be reasonable that he is talking about the bigger picture than the twelve. I could be wrong but the verses above this one list the foundational apostles as “the twelve” even though there were only eleven at the time. This group of apostles was the overseers appointed by Jesus as the foundational stones for the church.

You ask whether all the apostles made a blunder. How I would describe it is that they made an assumption that was faulty. I don’t have a problem with that. After all they also made an assumption that deacons should be males (Acts 6:3). This was a faulty assumption at the time, but it appears the apostles had baggage that they brought with them from their Jewish upbringing. Jesus said that he had many things to teach them but they were not able to bear them at the time. There is a time of maturity that was needed and when the apostles made mistakes (such as when Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles) these did not affect the text of scripture which is God-breathed. The apostles still were human.

I love these kinds of dialogs. They stretch me and make me have to think through these issues. Now I would like to stretch you. What makes you believe that Paul was not a foundational apostle – on of the twelve who are ordained by Jesus himself? What makes you think that God picked Matthias and not Paul for this place of service? Is it just because the apostles thought they were responsible and prayed about it? Or do you see Paul’s fight to be considered an apostle of Jesus Christ as something different than I do?

Guys, there are lots to think about here. The fact is that there is a boundary or fence that holds the foundational apostles to a number of twelve. How do we deal with that? How can we see things differently outside the box than how we have always seen the twelve? No matter what our answer, we have to understand there were not thirteen foundational apostles…there were twelve.

tiro3,

What you do is highlight a word when you are in the regular comment mode (not html) and once the word is highlighted the little chain above will become visible. Click on that and you can add a link that is attached to your word 🙂

It is interesting what Diane is doing. She edited her post to read:

“Cheryl refuses a professional debate with Matt, she wants to blog, attack, gossip,insult, whine victim and claim she is misrepresented….Sorry, but historically, when I have had to deal with such types, this is the ONLY thing they understand…I know what I am doing…She wants to threaten ministries, this ministry will fight back…..This is what Paul taught us, to reach them on their level, THIS is her level, she insulted first, attacked the person, attacked the ministry and attempted to control the even the radio media…….she is being handled…..We have to love her, not give in to her threats and whining…and I will not, not allow this person to even think she is going to control what CARM may or may do………..”

What an interesting way to look at it. I offered to debate Matt in a professional way without all the verbal attacks that I received from him on the radio. That is fair and it is professional. There is not just one way to debate and Matt knows this because he has also done a written debate before. I gave my reasons why I don’t want to hear abuse. As far as me “attacking first” I would recommend anyone listen to the 2 dialog tapes between Matt and I and see if it is rational thinking to charge me with “attacking” Matt when the first thing I did was commend him for his ministry. An honest observer will then be able to ask why respectful dialog is called an attack?

It is also very interesting that Diane understands that as a Christian she needs to love me. I am wondering how she plans to show her love?

Also the question of not using my words out of context was regarding a copyrighted piece that I posted on CARM months ago. I also put it on my blog stipulating that people are free to use it as long as it was kept in its original form in full and a link placed back to my blog and my name kept on it as author. This is how copyrighting is done and I did not give CARM permission to pull out pieces of the article because I wanted it kept in context. Reasonable? I think so!

Since I have rarely posted on CARM in the last few months and Diane has admitted this, how could I possibly control CARM? I think I have it figured out and maybe some of you could let me know if I am way off base. I think that Matt wants to bow out of this debate without looking like he is afraid to debate the gender issue in writing with someone whom he does not appear to have Christian love for? Is he afraid that a written debate would make it easier for his arguments to be refuted since he cannot use his usual “style” of verbal mocking? Perhaps. I have many questions I want to give to him in the debate but it appears that this will never happen. A reasonable person can see that Matt would like to back away from this debate while still holding on to his ego.

That is fine. Matt can walk away from a written debate just as he walked away from allowing me to come back on his radio station even after I agreed to his tight control of my speech. He is free to do whatever he wants to and I have no control over him. It is also good for him that I am not a person who practices mocking others and their fears. He can walk away from the debate with his ego intact.

Now on to other things. I would like to go through Wayne Grudem’s/CBMW’s books on what women are forbidden to do. Of course as I am editing the Trinity DVD my time will be limited, but it should be interesting.

Don,

You points about other apostles is agreed upon by me.  There were other apostles and some of them are named in scripture.  This isn’t what I am talking about.  I am talking about the apostles of Jesus Christ who were given the responsibility to oversee the foundation of the church.  They are listed with Jesus as the foundation of the church with Jesus being the corner stone.

Now regarding Acts 1:26, this is a very interesting verse.  Let’s see if we can unpack it.

Act 1:26  And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Now the “drew lots” can mean either that they shook the dice or perhaps drew straws and the short straw “won”.  Either way, this method of decision making was never repeated in scripture nor is it given as an example of a godly decision making option for the Christian church.  Why did they do this when they always relied on prayer and God’s answer through prayer after this time?

The term “he was added” to the eleven apostles absolutely does mean that they considered him the twelfth apostle.  This was the problem.  They considered him the twelfth apostle and because of this Paul’s claim of an apostle ordained by Christ for the overseer place in the foundation level of the church was rejected by many.  This is why Paul can say that he was not “from man or from the agency of man” Galatians 1:1.  Matthias cannot say that he was “not from man or from the agency of man” because the disciples took up themselves the authority to pick two men whom they would ask God to choose between.  This is man’s ordination and I believe very strongly that it was not God’s ordination.

Don, you said that there is no indication in scripture that God did not approve.  I believe there is in the claims of Paul.  He claimed to be one who held a special apostleship directly from Jesus and he had the signs to prove it.  Where were any of the other apostles required to have “signs”?  They weren’t.  It is only the twelve who were the foundational apostles responsible for overseeing the foundation of the church and whom all died as martyrs for that faith and foundation except for the apostle John.

The fact is that Matthias is never mentioned again in scripture and yes I am sure that he stayed with the twelve as one of them.  However my contention is not that he wasn’t consider by the others as the twelfth apostle.  My contention is also not that he was with the others in their journey’s etc.  My contention is that he was not personally picked by the resurrected Christ.  All of the others were picked by the man Jesus Christ.  Paul said that he too was picked by the man Jesus Christ and he personally saw the man Jesus as the resurrected Lord in heaven.  Matthias on the other hand had none of these things except for an ordination from man.

So do I consider there to be other apostles?  Yes, certainly and one of them was a woman (Junia)!  Do I consider the scriptures to show that Matthias was ordained by Jesus Christ the man as an apostle of his?  No, there is no scripture to show this and Paul’s claims to have been ordained by the man Jesus Christ ring true to scripture.  There is where I stand and I offer my position as one that should be verified by scripture.

Don,

I fixed the excessive lines between posts 🙂 now nobody will accuse me of “editing” their posts because of my formating it properly will they?

This is from http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=108945&page=2 and is Diane Sellner’s further answer to my challenge of Matt Slick of CARM to debate me in writing on whether women are forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men. Matt has been very vocal against women’s teaching the bible with authority to men and very against me personally so it was time to ask Matt to be willing to be confronted with questions as he wrote me in April of 2006 that he believed he was mandated by scripture to answer questions about his teaching. Diane writes:

Sorry, a one hour radio show interview/discussion is not a formal debate, not even close, and for Matt to post on a “gossip” column blog to a bunch of “whiney” feminist supporters with the one in the debate having the control to change the words of the opponents writing, seek help from 5 other people to answer, is NOT even close to a fair or formal debate challenge. I have witnessed other discussion forums where they will edit and change your actual written words to something you did not say and I am sure that Cheryl would be debating Matt on her blog assisted by her husband, friends and every other liberal on the internet. Plain and simple, I don’t trust that women AT ALL. If Cheryl wants a one to one, she would do so in a verbal debate. Matt would be completely opened to false teachers manipulating his arguments and changing his written word to go to “their blogs.” The fact she even asks is completely absurd, of course Matt will not go to some “blog” to post to Cheryl, Matt doesn’t even write on the CARM blog. He has a webpage where all of this has been addressed, ALL of it….. If the radio show or her blogging is suppose to be formal debating, Cheryl would have been fouled by the moderators numerous times, since she does not follow any time limits, uses ad hominem and refuses to answer direct questions by simply repeating the same things over and over…..

When are you going to get this, Matt doesn’t own paltalk, or control paltalk, it is a neutral place, where both sides have equal control and that is why it was offered, no way is CARM going to a Cherlite blog…Ridiculous….It has already been done in writing, the papers are already written, Matt has already answered Cheryl’s arguments, here and on the radio. To suggest that Cheryl should have control on her blog of a formal debate, and Matt should run to some liberal gossip column website to repeat his words written there to the five people that read it, is probably the most ridiculous challenge ever posted on CARM.

If I were Matt Slick, I wouldn’t go to Cheryl’s blog if she paid a million dollars for it. Look at the trouble she caused for the radio station with her whining, threats, demands for “free air time.” I can just imagine the histrionics that would go on her blog. Paltalk, neutral place, where it all can be recorded LIVE, where no one can edit/control the forum or rules and time, and paltalk would not give in to Cheryl’s threats of “I don’t like this, give me free time” nonsense, is the only possibility for a fair debate with Cheryl Schatz. But of course, the self-proclaimed “female” apologist that wants authority to preach, teach and assume authority over men in the pulpit, refuses to defend herself publically when being challenged and cross examined, and I think it is very clear, WHY…..”Oh please come to my blog and write and I can have friends, relatives and every known liberal help me answer the cross examination”…Does not work that way to formal debates…..

One more time, Cheryl Schatz blog is under her control to edit, misrepresent and even change Matt’s words or anyone’s words, we have already witnessed her quotes out of context, snipping out the parts she likes when she answers any challenge, then ignoring the tough questions…….She cannot do that LIVE audio debating and that is why she is running from it and has for months.. Matt has already written to refute Cheryl’s arguments, it is done, she is refuted in writing…..she was refuted on his radio show, she had four hours free air radio time to promote her false teachings and NO one is buying her argument but feminist liberals that were already rewriting Scripture… She was offered a formal debate on neutral territory and refused…

Matt has answered Cheryl Schatz’s arguments in writing, all of her arguments posted here, he has refuted her, if you are interested in seeing her properly refuted, go to the Women in Ministry sections of CARM and read it, just click on my signature. Because Cheryl Schatz contradicts herself from one week to the next, then claims she has been “misrepresented” and threatens people they had better not write this or that, or else, there won’t be many people that will use her name on their websites unless they quote her directly, the reason is obvious..why ….. Cheryl Schatz has NEVER, not ever, subjected herself to a formal debate, with moderators, rules, time limits and being cross examined in her false teachings on neutral ground since being here with CARM. What we see is Cheryl, talking, lecturing, and pats on the back from friends on her blog, no serious debating. She doesn’t KNOW HOW……. A radio show interview and discussion, blogging, or videos and scripts, is NOT a formal debate with rules. I suggest, she refuses because she cannot defend her position without a script and she knows it.

Do not suggest here again that Matt has not answered her in writing, do not even think to suggest anyone is afraid of Cheryl Schatz…PLEASE…. that is bearing false witness, he spent hours and days in writing to her arguments as well as other feminists here he addressed on the CARM home pages. If you can find something Cheryl teaches that he did not address, that is the “proof” to women being elders in Scripture, then list it here and it will be addressed. Otherwise, it is simply bearing false witness to claim she has not been answered. If the woman wants a debate, claims she is an “apologist” wanting to help the “silenced” women, she wants to play with the “big boys” then she had better get the nerve to leave her little blog nest of liberals and whiney girls claiming they want to “rule men” and come out to the real world and prove she is a true apologist…Otherwise, it is just another feminist “blog” as one of the thousands, more blowing smoke and liberal propaganda…..Do we look afraid of Cheryl Schatz to you? My kids know Scripture better then Cheryl Schatz, we just won’t let her manipulate and control, she just does not feel comfortable in her arguments unless she is writing the script, making up her OWN rules and editing everyone else…….

Quit trying to stir up trouble here, the woman has refused a debate, paltalk is not Matt’s format…it is simply the best audio debate website on the net for quality….If Cheryl can’t talk, why on earth is she in apologetics? Time for her to get out of apologetics, go bake some cookies and leave the debating to the “men” that know what they are doing. ……

PS…And why is this so long and wordy? Well I am sick and tired of Cheryl’s blog quoted here, needed to rant myself. chattykathy posting her pages and pages on our forum from Cheryl’s blog of cut and pastes with her hit and run of Cheryl’s same old arguments and propaganda, never responding to anyone, posts that are never answered. This is a discussion board and we do not want to hear anymore about what is posted on some feminist blog…Talk about it here, answer here, or move on…I am sick of this group….

While Matt Slick has declined my invitation to debate Are women forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men? by the intermediary words of his vice-president Diane Sellner saying that he is concerned that:

1. His words would be edited on my blog

2. I would get help from my five friends and this would not be fair

I would like to offer a solution.

Answer to #1: While I do not edit people’s posts on my blog (except when they have asked me to edit them or to remove the highest level of inflammatory name calling that is inappropriate for a Christian site and in these cases I only edit out the foul words and make a note that I have done this and to the credit of the wonderful people who come to this blog, I have only had to do this a couple of times since I started WIM), I would propose that our debate be done on a neutral site where we can both write without the blog/web site owner interfering with any of the dialog. I think this would be fair and reasonable.

Answer to #2: While I do not personally need help in defending the issue of women in ministry since I started this blog to teach others what I have learned, I wonder why Matt would be so concerned that he might not be able to answer what he calls “feminist” apologetics that he is afraid that I might get help from five others? Is the apologetics that I present and that others present so intimidating to Matt that he cannot hope to win a written debate? Sure seems odd for someone who is so assured of himself. I do not have any worries that he might get help from his ten friends so I cannot possibly see why he would run scared from those who have come to enjoy my teaching? I would suggest that Matt learns that a written debate that is available to the public is the safest way to prevent abusive mocking tones that seem to be a part of Matt’s audio “style”. It would be a good way for Matt to grow up and mature in order to learn how to debate with a loving respect for his Christian opponent.

In the next comment box I will be posting Diane’s further answer today and from her comments you will see how she has been trained to take on a mocking tone toward those who disagree with her on mere secondary issues of faith.

Greg,

I have seen Grudem’s writing before on the “or” of Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 14:36 and I am amazed that he could openly contradict the lexicons and they say that 1 Cor. 14:36 is an example of a rhetorical statement that has a negative answer and is contradicting what has preceded it.  We answer “NO!” to Paul’s questions and verse 36 and these rhetorical questions that must have a negative answer completely contradict verses 34 & 35 plus contradict the “commands” (plural) of Paul’s from the start of chapter 14.  Mr. Grudem is not telling us the truth, yet he tell us to prove something that he misunderstands.  The fact is that verse 36 is both a rhetorical question AND it stands in direct opposition to the claims in verses 34 & 35 so that if one be denied (verse 36 denies the validity of verses 34 & 35) then the other must stand.  Therefore verse 36 is such a straight, sharp and foundation fence that even Mr. Grudem should be able to see that from the lexicons.  The fact that he contradicts the lexicons tells me an awful lot about his motivation.  His motivation has nothing to do with what the lexicons say about this scripture.  It has everything to do with proving his own biased point of view.

And there…..I just put up….now who was it who told me to shut up again?  🙂

Thanks, Greg for pointing us once again to the best example of bias that I have ever seen camouflaged as scholarship.

16 Paula,

You said: “Bushnell was not saying that Eve was a separate being inside of Adam, but that God fashioned her from the “part” (not “rib”) he took out (see This Article). There is no reason this couldn’t have been the “female” part.”

This is where I come to a disagreement with Bushnell. There are a couple of reasons why. First of all from her article she does say that it is “Eve” who is in Adam. This is what makes the androgynous “man” with both female and male parts. It is an “Eve” within Adam otherwise you cannot take “Eve” out but would have to take out females parts out of “Adam”. So in this view “Adam” and “Eve” are created together and only separated later. Yet Paul says that Adam was created first and then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13). How can Adam be created first and then Eve if Adam and Eve are created together in one body? It appears from her article that Bushnell is taking her view from biology instead of scripture. I am not knocking Bushnell here. I appreciate her knowledge of scripture and the amazing things that she found even without the internet and the resources that we have today. But I very much disagree with her about Eve being in Adam in creation. God specifically said that he took something out and from this something he created a female. There is no hint in the text that what he took out was female. Where is the evidence that is was female parts that he took out. I would think that this should have some foundation in scripture instead of speculation.

Bushnell says: “Nothing could be more unscientific than the representation that Eve was made from a single bone taken from Adam’s body.”

Again, I am not knocking Bushnell. She was a wonderful lady who really loved God, but her reliance on science here instead of just the word of God in this one instance at least, is troubling to me. Who cares what science says? God says that he took out a “plank, a board, an inner chamber” and out of that he made Eve. The term “rib” is well within the Hebrew word that refers to a hard building material such as a board. This is what God chose to do and we are to test all things and hold fast to what is true. Everyone can make a mistake (even me!) and I believe that this is one area that Bushnell made a mistake by relying on science. Now I could be proven wrong, but to prove me wrong, a person would have to go to the bible to get the job done and not to science.

Now you see why so many have called me a confounded skeptic. I have to have everything proven by scripture and I really don’t care what famous person or biblical scholar says even if it is an egalitarian that I admire. When I see error when I compare the proposed idea to scripture, I reject it. When scripture corrects me, I will bow to scripture every time.

😉

Also regarding Don’s comments in #4. I appreciate differing points of view and views different than mine are welcomed on this blog. I know that there are many coming over here from CARM who wonder how we handle differences (I do not edit people’s disagreements with me as I have been accused of) and I would ask that people watch and see how differing points of views can be handled with Christian love. We can passionately argue our point of view, but treat each other with love and respect as befitting brethren in Christ.

Now to my argument that Paul was the twelfth apostle and not Matthias, I take my argument from scripture especially from Paul’s own argument. While I do agree that the eleven apostles rightly saw from scripture that there was to be one who would take Judas’ place, I do not belief that it was faith in the application of this scripture that led them to replace Judas. I believe it was a presumption that they were responsible for fulfilling the scriptures.

All the apostles were hand picked by Jesus and thus they were the apostles of Jesus Christ. Peter, like Paul, calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ because he, like Paul, was picked by Jesus to be his apostle.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ…

Paul’s ordination as an apostle was by the resurrected Christ, as Jesus appeared to him:

1 Cor 15:8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul speaks about this revelation of Christ to him “as to one untimely born”. He was numbered with the apostles but as one who came late, born out of time with all the rest.

When the apostles gathered together to chose a successor to Judas, Paul had not yet become a Christian and Jesus had not yet appeared to him. It was in Christ’s timing for Paul’s apostleship that allowed Paul to carry on as an unbeliever persecuting the church until the time that Christ stopped him on the road to Damascus. Jesus, in a spiritual sense, picked Paul up and placed him alongside the eleven apostles, while out of the appointed time of the rest, yet Paul was fully an apostle and one ordained by the glorified man Jesus Christ as his representative, one of the foundational apostles of Christ.

Yes, there are other apostles too in the New Testament, but there are only twelve foundational apostles. Paul’s apostleship was marked with great revelation from Jesus Christ in such a way that he was given a thorn in the flesh to keep him from becoming proud. His miracles were evident of his ordination as apostle and his writings were accepted as scripture.

Now what about Matthias? Can it be said that Jesus Christ personally ordained Matthias as an apostle? There is not one word in scripture that shows that Matthias was ordained as an apostle by Christ. There are no scriptures that say “Matthias an apostle of Jesus Christ”. In fact Matthias is never heard from again in scripture. Isn’t this odd for a foundational apostle? It certainly would be odd if Jesus counted him in amongst the other eleven. But the truth is that Paul claimed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. His claims stand up to the test. It is also very understandable why Paul had to constantly defend his apostleship. When the twelve are complete in number because they ordained by their own authority a twelfth member, it comes across as Paul is an interloper. Yet it isn’t Paul who is the interloper. Matthias is put into the twelve by the will of man. Paul is put into the twelve by the will of Christ. Paul claimed that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ NOT by the will of man, but by the will of Jesus Christ and the Father (Galatians 1:1).

So now we come down to my original discussion of fences. We have to make a decision regarding the foundational apostles of Jesus Christ. Was Matthias really one of the foundational apostles ordained by Christ or did he get his ordination from man? Paul claimed that he became an apostle because of the will of Jesus Christ and I believe him.

All of this is very much related to women in ministry. I have encouraged women who have been gifted by God as pastors (Ephesians 4:11), to walk within that calling and that gift. Do you need to have an ordination by man to walk in that calling? No you don’t and the examples of Matthias and Paul should help us to see this. An ordination of man cannot create a foundational apostle. Matthias was ordained by man but he was not chosen by Jesus Christ so his ordination was not valid. Paul was not ordained by man but his ordination by Jesus Christ was valid even without man’s ordination. If you are called and gifted as a pastor, then live out your calling. Do not say that you have not been ordained so you cannot serve and shepherd. The one whom God calls and gifts does not have to be reliant on man’s ordination. You may not get recognition from man, but you can still shepherd. Shepherd the bible study that you are in and lead. Shepherd the hurting in your church. Do the work of your calling and do not regard man’s ordination as necessary.

4 Don,

In your comment about Gordon Fee, yes I do understand that he came to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 were an interpolation because some manuscripts have these verses at the end of the chapter instead of in their place before verse 36. I believe that some took these out of their place, because they appeared to contradict the words that Paul had already given the church about both men and women being allowed to speak in the assembly. Yet they did not take the verses completely away because this would be removing the words of scripture and we are told not to add or remove from God’s word.

So while Fee is right in that these verses were transported to the end of chapter 14 and made out of line with their original placement before verse 36, the fact is that they are not missing in any manuscript and this proves that they are part of the inspired text and not an interpolation as Fee tries to argue.

Truthseeker and Paula,

While I am very impressed with Katherine Bushnell, I do not accept the explanation that God created an androgynous creature. If he did, then why didn’t God say that he took the woman out of the man? Instead God says that he took a rib (literally a beam, plank, side chamber) out of the man and made that into a woman.

Gen 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

So God “fashioned” it into a woman, not that he took the woman out and “fashioned” her with the rest of her body. This of course doesn’t mean that the woman is any less than the man because she was made from his body part.

Also if we say that the man and woman were together in one body, the picture is broken of a complete one flesh union. What we would have is man and woman together in one body but not united. When God made the woman he took what belonged to the man (the rib) and made it into a woman. She then remains a part of him (she has his DNA and she is his rib 🙂 ) and is therefore one flesh with him. If man and woman were together in one body and God took the woman out (which is never said in scripture) then the woman is not part of the man, but rather she is separated from the man. I personally think that we do and injustice to the biblical account by making the first man not a male but an androgynous creature. That is my opinion and while I am not infallible, I don’t think that idea meshes with scripture. I could be proven wrong, but I would have to see it from scripture, so there is the challenge.

Yes, Ryan, I don’t know what happened to the spacing.  I can correct the spacing if I go into everyone’s posts and add blank lines, but in creating comments, the spaces between paragraphs disappear.  Only when you have the time of course!  😉

Paula,
Indeed, great thoughts about our being “dead” as being cut off from fellowship.  When I started witnessing to JW’s in the late 1980’s was the first time that I started reading through the New Testament from an interlinear.  It has really popped my eyes open!

You know, I predicted that Diane would be the one to answer for Matt and I was right. Okay, I am not a prophetess, but it is interesting to know that I picked up a long time ago that Matt has Diane fight his battles for him much of the time. It just seems odd that for two who fight for the man to be in charge and the woman to be the follower, they seem to find a comfortable balance with him staying in the background in written debates while she takes on the “enemies” for him. And no, Diane is not Matt’s wife. She is his vice-president of CARM. It is just a thought, but I am thinking they are not as complementarian as they make themselves out to be. It could be a good thing to move towards an egalitarian approach if the ideal is not something that will practically work out in reality. Most complementarians actually live out egalitarian marriages. Okay, so here is Diane’s answer on behalf of Matt from http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=108945

(One thing you should notice is that Diane does not link to the articles that I have written refuting Matt’s “refutation”. 😉 )

Diane’s Sellner’s answer is here and it goes along quite well with the one where she says that I “smell” 🙂

“Oh please WIM! Matt Slick has already written an entire section in refuting all your ridiculous, liberal, feminist arguments that have been posted here by yourself and your liberal “groupies.” You have been addressed in writing, http://www.carm.org/womeninministry.htmand now because you cannot defend your position in a verbal debate while claiming to be an “apologist” you want to pretend Matt has not written to refute you? We will be sure to let everyone know, in fact, maybe I will pin it to the top of this forum, that Cheryl Schatz refuses to defend her position in a formal, verbal debate as challenged, refuses time limits, formal rules of debate and when addressed in writing by Matt with numerous papers already refuting her argument on the CARM homepages, she claims falsely that Matt has not written in debate to refute her. Matt quotes the arguments from the Cherylites on this forum and answers each argument, Cheryl responds to Matt by simply repeating her same arguments, already refuted HERE: http://www.carm.org/womeninministry.htmand then wants Matt to write it all again as she repeats her same “she” and “they” and “deceived wives” for the 100th time?

http://www.carm.org/womeninministry.htm
Cheryl Schatz arguments refuted by Matt, to those reading her blog
you will not find anything new in her responses to Matt, but she simply repeats the same exact thing over and over and over.

Two times Cheryl Schatz has refused a formal verbal debate as she continues to claim “no one has refuted her”…Yes Cheryl, you can make such claims, and that is because you refuse to debate verbally, calls herself an apologist but will only write. :-)Is that how you worked with the JW’s, told them to send you a letter?

I think it is time for “Schatz” to move on from beating this “dead horse” Maybe Cheryl you should take CARM’s “Apologetics” course, it might help you learn how to do apolgetics without a video camera and script in front of you. Take the course and then you can come back and try again with Matt.

__________________ end of Diane Sellner’s response.

For all who are acquainted with logical fallacies, this is a perfect example of ad hominem – an attack on the person. Instead of allowing questions and giving respectful answers, this tactic allows the person to attack and run off. It is one of the favorite tactics of cults. What I usually do with a JW who tries to attack and run is just ignore the attack and keep asking thought-provoking questions. When you show your love and respect to a JW you can disarm them by “heaping coals of fire” on their head. The Lord Jesus told us that the world will know us by our love. This is a requirement for children of God, not an option. For anyone that wants to comment on CARM’s discussion board, just remember these things. One hand can’t clap and a civil answer shows the difference between God’s way and the world’s way.

I am working on a new post that I hope to get up soon. There will be lots to think about on the subject of “scriptural fences” which will be the name of my new post coming shortly.

Matt Slick has answered my request for a written debate by posting this on his discussion board:

I am in the midst of two debates right now, prepping, etc. and I find out that “a woman” has said I refused to debate her? right….. It turns out that “a woman” is misrepresenting what I have said in the past about debates. I offered “a woman” to debate me on Paltalk, publically, live, timed, etc. Paltalk is a public forum, an excellent Internet-based, voice chat system. I have done formal debates there many times in the past and I will do more in the future. It is very easy to do. Since I have already had “a woman” on my radio show twice, in public, while I paid the bill, I’m ready to do another “discussion” in public, on pal talk. I am still waiting for her to accept this challenge that I offered months ago. I have no interest in a written “debate”…been there and done that with the atheists and it turned into, if I remember correctly, a debate that was over 25,000 words long (I think that is like over 60 written pages). I am not interested in that happening again. So, I’ve already written an awful lot on the women’s issues exposing the stupid errors of that position. I’ve already had one of its representatives on my radio show… she drove me crazy with the slow, condescending delivery. And, As I’ve already said, I have no interest in a written debate. I’m perfectly comfortable with debating the women’s elder/pastor thing with her and anyone else who is willing. Paltalk is a great forum for this. So, if she is up to it, fine. If not, then she can go back to her corner and keep swinging at shadows.

______________________________
Here is what I posted in response:

The issue of whether a woman is forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men is an important issue that affects all of us in one way or another. It is also a very worthwhile issue to debate with other Christians when it is done with love and respect. This is a secondary issue of doctrine that should never divide us.

I was invited by Matt Slick to be on his radio program through an email sent by him on April 5, 2006. In this email Matt Slick said that he would be respectful and that I would be allowed to cross examine him on live radio.

**Here is a copy of Matt Slick’s invitation to me to come on his radio program. The invitation was given on April 5, 2006:**

Quote:

I am willing to have myself be challenged and examined on live radio. I am willing to have what I believe to be true to be cross-examined. 1 Pet. 3:15 commands that I do this and I obey it. Your DVD does not allow cross-examination and what it presents as “opposing views” are not always sufficiently represented.

Please understand that I’m not trying to be hostile, though it may sound like it.

I have for more than two decades requested women and men who hold to your position to actually have a dialogue with me on these issues and not a single individual has ever accepted. Why is that? I cannot help but wonder what the problem is?

I can certainly understand why you would not want to discuss this with me live over the radio. I’m disappointed that you have declined since you would be someone who will be very good at defending a position.

Just so you know I am very respectful on the radio and everybody, except for one atheist who got cornered, has said that I had been extremely respectful and polite — even those who have disagreed with my positions.

At the very least, the DVD has provided more areas, more positions fromyour perspective, that I need to address.

Again, I politely request to have you on my show to discuss this.

in Jesus,

Matt

________________
I finally accepted Matt Slick’s offer in September 2007 and I was a guest for two programs on his Faith and Reason Radio Show.

I offered to come back for another show and Matt said he would think about it. Later he stated on his Faith and Reason radio show that he would allow me to come back on his the radio if I would limit my answers to 1.5 minutes each question. To my knowledge Matt has not tried to control any other guest to this extent; however I was willing to abide by his rules and I responded to Matt that if he would provide me with his questions in advance so that I could work on keeping my answers short, I would abide by his restrictions. Matt subsequently withdrew his offer and I was not allowed to finish my explanation for 1 Timothy 2:15 – a verse crucial in the interpretation of the prohibition.

I do believe that we should passionately debate this issue and because of this I have extended to Matt Slick an invitation to come onto my blog to have a written debate with me. The debate would be on the question of Does God forbid women from teaching the bible with authority to men? Matt’s position would be the affirmative and my position would be the negative.

The debate would be done in a scholarly fashion with both sides presenting their arguments in an open way for the world to see how each side presents their argument and how each side answers the questions posed to them. I do agree with Matt Slick that cross-examining is important. I also believe that the written record of such an important debate would be helpful to many who are searching the scriptures to find out what God’s will is on this matter. A written record of the debate would also make us both accountable for the attitude that we display as the scholarly community and the world would also be watching. This is one way to keep accountability for the attitude that can slip away from the respect that I had been promised and did not receive with our audio debate. The two programs are on my blog for anyone to check the respect level that was afforded me on live radio.

I have already accepted Matt Slick’s offer to dialog with him in the audio format on his radio program. It is time to take another format that would be more conducive to a respectful, passionate debate. I think that all will find a written format to be easier to follow and with a higher accountability for a respectful attitude since the record would be a permanent written record on the internet. The arguments can then be analyzed at the reader’s leisure and a good evaluation made on that basis, rather than on tone and level of voice, etc and would provide an effective way to have peer analysis and scholarship. The written debate is the way to go after what has already transpired.

I understand that Matt has tried the written debate before with an atheist and with issues that are primary to our faith and not secondary. Whether he did well or not in the written form of debate is not my concern. If this issue is as important to him as it is to me, then there is no reason not to spend the time and the energy to bring this debate to a public forum that will be seen and evaluated by the Christian world. My blog is a place where there will be no control on either one of us and there will be respect for both of us as is fitting for brethren in Christ.

Cheryl Schatz

Lin,
Amen! And good for your study group!!

Don,

Thanks for the comments about how primogeniture worked in the Torah. Matt followed none of it scripturally.

Paula,

I whole-heartedly agree with your thought that there is something fundamentally wrong with a Christian who wants to fight for preeminence. There doesn’t appear to be humility operating there and there should be a love for the rest of the body instead of a desire to rule.

Lin,

You also made an excellent point that primogeniture is not even about leadership let along ruling since some of the best of God’s leaders were not first born. I have also wondered myself about the quotes from CBMW whether they really do expect that people will just swallow what they say without ever checking out the facts. How does this happen that we are raising a generation of followers who have no capabilities of being Bereans?

Greg,
I just read the page you quoted on-line in Grudem’s book and he completely ignores the “two or three witnesses” rule concerning a charge of sin.  None one of the verses that he quotes is a charge of sin.  This is a very weak point as he then has to explain why God would pick a book written to an individual instead of a church to create a brand new law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men.  It would then become the only law that is spoken as a law coming from a man instead of God, only law that isn’t repeated in scripture, only law that has an obscure word in it uniquely used in this passage and extremely rarely used outside the NT that has had theologians puzzling over it for years.  On top of that we have the end result of the prohibition given as the salvation of women if we take what some say is the “clear” meaning.  I think it is about time that these men are challenged with the inconsistencies that their charge of sin creates and then have them explain why God has given women who do not see this passage as forbidding all women from teaching men, a second witness so that they can be sure of their “sin”?  Is God prejudiced against women?  I would like to see these men in the hot seat having to answer the really hard questions.  I didn’t find any explanation in Grudem’s book why there is just one sin that doesn’t have a second witness.  Perhaps he is unaware that this is a requirement and he might have to be taught. 😉

tiro3,

I will see about writing a post.  It may take a bit since I am about done for the day and may not get back to this for a day or two.  Thanks for prompting me!

Lin,

Good thoughts!  You are so right in that this one verse taken out of context conflicts with so many other scriptures.  We either have to make all kinds of “exceptions” to the rule but even then verse 15 doesn’t fit the idea that Paul is restricting all women because we then don’t know who “she” and “they” are.  Paul was a master at his language.  He was very deep and with the Holy Spirit’s leading, he was very precise with his grammar.  In fact he made verse 15 so precise that there is no other that “a woman” to attach the “she” to and that causes all kinds of problems with our hierarchy theology.  When we drop the hierarchy things start falling into place and we can allow Paul to define his own terms.

Diane Sellner from CARM has apparently decided to do Matt’s work and reply to my article so I gladly put her comments for all to see and so I can soundly answer them. Diane is answering my articles that reviews Matt’s articles on women in Ministry. Diane says:

Quote (from Cheryl):
In Matt Slick’s article he admits that “a woman” and “a man” could be a specific husband and wife.

Diane Sellner’s answer:

“…Matt says it is possible, but not likely or probable and gives his reasons why scholarship would disagree with Cheryl and has for 2000 years.. Unlike Matt, I don’t see it possible in the historical context, but believe Matt was trying to point to the fact that anyone can claim anything is possible and you entirely missed the point he tried to make, that your possibles open up many other possibles that are absurd.”

I have already answered Matt’s claim that anyone can claim anything from the text. His example was not provable from the text and the specific grammar of verse 15 “she” and “they” refutes his claim that it could be a prostitute who had a crush on Paul. The fact is that any view must be supported by the context and I have shown how the exact wording of verse 15 proves that Paul is referring to one woman not all women. It is interesting to see that Matt and Diane disagree and I would assume that Matt trumps Diane since he is the “expert” at CARM.

Quote (from Cheryl):
This is quite an admission from Matt since he has been trying to prove that it would be impossible for Paul to be referring to a specific woman. Since we already have that admission from Matt, we will let the context be the key to understanding Paul’s meaning. Matt summarizes the egalitarian argument this way:

Diane Sellner’s answer:

…Matt was not trying to prove it impossible, do not attempt to read someone’s mind. Matt was proving it was not probable to be a single husband and wife but since “anything” is possible, he gives that as possible and then proves why it is not probable. As for you letting the context be the key, you have already jumped out of context in bringing in “ignorant” people from chapter one, that may not have even been ignorant at all, just Paul claiming he was ignorant does not make the others ignorant, you then insert a “single wife” in chapter two that is not there, as “deceived” having nothing to do with ignorance and Paul.

The reality is that Matt cannot prove from the context that Paul was not referring to one woman. I can prove that Paul is not referring to all women because of the exact grammar of verse 15. If Paul meant all women he would not use illogical and faulty grammar. Diane had previously been arguing that verse 15 was faulty grammar that the Holy Spirit allowed into the text. This is a liberal position and not a position that one who believes in the inspired text should take. The Holy Spirit did not inspire a grammar error no matter how much Diane would like to remove herself and Matt from the implication of the inspired grammar.

I am not going out of the context by looking at the context of the entire letter. For me to take the ignorant people who are teaching error that Paul is stopping in chapter one is a very important context to the stopping of a deceived woman in chapter two. Paul gives no other reason for stopping teachers other than error and the word “deceived” in verse 14 proves that deception is a key to the prohibition. One cannot ignore this context. It was Paul who said the false teachers were ignorant. He said that they did not know what they were teaching. This is the definition of ignorant. I can insert a “single wife” in chapter two because of the fact that two are shown to be in relationship verse 15 has “she” that can only be traced back to “a woman”.

Diane also says:

“It isn’t there………. in reference to my comment that “she” is connected to deception yet she says nothing to deal with my argument. She is choosing to ignore verse 14 and claim that deception isn’t in the text. How can she claim that deception isn’t in the text when this is what Paul links to the prohibition? We will never know because she gives no other answer than “it isn’t there”. This is not answer at all. Anyone can say “it isn’t so” and think this is an argument. It isn’t any kind of argument.

Quote from Cheryl:
What Matt does is completely ignores Paul’s connection between verse 12 and the reason for the prohibition in verse 14 as the deception of the woman. Since Paul is the one who connects the two, we cannot say that there is no mention of deception.

Diane wrote:

…No, you wrote that into the text. Paul does not equal being deceived and ignorance since being deceived and sinning or teaching false doctrines is equally wrong.

Diane has completely missed the point. I didn’t say that that a deceived person sinning isn’t sin just because they are deceived. I said that deceivers were sent out of the church to be “taught” by Satan and the ones who are deceived were given to the church to be taught the truth. The ones who are deceived, Paul says, are teaching things ignorantly and with unbelief. When one is completely deceived as verse 14 says, one is ignorant of the truth. If they weren’t ignorant of the truth then they wouldn’t be fully deceived.

Diane writes:

“no mention of being permitted to teach her husband OR MEN, when she learns. You made it all up, tell us, was Eve ever appointed teacher after she learned she had sinned? Was Eve shown mercy for her sin in being deceived or did she also experience judgement for her sin?”

God gifts people as teacher. Where does it say that Adam was appointed as a teacher? Teachers aren’t appointed, they are gifted and I am sure that as a mother Eve taught her children and as God gifted her she taught them as adults too.

While Eve also died because she ate the fruit that God said would cause their death, she did receive mercy. God promised that the Messiah would come through her seed and not Adam’s. That is mercy shown to the one who was deceived by the serpent.

Diane wrote:

”

…No, Matt understands the difference to the definitions of “deceived” and “ignorance” while you attempt to make the two equal or the same, inserting Paul’s being ignorant to some women being deceived, there is not a single verse that suggests being deceived is being ignorant or that because one is ignorant they have been deceived or vice versa. There is nothing in the text that says being deceived is regarded as less sinful or that one deceived is just “ignorant” and would receive mercy. YOU, made it up.”

At least Matt tries to answer my exegesis while you just ignore everything I quoted from scripture. I didn’t make up the fact that Paul claimed to receive mercy because he was deceived and ignorant. Eve received mercy because she too was deceived. One who is completely deceived is ignorant of the truth. That goes without saying. If one stays in the place of knowing the truth then they cannot be deceived. Only those who have left the truth can be deceived.

Paul makes this clear in 1 Timothy 1:6, 7:

1Ti 1:6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,
1Ti 1:7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

Here Paul clearly say that these people are “straying” from these things. What things? Paul has just told us what things they are straying from:

1Ti 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

They are straying from their love for God, from a good conscience and from a sincere faith. When they stray from this sincere faith, they are then open to deception.

Paul says that same things to the “she” in 1 Timothy 2:15. What does Paul say that “she” needs to do to be saved? She says that she needs to “continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” She to learn and stay in the faith and love for God and holiness with self-control to stay away from the error. This is what Paul says will bring her to salvation. If she stays in her error she will not be saved.

Since there is a repetition of things that one must stay in (verse 15) and not stray from (verse 5) we can be sure that she too has been deceived as the other false teachers by their ignorance. The connection between the two is very strong.

Diane said:

“..Paul also says FOR Adam created first, and Cheryl ignores Pauls first connection, jumps to the word deceived for Eve an then changings the meaning of word ignorant to now mean deceived. The deception of Eve representing women is only part of the reason women are not to teach, and the deceived is the reason she cannot have authority over the men. Man created first, so she cannot teach men, woman deceived so she cannot assume authority due to her being more easily deceived and sinning first.”

First of all we know that Eve was deceived, however in verse 14 it does not say that Eve was deceived but “a woman” is deceived.

This cannot be Eve because of the grammar. The verb gegonen is parsed as 2nd. Perfect, active, 3rd person singular. If it were Eve, then she’d have to still be in a state of error, which was impossible at the time of Paul’s writing since Eve was long dead. This is why John MacArthur states that “she” in verse 15 cannot be Eve because it is future tense and thus cannot be Eve since she is dead and cannot do anything about her salvation. Verse 14 also cannot be Eve (although Eve was the first one deceived) because the grammar does not fit a dead person.

The argument that women cannot teach men because they are easily deceived makes no sense. Why should we let women teach gullible children if women are easily deceived? Why should they be able to teach other women if they are easily deceived? This argument should logically take away all ability for women to teach because all are easily deceived? But this has been disproved a long time ago. Most cult leaders are men not women and women are not as a whole more easily deceived than men.

Quote from Cheryl:

Diane wrote:

“…Yes something Paul had addresssed in the first part of Timothy, no longer the topic of Paul’s discussion in chapter two, and now we are to assume it is males plus only one single woman, the rest of the female teachers were just super in their doctrine and only males and one female teaching strange doctrine? So it is your position that Paul did permit women teachers in Ephesus, that he was speaking to people and those that were teaching false doctrines were all males, and the other females are teaching sound doctrine, and just one single woman in error? Sorry Cheryl, but if you are going to take the position these people are to stop teaching, both males and females, you should continue with your line of thought, people, would be males and females, more then one, not just one single female that you claim existed. You cannot have it both ways, pick a side and stick to it. If you suggest Paul was addressing “unnamed” people, then do not limit these females to one single. If he is talking to both sexes then both are guilty. You expect us to believe your idea that all the rest of the females in Ephesus that were teachig were doing an excellent work and only one female and a bunch of males were false teachers? So why is it that the females had it together but one and the males were those in false doctrine. You cannot prove these people were males and one female. Please, it is absurd!”

The fact is that Paul uses the same words in 1 Timothy 2:15 as he used in 1 Timothy 1:5 regarding the things that those who are ignorant and deceived fell away from and what the woman must hold onto and not stray from in chapter 2. There is a connection!

I am also not saying that there was only one woman. I don’t know who the others were since Paul doesn’t give us their names nor their gender. We do know that there was at least one woman who was not teaching her error publicly but privately. Everyone else could be lumped into the same pot since their teaching was public. It is absurd to say that all the females had it together. I am not claiming that so it is a straw man that you have erected. Perhaps you might want to read my argument again to familiarize yourself with my argument.

Quote from Cheryl:

Diane wrote:

“But this some are males and one single female only? And false teachers are put out of the church if they refuse correction. They are not patted on the head and told go home and learn, then you can teach. Putting them out of the church, giving them over to satan is a form of discipline to TEACH them, so Paul is not refusing to teach even those he puts OUT of the church, it was for discipline. You would have us believe the false teaching men are disciplined/taught by being turned over to satan, but a false teaching woman is told just to stop it? Where is the equality there Cheryl? If men and women are equal, why are the male false teachers put out? Again, don’t pull the “deceived” card here, it has already been proven that ignorance and deception are NOT the same thing or the same words……”

No man is put out of the church for being deceived. Only the deceivers are put out. If you claim that all people who teach false doctrine are in the same boat and all are put out of the church, then you will have to prove this to be true. You cannot do that because you will find that only the named deceivers who were deliberately deceiving concerning the resurrection were said to be put out of the church. Scripture is clear that Paul believed that the ignorant could receive mercy and be saved just as he was. There is nothing in scripture that has the ignorant ones put out of the church. To claim such a thing is showing an amount of ignorance of scripture.

Quote from Cheryl:

Diane wrote:

“No Matt didn’t miss it, but it has nothing to do with Paul now teaching how men should pray and how women should dress and behave in the local church. Timothy is told what to do with the false teachers….the people, in chapter one, we have moved on to behavior in the church in chapter two. This is not about a female false teacher….it is about women’s proper behavior to submit to their teachers and not to assume authority to teach men, that is what the section of Timothy is about in chapter 2.”

This is a mesh-mash of confusion. I am talking about the deceived ignorant teachers and you bring in chapter two about prayer. These two things are not connected except that men who have the truth should be praying for the lost and ignorant people who do not have the truth not debating the issues even in their prayers. Paul goes through the deceived teachers, then the leadership who should be dealing with these ones not in anger Then Paul brings in a special case that Timothy had to deal with by itself because it was a unique case not quite like the others. We know that Paul goes back to the deceived teachers because he stops her from teaching as he stopped the people in chapter one and he says that she is deceived just as the ones from chapter one are. Lastly he tells what she has to hold onto which are the same things that the deceived teachers didn’t hold onto that caused the to be deceived in the first place. The common bond of these prohibitions is a love for the lost and a care that the ones who do not know the truth and who have been deceived will learn so that they can turn from their error and be saved.

Quote from Cheryl:

Diane writes:

So, again, the rest of the false teachers are male, but only this one female, suddenly brought up in chapter two got things wrong?

Apparently Diane doesn’t understand my argument and that is why she continues to say that same things. I have continually said that there is a special case because it involved a woman teaching her husband privately. If there was other women in the false teachers they were either teaching other women or children or others publicly but it was not a private teaching in a marriage relationship. Paul makes it clear that it is only “a man” that she is teaching, not the entire church. Diane once you understand my argument, perhaps then you can try to refute it. At this point, you cannot refute it because you ignorant of my argument.

Quote by Cheryl:

Diane wrote:

“Paul does not say in the verses they are teaching in being “deceived” or ignorant…Paul speaks of his ignorance of “unbelief” later in chapter 1, he states in the verses they were teaching strange doctrines and that Timothy is left there to teach them”

Apparently you have not read verse 7 and then perhaps you can explain how not understanding the law or what they are confidently teaching is not ignorance. I will be eagerly waiting your response.

Diane writes:

“Paul never suggests that these are deceived people and if a person knows the truth and are purposely distorting the truth, they are either deceived or unbelievers. I do hate to remind you but “ignorance” and being deceived, two different words, one is not equal to the other. Eve was deceived, and not ignorant of what God had said, and that is who Paul references in the text. I think you are doing some bizarre tap dancing here. First, you claim Paul is addressing people, and then claim, all the people are equal as women and men but suddenly the people of both sexes include only one single woman? Prove that in the text, you cannot, now you claim some “ignorance” idea where Paul was in unbelief has something to do with Eve and deception? Are you now suggesting Paul is claiming to be deceived like Eve? Sorry, not even close to what the words say in Scripture. Look up ignorance and deceived Cheryl…Matt lists all the Scriptures related to deceived and no where does it state in Scripture it is a lesser sin meaning ignorance and mercy….Being deceived is no less sinful and if there was a deceived false teacher, they are disciplined as harshly as any other false teacher…..”

This again is a mish-mash of misinformation. You say that Paul never suggests that the ones who are ignorant of the law and teaching in ignorance are not deceived? You are very wrong. Whenever someone who is ignorant teaches error they are deceived. When one who knows the truth and teaches error purposely, they are not deceived but deceivers. Paul did not claim to be a deceiver because he said that he did it ignorantly and in unbelief, but he was completely deceived because he believed his error to be the truth.

I also did not say that a deceived person is not punished for their sin. This is another straw man. I said that a deceived person may receive mercy. Paul said this and he said it in reference to those who, like him, are teaching in ignorance. They too will be punished if they do not come to the truth, but Paul believes that they may receive mercy and have their eyes opened as he did.

What I find in these responses, Diane, is someone who is emotionally attached to the argument who is unwilling to actually listen to the opposing argument to digest it and then figure out how to refute it. Instead you choose to misrepresent what I teach and erect a straw man so that you can easily knock it down. But when you erect the straw men you only show your own ignorance of the argument. I choose to believe that you are only ignorant instead of deliberately twisting what I say. That would make you someone who is a deceiver and I would not choose to classify you as a deceiver.

Ah, yes. My eyes now see! Well this is pretty much like my husband has told me many times…the man with the microphone always wins. I don’t think Matt likes to come across as not winning so he wants to keep things in his court where he can control. I wouldn’t control him here if he comes. I would love to see what he has to say in answer to all my posts about his articles. The stuff he leaves out of his articles is very telling. It isn’t hard to call attention to the weakness of his argument. Perhaps that is why he doesn’t want anything to do with me 😉

Don, very good thoughts on love vs being right!

Don,

Thanks for your thoughts! I was not thinking about a moderated debate, just a debate where both could present their arguments and ask questions of each other that the other could answer. I don’t think a moderator would be necessary since there would not be restrictions. While I have set this up, I don’t think that Matt Slick will show up. He has stated publicly on the radio that he is sick of me (is that a sick Slick? Sorry just being a little “punny” today) and he wants nothing to do with me. He can handle all kinds of cultists but he can’t handle a woman who disagrees with him on the women’s issue of women teaching the bible with authority. The way he handles the opposition on this issue is the “fruit” of the hierarchal way.

Thank you tiro3!

There has been a great deal of false accusations against me that I will not be responding to publicly because I do not want to wade in the same mud pond that others have created, but I have decided to create a list of Matt’s unwarranted actions against me that have been publicly denied but the evidence is there for anyone to check out and decide for themselves who is telling the truth. I will give the evidence out to anyone who contacts me privately. I will not post it publicly on my blog as that would publicly humiliate Matt Slick and I do not seek to publicly humiliate him but rather challenge him on his beliefs. But because I do believe in having the facts known should there be those who have read the accusations against me and want to see the facts that have been falsely represented and things that have been publicly denied that Matt Slick has done, I would not want to hold back the truth from any of Matt Slick’s followers or others who want to see both sides.

Having said this, I am still very interested in having Matt Slick visit this blog and enter into a public written debate. I think it would be an excellent way for people to see both sides interact with each other in a way that would hold both publicly accountable without one controlling the other. This is certainly a godly way to handle disagreements and I would not limit Matt Slick’s “time” to respond or edit his responses.

Excellent thoughts, Don!  And thanks for clearing up some of my misunderstanding on your view.  We completely agree on the purpose of the prohibition.  It is good to keep pushing for understanding.  That is what I LOVE in this forum.  We can push and passionately talk about our views and there is no disrespect or dishonor or name-calling!  This is not the way of some who are steeped in the mandate of “men ruling women” who love to dominate and control.  I have never understood how some get their joy from demeaning other Christians who merely disagree on secondary doctrinal issues.  We may not agree on everything but I have great joy in learning from you and disagreeing with you in love, yet from pushing the edges finding more that we agree on.  It is such a pleasure for me and I love having ones like you visit my blog.  This is what makes this place a meeting place of brethren in Christ who follow Christ’s mandate to love one another.  I am so thankful to God for people, most of whom I have never met, but who have dialogged with me with love and respect.  What a tremendous blessing to me personally!!