Craig

Mark,
You may find an illustration helpful.
My neighbors Bill and Betty Smith are having some troubles. Betty has been deceived into thinking that fruit and vegetables are bad for her health and so for the last year she has not eaten any. She tries to convince Bill also and has become quite dominating about it. She won’t even allow any fruit and vegetables in the house and becomes abusive if she sees Bill eating any.
Bill, however is a nutritionist and knows that fruit and vegetables are very good for ones health. But he doesn’t try and correct Betty. He just goes out each day and buys and eats his own fruit and vegetables.
Recently, Betty has become very ill and has had several trips to hospital. The doctors have diagnosed her illness as a nutritional deficiency from lack of fruit and vegetables. Bill has remained healthy through all of this because his own diet has been quite good.
The doctors have told Betty that she needs to learn about good nutrition, eat fruit and vegetables, and that Bill needs to help her, rather than not saying anything.
The doctors say that “she will get better, if they do the things they have been told.”
I think I am correct in that Dave’s point is that the doctors are saying that this is the encouraging news so go and do it. The doctors are NOT saying that if the husband doesn’t do his bit that there is no way she can get better. (eg Someone else may be able to help).
Mark, you were also saying @ 89 how Cheryl contradicted Dave, but I think Cheryl was saying that Betty was the only one who was sick – Bill was quite healthy.
Both fit perfectly with each other as I see it.
Anyone feel free to let me know if I have misunderstood anything.

Mark,
1. Couldn’t one also say that Cornelius’ salvation is conditional on his own faith and actions and on Peter’s faith and actions.
The wife’s salvation is conditional on her faith and actions and her husband’s faith and actions.
2. The main issue I think is whether one person’s salvation could be said to be conditional on another person. I think the “hypothetical” shows that one can use that language and not be unbiblical.

Mark,
You asked,
“Let me ask you Craig, are you comfortable with the hermeneutical approach taken with this exegesis?”

Yes. At this stage, after reading all of your recent comments I think there are adequate answers to your questions and feel comfortable with Cheryl’s view of this passage. Over recent months I have had many questions myself and the people here on this blog have been very patient and helpful as I have been rethinking this passage and many others.

Mark,
Thanks for your good question.
I was just wondering if God had said to Peter
“The Gentile Cornelius will be saved, if you obey me and go and tell him the gospel.”
Could God have truthfully said this?
Would this deny the doctrine of justification by faith?
Would this mean that salvation was not by his “OWN personal faith and trust in Jesus”?
I may be wrong, but this could possibly be a bit similar to the 1 Tim 2:15 situation.

Lydia @ 49,
You asked,
“Craig, I would be interested in hearing what you think happens to unbelievers when they die?”

I believe that the final Judgment Day has not happened yet. It is still in the future.
Unbelievers who have died (and those who are still alive at the time of Christ’s return) will be eternally condemned. There will be suffering and exclusion from God’s presence forever.
Believers who have died (and those who are still alive at the time of Christ’s return) will not be condemned. They will be delivered or “saved” from this future Day of God’s wrath and judgment, and live in eternal joy in God’s presence.
What is happening NOW with those who have died is more tricky, but I believe that unbelievers are conscious, in torment awaiting their final condemnation on Judgment Day.
Believers are in God’s presence with joy, awaiting with assurance that they will not be condemned on that Day, but be rewarded for their faithfulness in christian living and continue to live eternally in God’s presence.
Does that answer your question? I certainly do not claim any expertise in these doctrines but that is what makes sense to me from the scriptures at this stage.

Cheryl,
There are some things you have said that I don’t understand and can’t work out why you have said them, but I think if I summarise what I can follow, then we both may be happy to leave this issue and press on with some more productive things.
My friend and I have never thought that anything can be added to our salvation after we die. Nothing we do after we die makes any difference to our eternal salvation. I am sorry if I haven’t expressed myself clearly enough on this.

Can I just ask something to double check that we really are basically in agreement.
If the apostle Paul were alive today, and he knew my grandmother before she died, do you believe he would be happy to say
“She ‘was saved’ when she believed the gospel, was justified, was forgiven for all her sins and became a child of God.
She ‘will be saved’ from God’s wrath in the future judgement and for the rest of eternity (not because of anything she has done to deserve it, before or after she died, but because of God’s mercy, forgiving her sins through the death of Christ).”
If you answer yes, we are in agreement.
If you answer yes, but…………. we are in agreement
If you answer no, I have misunderstood something.

The slight difference that would remain is that you might say to my friend that his point is irrelevant because v15b clearly proves that Eve can’t be in mind, and even John MacArthur agrees that it can’t refer to Eve.
I however replied to him, “I agree that the bible sometimes says that believers are not only saved now but “will be saved” in the future and for all eternity. But Paul can’t be saying that here in reference to Eve because of v15b.

I just checked a concordance. I think these verses express the idea.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God’s wrath through him.
1 Cor 5:5 are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
So I could legitimately say that my grandmother (who is now dead), who was a godly, christian woman “will be saved” from God’s wrath and her spirit “will be saved” in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Let me know if I am totally on the wrong track.
When debating with people, I just like to be able to distinguish between things that PROVE my point and those that are just CONSISTENT with it.

Cheryl,
Interesting point about John MacArthur. My friend does hold his views in high esteem.
I think the issue we are discussing is probably very minor in nature – my friend has more than enough problems to deal with even if I concede this point to him.
I only pursue it for the sake of precision and accuracy.
Concerning 1 Cor 3 you said,
“1 Cor. 3 is not about the dead. It is about a living person appearing before the judgment seat.”
Wouldn’t there have been many people, including Eve, who would have died before this judgement? – or does that get into differing views about the second coming, milleniums and judgements? If it does, I think I have enough to learn about without that one too just at the moment 🙂 But if you have a simple answer, it seems to me that any person who has died and is a believer “will be saved”.

Cheryl,
I think the main point that he is saying, and that I concede is that the bible says that we are saved in one sense when we believe the gospel but we can also in another sense look forward to our future salvation. I think the passage you quoted from 1 Cor 3 confirms this. A man who is already saved “will be saved” in the future.
In this sense, my comp friend says Paul could be saying Eve “will be saved”. Someone can be dead and yet “will be saved” in the future. So it is not the fact that Eve is dead that means v 15a can’t refer to her, it is the fact that she is dead AND her salvation is conditional on “they” doing something. So your statement
“she shall be saved” is also future tense so “she” cannot be referring to a dead Eve but must be referring to someone else.”
is not quite true as it stands. The “AND” above is critical to the argument.
It is the “AND” that has my friend stumped. He admits that at the moment, and is still thinking.

He is thinking of christians who have died. He is an evangelical, bible believing christian. He would argue that the bible uses the term salvation sometimes in an eschatalogical sense (I think that is the correct expression), looking toward the final judgement.
I would need to do some research to know if he is correct, but it sounded reasonable to me.
He realises that even if that is true, he can’t explain the rest of the verse and is thinking about it before he gets back to me.

TL,
Very true. This, along with other arguments he had no answer for and is still thinking for some. I am just speaking of the particular bit that in one sense, believers who have died could still have their full salvation in the future. I had to concede that I think that is true.

Thanks Cheryl for a very thorough treatment of 1 Tim 2:15.
You said,
“she shall be saved” is also future tense so “she” cannot be referring to a dead Eve but must be referring to someone else.”
I mentioned this to a comp friend once and he said that Eve’s salvation can still be correctly viewed as future, so this particular argument wasn’t a strong one. He has had much more trouble with all the other arguments you present on this post and elsewhere that we are dealing with a specific Ephesian woman.

Thanks Cheryl.

Thanks Cheryl, Kay and TL for your comments. They are helping me to understand and appreciate how you are seeking to uphold the scriptural balance of three different persons united and equal as the one God.
Pardon my ignorance, but I have seen ESS theology referred to before – what does it mean? I am only a relative newcomer to all this.

Cheryl,
Thanks for your examples.
You probably know where the following statements come from, but I have left out some sentences that I know you would not agree with. I would like you to pretend that the person writing them is not a comp and he is just describing how he understands that there are three persons in the trinity and they carry out the same things in their individual way.
“In redemption, the Father sends the Son into the world, and the Son comes and is obedient to the Father and dies to pay for our sins. After the Son has ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit comes to equip and empower the church. The Father did not come to die for our sins, nor did the Holy Spirit. The Father was not poured out on the church at Pentecost in new covenant power, nor was the Son.”
Would you agree with these sort of statements or not?

Cheryl,
Thanks. You have helped me to understand Bruce Ware’s position more clearly.
My feeling when I read some comments about the Trinity is that there is a tendency among both comps and egals to be too extreme in their position as a reaction against the other side.
It would seem that the comps push the differences between the persons too far. They have the authority structure very well defined, and the different things that each person does is in neat and tidy little boxes.
Egals sometimes, when they hear comps talking about differences want to react against this and may go too far the other way. They then seem to see the three persons as all the same.
Would you mind please explaining how you see them as different to each other? You have said that each person is free to do the same things in their own individual way. Can you give any examples of the “individual ways” ?

Cheryl,
Thanks again for your reply. I hope I am not laboring this question too much but I’d just like to clarify things a bit more if I may.
You said
The question is what is “different” things? Two people can do the same task differently but that is not “different” things.
Are you sure? I may say that when my wife teaches our children she does “different things” to me. She is much more creative, using drawings etc. “Different things” could just refer to the details of how one is involved in getting the task done.
You would know the context of Bruce’s statements better than me, but he may be referring to the details of the different ways that the persons of the trinity work together on the same task. Bruce may well agree with you that “the persons that are God do the same things, each one is Savior, each one is Lord, creator, etc.” You may be quite happy for his music illustration to describe your own thoughts about the different ways that the three persons of the trinity work together on the same task as our Savior.
I am just interested in picking the true battle.
I may be wrong, but the main battle is everywhere else expressed in your last comment. It is not the fact of different persons, same things, different ways, or different things, but what comps do with these things. They always seem to want to stick authority wherever there is difference.
As you state at the end – ” Bruce Ware’s view is that only one leads as only one has the highest honor, the highest praise, etc. ” Therefore each person of the trinity is NOT FREE to do the same things in their own individual way.
Feel free to shoot me down in flames if I am on the wrong track.

Cheryl, in the Trinity DVD you quote Bruce Ware saying that the members of the Trinity do different things in harmony rather than doing the same things in unison. You disagree and stress how the Father, Son and Spirit do the same things.
I can understand why you would have a problem with Bruce Ware saying that the Father for all eternity is in authority over Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But could it not be possible that they may still do different things in performing a task together without there being a hierarchy? This would then be the same as I think you would believe for a husband and wife- ruling together, working together in unity but not necessarily doing the same things as each other.

I was wondering if words like “believes…., is convinced….., must be….” is putting things more strongly than Gengwall is saying. I thought he was just putting forward another possible view to consider, that he could see some merit in.
Correct me if I am wrong.

I am sorry but I am a bit lost on the meaning of all this and its significance.
Before reading this post, I would explain to someone that the Greek word “woman” in v11,12 can either mean “a woman” (any woman, generic woman or a general policy) or “the woman” (A certain, particular woman). The context determines which it will be. In this case, to me v14b,15 seem to make it clear that a particular woman is in view.
Are you saying that I can now say that in Greek whenever a noun without a definite article is followed by the same noun with the definite article, it always means that the first noun must be read as “the ……” So there is no doubt that it is “the woman” rather than “a woman”?
Is this saying it too strongly? Is this a “proof” or just an indication that it is possible to read it this way. Am I totally misunderstanding?

I recently watched the Trinity DVD and you quote from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology saying that God actually subordinates Himself to us when he helps us. I think this is to explain his view that Eve, being Adam’s helper means that she is subordinate to Adam. I thought this was an extaordinary way to try and cling to his interpretation. I must have missed something because the implications are amazing.
Does this mean we are sometimes in authority over God?
He would surely think that sometimes a husband could help his wife. Would this mean that sometimes a husband would then be subordinate to his wife and sometimes a wife may have authority over her husband?
Surely he can’t be contadicting himself so clearly. Have I misunderstood something or has he painted himself into a corner?

Thanks again Cheryl. Very helpful.
You may want to correct a sentence. I think your brain was ahead of your fingers when you typed “when the Word became God”- I don’t think you think THAT far outside of the square 🙂

Thanks Elastigirl. I am just wanting to understand a little more of what can’t be understood. Or find out a bit more so I know what I don’t know?? 🙂
I found the quote. It was from my Aussie mate Dave!- in #38 in ” A Complementarian view of 1 Cor 11 and the meaning of Head”.
Dave, in discussing 1 Cor 11 with Mark, you said
“It was Peter Moore (comp lecturer at the Pressie college in Sydney – a lovely bloke and good friend) who enlightened me to the fact that in the NT Father means Father and God means God! …… we need to accept that God means Father Son and Holy Spirit. ”

Does everyone agree with this? I am just struggling a bit as I think about it with some passages.

I am not sure if this is where you would like this question. Please move it if you have a better spot.
We have just begun studying John’s Gospel at church and in home groups. I remember a discussion on this Blog recently about whether “God” in 1 Cor 11 means the Trinity (Godhead I think was the term used) or specifically God the Father.
I may have misunderstood, but someone I think mentioned a bible college lecturer who believed that “God” generally refers to the “Trinity”.
I was wondering this same question about John1:1. How could “the Word” be “with” the Trinity.
Also in John 4:24 when Jesus says “God is spirit”- Jesus is God and He has a body.
Do you think there is a general rule, or should we just look at the context to determine whether “God” means God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity?

I can’t remember if this was in the DVDs or on this blog somewhere, or it may be a new thought to me just recently, but do you think when naming the animals, Adam would have named the serpent and may therefore have had prior knowledge of his evil nature? I remember reading things about Adam learning about the character of God from seeing God at work in creation but knowledge of the serpent may have also led to him not being deceived. Eve may not have known about the serpent and so was more easily deceived by him. If Adam new about him, he should have warned her and helped her. Any comments?

Thanks Cheryl for your help and encouragement 🙂

Is this one any better.

Timothy visits Bill and Betty Permagos from the congregation at Ephesus.
Timothy: ” I have just received news from the Apostle Paul and he has mentioned some things that are particularly important to the both of you.
(Looking at Betty) You have been teaching and exercising authority over Bill, teaching him things that are contrary to the true Christian faith. Paul says he does not permit this, and says that you need to learn the Christian faith in quietness and full submission.
(Looking at Bill) Paul does not permit Betty to teach or to have authority over you. Don’t just stand there and do nothing, because, Adam was formed first, then Eve. This gave him wonderful knowledge and meant that he wasn’t deceived, but he remained silent. He didn’t do anything to help. Don’t be like Adam.
(Looking at Betty) Eve was formed after Adam, and had less knowledge, and just like her you are deceived and have become a sinner. But you will be saved through Jesus if
(Looking at both Bill and Betty) you both continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

In comment #164 I was attempting to solve two problems in my mind.
1. v 12 seems to read primarily as a prohibition for the wife, rather than a prohibition on the husband’s silence.
2. v14b doesn’t refer to Eve so the argument from Adam and Eve must come primarily from Adam.
So I thought I would try relating Adam to the prohibition on the wife (rather than relating Adam to the husband and Eve to the wife as is usually done). I thought it may be possible that Paul was just appealing to the fact that Adam learned and therefore wasn’t deceived, rather than looking at the terrible thing Adam did with his lack of deception. I think you are correct and it is probably a silly idea. If Paul wanted to find an example of non deception through learning Adam would probably be the last one to pick. Oh well… I’ll keep trying.

Craig @166,
Just thinking aloud and answering my own question 🙂
You asked…. er I mean I asked
“I was wondering about the idea that the husband is like Adam in not doing anything about his wife’s deception. It sounds reasonable and may be true but I was wondering where it is necessary from the text of 1 Tim 2:11-15?”
Maybe Craig it is from “authentein” in v12, and “if they” of v 15 – both could indicate he is not pulling his weight in the relationship.

Egals and Comps both accuse each other of assuming too much or reading too much into passages.
I was wondering about the idea that the husband is like Adam in not doing anything about his wife’s deception. It sounds reasonable and may be true but I was wondering where it is necessary from the text of 1 Tim 2:11-15? Is it a possible extra similarity between the two couples or do you see it clearly come out of the text? It seems to read OK to me without it (at least it does at this particular moment 🙂
Sorry for dumping 3 questions all at once. They all seemed a bit related.