Lin

“Notice that in his article he continues to say “implied”. This is significant.”

This type of interpretation is in all the their teaching. It is all over CBMW. Everything they believe on this issue has to be implied or read into the account. They tell us what God ‘meant’ when He did this or that…not what He ‘said’ or did not say. I have also noticed that they also ignore Genesis 1 quite a bit because it does not fit into their interpretation of Genesis 2.

My question is this: To what point does this become false teaching? At what point does reading INTO the text, twisting it to mean something else become false teaching?

BTW: Hagar named God: El Roi

<>

What is his definition of the word “prophecy”?  Seems they have been trying to change the meaning of that word for the last 40 years.

Wonder how one has ‘non authoritative prophecy’ and ‘authoritative prophecy’? What is the difference?

“Man’s ordination cannot make one a Pastor nor can the failure of some to recognize God’s gifting take away one’s gifting and calling from God.”

Amen! We have so institutionalized everything in Christendom that we cannot recognize a basic scriptural teaching anymore. This institutionalization of ordination drives us away from the work of the Holy Spirit and looking to man for approval that comes only from God.

“The funny thing is that the real “liberals” don’t want anything to do with my DVD because it is too strong on the inspiration of scripture.”

I agree and that is the ONE thing that helped me to trust you as a teacher. I kept looking for the proof texting and whining about women as victims. It just was not there…only scripture in context! Praise God. And it is the one thing that gives your teaching authority… to the frustration of many

Cheryl, I am very happy to hear you have sold your home! What a relief for you. The news about using your DVD at DTS is wonderful. There are so few academic settings where the other side is presented so thoroughly and in depth. I pray it will get them digging into scripture. Be prepared for your detractors to say that DTS is a liberal seminary as if that should mean your DVD is liberal hermeneutics. I know the tactics quite well by now. And I know that content is rarely debated anymore. Lines in the sand are drawn by using the old liberal/conservative conversation stoppers. But that no longer deters me. Let’s debate the facts of scripture!

http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/

Here is a link to an official debate about Patriarchy and male only eldership. The debate format is interesting and something that Matt should really consider.

You guys are too funny. Cheryl’s sounded just like CBMW and Paula’s sounded just like the rough and tough Driscoll!

Wow, you are getting real uptown with this blog! Good work!

Thanks so much. In my search on their site, I was not using the right title words to find this.

This is why CBMW has created a huge list of what women can and cannot do and some grey areas that even CBMW doesn’t know the answer to yet.

I have just become aware of this list. Does anyone have a link to it on the CBMW website? Someone copied the list on another blog but I would love to see the original.

I am blown away  that these mere men would develop a women ministry approved list that includes such groups as the lame and blind. Are lame and blind men not really real men?

So, they were able to glean these approved ministries for women from scripture? This is nothing less than popery.

After they sinned, how did they respond to God?

1. Eve announced that she was deceived
2. Adam blamed Eve and God (That woman YOU gave me)

Could this be why scripture teaches that Eve was deceived (she still sinned) but Adam deliberately sinned?

If ‘a woman’ is representative of ‘all women’ then the NT scriptures are contradictory. We have too many examples of women teaching in front of men in the NT.

What happened?

We know scripture does not contradict itself. So, there must be a problem of proof texting an interpretation.

CAn I interject on how ridiculous this is? He calls you a heretic for proclaiming what many comps actually DO: Allow women to teach men. Has been happening for years…. they just don’t admit it.

They will have Elisabeth Elliot speak to their church, they have women on their CBMW advisory board along with men and Dorothy Criswell taught a 300 person MIXED SS class for a million years. I could give you a hundred examples of such things going on in comp land.

Now, they will tell you these women did this under some ‘mans’ authority. But what does that mean in practice? Does Mrs. Elliot give them her entire sermon (testimony) before she speaks? Is there a man nearby to run up and grab the mic if she utters one wrong word? Do the men on the advisory board not allow the women there to speak in meetings? Do they cover their ears when they speak lest they ‘learn’ something from a woman?

They also need to tell us at what age a woman cannot teach a boy/man. When does it become sin? Age 13? 18?

They refuse to debate scripture and they also refuse to answer such questions. We are left to wonder how it all works in practice.  Are we allowed to witness to a man? Are we allowed to answer doctrinal questions asked of us whether at church or at work by a man?

Confused….women continue to ‘turn away from God and toward ‘man”.

I saw a follower of McArthur questioned about  a husband who happened to be an elder at church who hit his wife… if he was still her “head”. He said he should be in jail. Good answer. But, is he still her ‘head’ in jail? No answer. Is a husband only her ‘head’ if he is a genuine Christian? No answer.

There are too many questions that comps have no good answer for. That is because the premise behind the questions is WRONG. It makes no scriptural sense when viewed in this light.

Methinks Matt and all the other Patriarch/comps should consider a Christian Talmud so we can keep up. We need a playbook for this oral law they have developed.

It may be the ONLY way. See all this stuff sounds so good in theory when one only needs to proof text a few verses. But, put it into practice in the reality of everyday life and we see real quick that they have set up a ‘priesthood’ for women only.  And, they have to IGNORE lots of scripture in order to believe what they believe.

Cheryl, consider it a badge of honor to be called a heretic by such as Matt. There is absolutely no room in Christendom for his rhetoric and invective toward another believer. What bothers him is that you ARE a great teacher and make TOO MUCH sense from scripture. And all he is left with is name calling, nastiness, contolling the venue and hoping the angry masses in his audience are with him.  He has to make you the enemy to have any credibility.

tiro, I am going to make a very strong statement. And, I only make it because Cheryl is being falsely accused and maligned by a professing Christian brother.

Matt Slick makes his living from his views. His very income is dependent on what he has taught others. He has advertisers and followers to placate. And, Controversy sells. This ‘war cry’ whips up the troops and probably donations, too. I have been around this and have even witnessed well known men not willing to speak out when they have been wrong because they presented that view in books, conferences, sermon tapes, etc. Their response is: I can’t go back and change the record of what I taught.  So, they say nothing at all.

But, people miss something more. Even his ‘invitation’ to debate was rife with sarcasm and arrogance. How do people miss this? How can they condone it or support it? What has happened to “Christians” that they cannot even be civil with disagreement on a secondary issue with their brothers and sisters in Christ? They are not debating the Virgin birth or the Resurrection for crying out loud.

My take on this whole issue is that this cannot be debated in this sort of venue because it really includes the whole scope of scripture. Including the creation account. People need time to absorb the information and study deeply what is said. 1 Timothy 2 cannot be understood in a vacuum that ignores all of the NT or even the creation account.

My take on this is that Matt and his followers have made this whole situation one of ego and ‘winning’ a debate. That takes the focus off of the truth of scripture wthin its whole scope and on ONE verse that has been proof texted.

Considering the contentious history in dealing with Matt and Diane, I would stay away from interaction with them except for a written debate. They have not been nice at all. They have censored others who have studied the Greek in the translations and called Cheryl a heretic. Does anyone really think that Matt would allow a fair and civilized debate after all the history we have seen of his behavior?

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

“RE: Grumdens explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:34-36.”
oops. Should have read 1 Corinthians 14. But then, you all knew that. 😉

I have to agree with Cheryl concerning Bushnell’s teaching about Adam and Eve. I almost did not continue reading after that and would have missed some very good points if I had stopped at that point. Just some thoughts on her teaching:

1. I agree that science is meaningless on this point
2. I think, perhaps, she was trying to wed the two accounts of creation. The macro and micro accounts with her theory.
3. God had Adam name all the animals after telling him He was going to find an ‘ezer’ suitable for him. Adam was incomplete.
4. What Eve is made from has nothing to do with the ‘Image of God’ as Ware tries to make us think. It is not the material she is made of that gives her the Image of God. As it is not the dirt that gives Adam his Image of God.

I am only half way through her book but the Creation account almost made me stop… yet… she has some very good teaching on other passages that can be verified or have already been from deep study.

RE: Grumdens explanation of 1 Corinthians 11: 34-36.  I have a question. Why would Paul introduce and affirm teaching from the oral law into the Body of Christ?

” It does make you wonder how much more we have been taught that is erroneous.  It makes me eager to chow down on more interlinear reading.”

And, it makes me feel so blessed that we live in a time where we have all these tools  at our disposal for free! I always marvel at this and can see that this is part of God’s plan to draw nearer to those of us who want to really study the word deeply.

I have been Reading Katherine Bushnell and am struck by how long her research had to take. No phones, letters only to communicate with scholars, expensive lexicons, learning the Greek and Hebrew language, etc. It is amazing what she accomplised in that day and time. (I am impressed with her work even though I do not agree with every single thing she wrote)

Wow, Paula. I just went and read it. You have given me much to think and study about being ‘dead’. Thanks!

A while back I printed out Eph with no verse numbers and read it over and over like a real letter. it was very eye opening just doing thata!

I am really looking forward to this one!

“On another topic, what kinds of church circumstances have those of you who are egalitarian found for yourselves?”

Well, my situation is a bit strange. I left a Christian seeker-mega after 16 years that was shallow on the essentials (sins are mistakes and grace is cheap) but very dogmatic on the secondaries such as women’s roles, raising kids, etc. It was more of a family oriented Republican social club for the upper classes than a real ecclessia.

I had NO idea where to go and dreaded finding a church after so many years. So, I just started visiting my mom’s old home church down the street where my step dad still goes. What I found was a very nice mix of everything AND agreement on the essentials. We have Calvinists, Free will folks, Egals, Comps, Cessationist,
continualists, etc. But, everyone loves each other. I have just fallen in love with it. And we study the Word!

My whole attitude toward church has changed. I no longer think I should be fed at church by one pastor or my teachers. (I know that is sad) but that attitude can get us in trouble. We are all to feed each other and judge what is taught by searching the scriptures and our goal should be not only correct doctrine in the essentials but a growing in Holiness.

We do not have sermons on men and women’s roles. Thank Goodness! It seems that is all I heard at the mega was sermons on family, roles, money, tithing, etc. There were ‘formulas’ for everything.  I am sick of it. I mean, if our relationship with Christ is growing and we are growing in holiness, those things come into line. I am sick of formulas, checklists, books and conferences! It was the same thing over and over said in a different way.

My cousin sent me a quote the other day and I cannot remember who said it but it went like this:

“A woman’s heart should be so hidden in Christ that a man should have to seek Him first to find her.”

Paula, from one of your lessons:

“One of the most aggravating trends in the modern Bible study is the question, “what does this verse/passage mean to me?”. That’s a totally backwards way to read the Bible. We’re not here to impose our beliefs on the Bible, we’re here to get our beliefs from the Bible. The idea is to figure out the writer’s intended meaning, not how we can make the words support something we want to believe and then call it a Biblical teaching. We’re supposed to be getting something out of the Word, not putting something in.”

it is so easy to fall into this trap. I even see some of us doing it in our SS and we have to pull ourselves back each time. ( I do believe that certain passages can ‘speak’ to us differently at different times but that does not mean the passages means something different. The Holy Spirit used it  to teach ME something personally. that sort of thing. )

it is hard to even lovingly rebuke people for giving deciding what a passage means to ‘them’ as they get so offended but it has to be done.

In reality, many of the hierarchalists are doing this very thing when interpreting scripture. And it is easy for others to believe it when they do not know the scope of scripture. I just keep asking them questions…what about this and how does that relate to what you are saying, etc., etc. Ask enough of these  type questions in a group situation and those around at the time start seeing a bigger picture and wondering about such interpretations. (Not those who are married to the hierarchical view, though. They have an agenda)

“How does this happen that we are raising a generation of followers who have no capabilities of being Bereans?”

About a 2 years ago, my SS class decided to throw out all the topical studies and only study books of the bible. Boy oh boy did that change things. There were some who could not believe some of what they were reading because it did not line up with what they had been taught. (Mainly within the realm of cheap grace).

Some even left. But the 25 or so that stayed have become more and more hungry for the deep truths.

One of the things we have all agreed upon that are left is that none of us really knew scripture. We knew bits and pieces. We did not understand the whole ‘scope’ of scripture. That is why this subordination within the Trinity teaching has gained so much ground. people do not know better because they do not look at the scope of scripture.

During a study on Genesis, one of the more studied women made a comment about Eve ‘usurping ‘ her role. I very gently asked her to show me where that was pointed out in the text or another part of scripture. She couldn’t….. except to read into it. That started a whole study on that part and how that has been taught for so many years….all had to admit, it was read into the account.

It is amazing what can happen when people read scripture and only seek truth and not their presuppositional premises.

But first, they have to stop following movements and celebrity Christians.

Jacob? Joseph? David? Solomon? Were any of these leaders ‘firstborns’?

Primogeniture is about inheritance not leadership or authority.

I often wonder if these men know the difference or if they do know and hope no one checks out their wrong teaching. Since CBMW teaches this to some extent (Piper) I have to conclude they are ‘making’ it fit their desperate premise.

What is amazing about this is that he claims this is a definite prohibition for all women to teach all men but then ignores so many other passages that are obvious ‘exceptions’ to this supposed rule. Even one exception in the NT would negate the ‘rule’ or prohibition. At the most, they could argue this is the rule from ‘Paul’ for the Ephesian church. That is it. But since the grammar is singular, that does not work.

The only problem Paul had with women prophesying was whether their heads should be covered or not while doing so! He assumed they were doing it within the Body in 1 Corin 11!

We have too many examples of women prophesying (including the fulfillement of prophecy at Pentecost) publicly that cannot be ignored or explained away easily. They simply are ignored and all focus on this one verse. It really is ridiculous when one thinks about it.

As my step dad says, if you want to know what Paul thinks of women in the church, read Romans 16. :o)

Nope, I wrote it right here and it was fine before I posted it. Strange. Thanks for fixing it….drives me crazy trying to read them when they show the code.

Goodness! Where did all the ‘code’ come from in that comment?

“Another parallel is there were 3 types of sinners in the garden:

1. a deceived sinner- the woman
2. a deliberate sinner- the man
3. a deceiving sinner- the serpent

There is a ranking in the sin/sinner in terms of consequences. The man/deliberate sinner is cast out of the garden; the 2 men in 1 Tim were cast out of the church.”

You know, With the above in mind, I was reading through Leviticus a while back and noticed that God had specific laws/rules for those who “broke the law” unintentionally. They were still guilty but He does acknowledge this. This jumped out at me as I had not noticed it before.

Here are few examples.
Leviticus 5:14-16
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: If a person commits a trespass, and sins unintentionally in regard to the holy things of the LORD, then he shall bring to the LORD as his trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your valuation in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for the harm that he has done in regard to the holy thing, and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. So the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
Leviticus 5:17
If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know; yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.

I see so many parallels in this passage and the Genesis account. Eve was deceived. We know that for a fact. I think it is interesting to read Genesis and see Eve admitting to God she was deceived.  Yet Adam blamed the woman.

Then we know that through her, the ‘seed’ would bring Messiah. Eve was even thinking Cain was that ‘seed’!

I just see clearly that Paul was making parallels here with Eve being deceived and the seed that came through a woman by the ‘The Childbearing’ which is a noun as you say, Cheryl.

Matt is bringing his ‘authoritarian’ presuppositions to his hermeneutic. He cannot understand why Paul is not throwing his weight around with this couple.