Paula

If a few of most commentators are nonexperts, this is no great moment since you still have a legitimate appeal to authority with the experts.

And who are the experts you appeal to? You did not name them. Even the example– “most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy”– can be and has been challenged due to evidence that it is a high carb diet that is unhealthy. Again, truth and fact are not a matter of popularity, even among experts. Proof or strong evidence, with none excluded, must be offered, regardless of credentials.

You’re poisoning the well. And I seriously doubt they are male supremacists. In my experience with others egalitarians, they believe that anyone who advocates role subordination for women teaches, by implication at least, that women are subhuman somehow.

… he said, poisoning the well in return.

Fact: read http://www.fether.net/2008/01/19/bible-dot-arrrgh/ and http://www.fether.net/2008/01/18/vows-and-wows/ for my personal observations of their bias. See, I’m documenting my claim, something you need to pick up on. And if what you read there from them isn’t teaching the sub-humanity of women, then we’re wasting our time.

God made Adam a steward of moral life in the garden by giving him the garden mandate

And what was that mandate? To “keep” which means to guard, protect. In contrast, the command to RULE was given to both of them in Gen. 1:28.

God then declared that Adam was not sufficient to complete the tasks God had set before him alone (Gen 2:18). So, he created Eve to help him

Note that an ezer kenegdo is “a strong one facing him”, an equal partner in battle. God Himself is described in such terms as well.

3). Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate

Hogwash. Show me where any scripture puts that interpretation into Genesis. Show me the scripture.

In fact, I refuse to allow you to discuss anything else until you answer this. And when you realize there isn’t a shred of scripture to back up this assertion and opinion of yours, then I’ll go on to the rest of your claims.

A general FYI:

A good apologetics site in general is Christian Thinktank, and the page of links on women’s issues is here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

As you surely know, “most commentators” is an appeal to popularity. Commentators can be anybody, so when you say “most” you first have to establish how many commentators there are, eliminate the non-experts in Greek, and then show that a majority agree and that no other experts have challenged them. But more importantly, the accuracy of one’s view of the Greek is not determined by popular vote but by showing that the Koine Greek of the first century supports the claim.

Bible.org is staunchly male supremacist, and they are as biased as anyone. Yet instead of showing how the grammar of the first century Greek must mean what they say, they simply assert it as being so. How do they justify claiming that “the singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex”? They don’t. They just assert it. And contrary to their claim, “the shift to the plural” is hardly “clear” at all, but instead is a glaring rebuttal to their claim. They want to gloss over Paul’s choice of words and replace them with their own. This passage, to use your own approach, is held by “most commentators” to be one of the most difficult in all of scripture, yet you would try to pass it off as clear and unambiguous.

Again I challenge you to make sense out of claiming that Eve’s deception applies to anyone but her, from the actual Greek grammar. The whole debate here is on what Paul meant, and you still can’t make the conclusion into a premise no matter how many people wish it to be so. “She will… if they” cannot be muddled into “They will… if they” without altering scripture itself.

I got Chris’s reply by email but he has not yet moved it here, so I’ll include it as a quote:

Paula: “Note also that the tense of ‘has become’ shows continuing action in the present, meaning the woman Paul refers to is not Eve but a woman living at the time, since whoever she is she is STILL in a state of error as of his writing.”

In 1 Timothy 2:14 “ginomai” is in the perfect tense.

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#PERFECT:
“The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. ”

The action is not continuing in the present as you claim. As the definition says, “The progress of the action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on.”

I see no problem here for the patriarchalist view since they will certainly agree that Eve’s completed action has continuing consequence

Chris,

The definition you supplied is exactly what I was trying to convey, that is, that Paul is addressing a situation that still existed at the time of the writing. My choice of the word “action” was perhaps confusing to you.

Now let’s take your interpretation into the verses and see how it works. You say Eve is “the woman”:

For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and continues in the transgression. Notwithstanding, Eve will be saved in the childbearing if women who came after her continue in faith and charity…

You err in overlooking the fact that the woman who was deceived is the one continuing in transgression— which is impossible for Eve. If “a woman” is Eve, then it is Eve who continues to suffer the effects of her sin!

You have acknowledged that the Greek verb has continuing consequences, but on whom? And the “she” of vs. 15 is still that same woman, whom you say is Eve. Explain. Are you actually saying that Eve’s sin has been conferred upon all women for all time– yet somehow Adam’s sin has not? And if his sin has been conferred upon all men for all time, then all men are guilty of failure to lead and protect!

You can’t have it both ways. Either Eve is still suffering the consequences of her sin and can only be saved if future women remain in faith, or you believe that all women are deceived like Eve, in spite of being in Christ, because you think Paul only charges women with having to remain faithful.

For the record, none of this identity checking would have been necessary without past experiences from those who “Chris” admires. He can thank them for the background check.

Now you’re really falling apart, “Chris”. I quoted scripture and even bolded the “deception” words. Talk about reading comprehension problems! How do you weasel out of what is plainly written there? The letter’s stated purpose is about deception and the verses you are focusing are have deception stated explicitly. What on earth do you thing the topic is, and what on earth do you call evidence, if not that?

And how can anyone who came here spewing logic terms not comprehend argumentum ad verecundiam? “If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority’s statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.” (source) Yes, in fact competing authorities DO “cancel each other out” and show the fallacy of citing only those authorities that agree with your position, as I already stated.

When Greek experts disagree (or any other experts for that matter), we have to acknowledge that the claims of one authority do not rule over the claims of another such that some authorities can simply be ignored.

MS and DS are the kind of people who would stoop so low as to buy up a bunch of “cherylschatz” domains in order to try and take away traffic from this blog. I wouldn’t put anything past them.

Your own ignorance and ad hominem is showing, “Chris”. My interpretations are legitimate and logical. You disagree. But that’s hardly a debate, now is it. Is that all you’ve got? Is it somehow okay in your “wacky” world to call names while trying to condemn me for the same? And do you expect to win anything but our contempt for setting up even more straw men?

Yes, you do have to show proof for your claims, especially when you demand it from your opponent. Unless you’d like to admit to being a hypocrite. And far from shifting the burden of proof, I’m only preventing you from slipping out of what is rightfully your burden to bear. You won’t escape.

So tell us, what is YOUR proof for male supremacy? Does “not so among you” not apply between the sexes? Where does it say that ANYONE is to model the Father’s “rule” over the Son? Where does it say that women ALONE model the Son’s EARTHLY submission to the Father? And what kind of Christian even would want authority over another?

Ah, I see. I still think the “ad” I posted should stand as a public service announcement though.

Sorry about this, but I am now inspired… ;-P

“Do you suffer from it? Lots of guys do. You become nervous, even fearful around women. It has been identified and has a name:

Gynophobia.

If you suffer from gynophobia, please see your doctor and get some help. Ask for our new formula called Myproxyzfalen and start noticing improvement in as little as two days. Side affects are temporary and may include dizziness, mockery from other guys, a feeling of helplessness and vulnerability, irritability, and having to eat crow.

Tanx Cheryl, glad to be of service. 🙂

Yes, we’d all like to know why anyone would use a proxy to post here.

Consider the Greek of 1 Tim. 2:13-14–

For first Adam was formed and Eve after, and Adam was not seduced. Yet woman being seduced in transgression HAS BECOME.

It’s all about deception or seduction; there is nothing about authority. And as you should know, the Greek word authentein is hotly debated because of its rarity, and there are much clearer words for authority that Paul did not use here.

Note also that the tense of “has become” shows continuing action in the present, meaning the woman Paul refers to is not Eve but a woman living at the time, since whoever she is she is STILL in a state of error as of his writing.

Also note that when authorities disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to them. You only quoted those that agree with your interpretation regarding whether “a woman” can be understood generically in this passage. And when such a switch is made in the middle of a sentence, such a view stretches credulity, no matter who it is that’s doing the stretching.

I am making a claim on a finite topic: the words contained in the Bible. I have examined it all and found it devoid of proof for your position. Therefore my claim is not groundless but established. If you claim it is false, then you are making the assertion that proof exists. It is therefore your case to make. Far from “just saying that”, I’m challenging you to back up your own assertion. Can you do that?

It is your counter-claim that is germane to your argument. That is, you claim proof exists so you must show it. So far you’ve only asserted the conclusion in the premise. Your interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:13-14 is not a proof but an opinion, the one under debate. And it is circular: you presume Paul appeals to the OT as a matter of authority and then read that presumption back into the text. The egal argument is that Paul appeals to it as a matter of deception, which fits perfectly into the context.

P.S.:

Whether my claim is a dogmatic assertion is irrelevant to whether yours is. In fact, to launch this counter-claim is a red herring.

“Chris”, are you actually asking me to prove a negative? It is your point to prove false; all you have to do is find scriptures that state what I say isn’t there. My assertion is grounded in fact, because no such scriptures exist, so in order to prove me wrong you only need to supply scriptures that prove otherwise.

In contrast, a dogmatic assertion is one like the PMS argument of authority by virtue of chronology. There are no scriptures to support it and plenty that prove it wrong, such as Jacob over Esau, David over all 7 of his older brothers, etc. Man was created last, not first, yet Man has authority over all the animals. If chronology = authority, then Eve had authority over Adam. So we see that scripture does not support the PMS view and has explicit evidence against it.

So again I challenge you: find scripture, in context, that clearly falsifies my claim.

I should also point out that “Chris” committed the tu quoque fallacy in trying to pin ad hominem on me, as if it negates my argument.

“Chris”:

P –> Q reads “If P, then Q”, which means P necessarily implies or causes Q. Yet P is the point under debate and thus cannot be used as a premise. And your using P where you should be using Q isn’t helping to clarify your argument at all. (i.e., using the term P4) I realize you’re trying to use P to designate “patriarchy” and E for “egalitarian”, but at least give the conclusion some other designation than making it look like another premise. If you want to impress everyone with what you’re learning in logic class, you need to be more careful. And no, I have not misunderstood your argument, but you surely have misunderstood ours.

I called PMS conceited. If you took it personally, that’s fine, but it’s no ad hominem on my part.

Although I’m sure Cheryl will easily handle your “causal gar” question, again you seem to try to put the conclusion in the premises. Paul appeals to the OT but not for the reason you assert.

I suppose at this point I should also address the straw man portion of that first post. That is, “Chris” has attempted to construct an argument egals do not make and then burn it down, using the term “modus tolens” which is basically modus ponens in reverse.

E1 is a disputed point and thus not one egals make. Instead, we say that Paul is not appealing to the OT for the purpose PMS (patriarchy/ male supremacism) alleges. We say Paul appeals to the OT on the matter of deception, not authority, and more appropos to this argument, that he isn’t talking about ALL women at all; he is talking about A WOMAN who is teaching falsehood, and this because she had been deceived. Thus the appeal to Eve’s deception is completely natural in the context of false teaching. Authority is not in view; neither is true teaching forbidden to women. But, alas, I despair of the PMSers to ever grasp this point of our argument.

E2 is correct as stated. But E4 misstates our conclusion; we say not that 1 Tim. 2:12 has been misunderstood, but that the PMS interpretation of it has been a deliberate error perpetuated for most of church history by those who take pride in male flesh and think God is really a respecter of persons.

We also observe the fallacious statement to the effect that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof” in the statement “… [E2] is a strong claim, but if egalitarians want to establish the conclusion of this modus tollens argument with necessity, then [E2] must be this strong” . “Chris” hopes we haven’t noticed the attempt to get us to say we overlooked something, because that is a much easier straw man to burn. The fact remains that E2 is a true statement; no one can find scripture to show it to be false. The burden of proof is on PMS to find it, not on egals to simply concede the point PMS wishes us to hand them on a silver platter. If our argument is too strong for them, let them find their own rebuttal.

“Chris” goes on to build on this foundation of sand by trying to make the baseless P1 assertion equal to the E2 premise which no one has refuted.

In the end, “Chris” has done all this for no reason, since the matter of two witnesses has not been addressed at all. It was a diversion from the start. “Chris” simply wishes to redefine the terms from establishing laws to applying them, yet ironically, it is PMS that insists upon saying Paul is making a new law here.

Yes, it’s all been very entertaining, but merry-go-rounds get boring.

They don’t call it BREAK dancing for nuthin’! 😉

For general information, modus ponens is defined in this article:

The argument form has two premises. The first premise is the “if–then” or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well. In Artificial Intelligence, modus ponens is often called forward chaining.
An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens:
If today is Tuesday, then I will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, I will go to work.

This argument is valid, but this has no bearing on whether any of the statements in the argument are true; the validity of modus ponens means that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. An argument can be valid but nonetheless unsound if one or more premises are false; if an argument is valid and all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. A propositional argument using modus ponens is said to be deductive.

As you can all see, “Chris” presumes the correctness of both premises, yet we know that the first [P1] is one of the points being debated, meaning “Chris” has made the foundational premise out of an assertion and not an undisputed fact. That is, an attempt is being made to make the conclusion one of the premises. Such fallacious tactics are common.

And [P2] is hardly an obvious implication of P1. In fact, it is a tautology to impose that implication on the OT when that is part of the point under debate. Again, logically fallacious. Likewise, P3 presumes the reason for Paul to refer to the OT instead of citing any kind of proof.

Overall, as is obvious here, the male supremacist cannot cite anything more than presumed implications from dubious premises to justify their conceit in the flesh. I’m also observing the attempt here at using big, scary college words to try and intimidate the humble readers here. This same approach is commonly used by atheists/evolutionists who then return to their supporters to report their great victory and gloat over their superior intellect.

In stark contrast, a true Christian does not seek preeminence, does not crave rule over others, and does not aggressively pressure others to conform to their will. Jesus laid aside power and position to serve His bride; any believer who does not stoop that low is unworthy to go around teaching anyone.

I’m sure Cheryl is shaking in her shoes at the prospect of facing the all-too-typical overconfident college student. But at least they can be entertaining. It’s been a while since we’ve had a good laugh.

Thanks for the clarification, Arlene. 🙂 I agree, we are all sealed with the Spirit and are each a “royal priest”. God can manage His sheep.

Ya know, Greg, it truly amazes me that the US Constitution lasted as long as it did (I consider it pretty much shredded now). It presumed upon the moral fiber of the people, but that fiber can’t be dictated. As I blogged about Here, convictions can’t be enforced, and the beginning of decay is when people forget why they have them at all.

I don’t remember who said it, but I think it was a Puritan who realized the irony of the Protestant work ethic, in that it would inevitably result in greed and materialism. It only takes a light push to move from responsible provision to competing to “win the game”. And it is inherent in evil to take advantage of good, because evil plays by its own immoral rules. So unless every individual in a society is morally strong, evil will take over in time.

Yet the solution is not to enforce stronger rules, or to increase the police force. Any society– or church– that resorts to such strong-arm tactics has already lost the war. Moral decay is defeat. The solution, then, is to keep passing down morality, not by decree but by example. And that’s why the NT teaches this model; evil cannot prevail against it. But it always prevails against hierarchy, because hierarchy is its native language.

Arlene,

That’s all true. But who in the church has been given authority over another? The question isn’t how an alleged authority is carried out, but whether there is such a thing in the first place.

If Christians had authority over other Christians, then of course we’d expect rulers to rule well. But the scriptures never give any one Christian authority over another, nor any group of Christians authority over others. There is leadership by example, and if Jesus’ example is to be followed by all (which I believe it is), then all should lay aside power and command in favor of humble service. We are told that it is wise to follow the spiritually mature, to copy their behavior, and to listen to those who “rightly divide the Word of truth”. But there are not commands to obey rulers.

Gengwall,

If people will not listen to the Spirit or the NT, then no amount of worldly hierarchy will solve any problems, and it has a long history of creating more of its own. Nobody is advocating utopia here on earth, but only saying that we should not add the world’s chains to spiritual problems. This isn’t complicated; we all just need to live by the “one anothers” of Scripture and start actual discipleship instead of running people through Sunday School like parts on a conveyor belt.

No, we don’t need rules beyond “love God and love your neighbor”, and more control will only bring more repression of the Spirit. The Head has not left the Body, nor has He delegated His authority to the left hand to boss the right. For any Body part to aspire to such rule over another is a sign, IMHO, of pride and immaturity. If we truly follow Jesus, we will want to be like Him– a servant, one who makes sacrifices, who lifts others up instead of pressing them down to keep them in line.

Gengwall, no need to start getting upset or mocking, let’s just talk.

Who is the Ruler but God? Have I denied this Ruler? No, I have not, so your charge against me is false. There is only one Head to give orders to the parts of the Body, and none of us are it.

Gengwall, where is any Greek word for “authority” or “rule over” in those passages? I see mention of the ones who brought the gospel as being good examples to follow, and I see people who served by protecting and providing, but I see no Greek words such as exousion or arche.

We cannot be both a servant and a ruler at the same time. We are either the served or the servant. “Servant leader” is an oxymoron that tries to make domination a new form of submission. But Jesus’ example is that of one who had power but laid it down.

Does the eye rule over the hand? Do the feet give orders to the arms? I see Phil. 2:5-11 and Mt. 20:34-28 as doing away with all chains of command.

Yes, human beings have a weakness for power, and the last thing they need is an Institution to give it teeth

We should also remember that Strong’s is a concordance, not a dictionary of Greek with full semantic range based on the latest findings. Strong’s is based primarily on the KJV and lexicons that are not up to date. Discoveries of Koine Greek documents have largely been ignored. So relying on Strong’s can be circular, and there is certainly ample basis for disagreement with the KJV’s known bias toward “the divine right of kings” and the autocratic rule of “clerics”.

I highly recommend the interlinears, even old ones, for great enlightenment into the original words.

And I still challenge anyone claiming “chain of command” for the church to explain it or justify it in light of Phil. 2:5-11 and Mt. 20:34-28.

.

It looks like Paula and I were posting at the same time and our answers were very similar even though neither one of us knew what the other was writing

Spooky.

Acts 6:1-6 is a food-distribution issue, which really isn’t related to hierarchy at all but providing a solution to meet a need. Perhaps that can be defined as a “committee”, but it was not for the purpose of forming doctrine or putting a layer between the people and an alleged clergy class. And it was temporary, as far as we know. That incident is never mentioned again in scripture, nor cited as the basis for a “diaconate”.

1 Peter 5:1-2 says nothing about rule or authority, but example and care. I disagree that presbuteros is inherently authoritative and hierarchical in NT usage; that would be begging the question. The Greek wording there is of voluntary deference as a matter of wisdom.

So no, I don’t agree that “the church has always had hierarchies in place from the very beginning”. Jesus is portrayed as the cornerstone, and the apostles as the foundation, with all the rest of us– every believer who came after them– as equal bricks in the building, a building whose “hierarchy” starts at the bottom. Jesus said He came to serve, not be served, and “not so among you” is a command to all believers without exception. Jesus certainly has authority, and the apostles were commissioned by Him. But no one since then has the authority to write scripture, to speak “thus saith the Lord”, or to give order to the other parts of the Body.

Anarchy is not the absence of hierarchy, but the breakdown of all moral restraint; I believe it’s a false dilemma to say otherwise. Certainly the Spirit is capable of guiding and restraining us without human help. And as history shows us all too well, human hierarchy is no guarantee of safety or order based upon the Spirit and not the flesh.

Actually, we do have an Authority… it just isn’t human. 😉

We have the NT which is “the teachings of the apostles”, and we have the Spirit. While many believe anarchy would be the result of doing away with all hierarchy in the church, I would disagree. As noted, Paul served, as did Jesus of course. They laid down the rules: the “one anothers”. In this there is no anarchy.

There are those who are gifted to protect from false teachings, and the writer of Hebrews tells us it is wise to follow their advice. And we are to emulate the examples lived out by the apostles and those who are like them, copying their lives and learning from their wisdom. This is not leadership by decree but by example, and there is no need for authority.

I would ask: what exactly would this “anarchy” look like anyway? What would people be doing without authorities over them? My guess is that instead of anarchy, what many leaders fear is loss of control over others– that were never theirs in the first place.

In a message board someone was listing the abuses of the obvious hucksters selling the “gospel” for profit. But I added:

Sadly, though, and truth to tell, most churches and pastors are only different by degree. They elevate one gift of the Spirit and turn it into an office of authority. They think themselves “the priesthood” even though we all are. They call their temples “the storehouse” even though Gentiles never had such a thing. They demand a “tithe” even though the NT never commands such a thing. They make up rules about dress, magical coverings, flesh-based “ministry”, and a host of other ever-changing rules that would make the Pharisees green with envy. They turn the Body into the Business and completely ignore “not so among you”.

It’s time for not a reform or revival but a revolution! Back to “your body is the temple”, “not so among you”, “submit to one another”, back to scripture and not the doctrines of people or demons, back to family and community instead of religious ritual. Let us be the community we were meant to be, and interact in each other’s lives instead of visiting near strangers once a week as if we’re visiting a relative in a nursing home. Let us sink our teeth into the meat of the Word instead of nibbling on the crumbs of philosophy and pet theological systems, pre-digested for us by “clergy”. Let us learn to recognize those who both have mastered the scriptures and live its precepts, and follow their examples.

We say Christianity isn’t a religion but we don’t practice what we preach. We act like every other religion: buildings, clergy/laity, rituals. For the first 200 years of Christianity there were no temples, no props, no liturgical calendars, no elevated priests. And the Assembly was pure; it “turned the world upside down”– without committees, without boards of oversight, without fundraisers, without advertising, without youth programs, without nurseries, and without any of the other trappings of religion.

A salvation that cannot stand alone but must leach its life from others is not the victorious living promised to those who have accepted reconciliation with God through the shed blood of the crucified and risen Lord. We should get together and build each other up, but then go out and be salt and light. Salt is not all poured out in one spot, nor do we take our food to it and dip it (i.e., bring the lost to “church” and hope they catch something). Salt is shaken, it is spread out, and each grain is to season and preserve wherever it is sent. We need to return to that.

Let’s get out of our safe little monasteries and change the world!

I’m sure you’ve all seen this joke, but it’s so very true.

The husband had just finished reading a new book titled, “You Can Be the Man of Your House!” He stormed into the kitchen and walked directly up to his wife.

Pointing a finger in her face, he said sternly, “From now on, you need to know that I am the man of this house and my word is law! You will prepare me a gourmet meal tonight, and when I’m finished eating my meal, you will serve me a sumptuous dessert. After dinner you are going to draw me a bath so I can relax. You will wash my back and towel me dry and bring me my robe. Then you will massage my feet and hands.
Then after that’s done, guess who’s going to dress me and comb my hair?”

His wife replied, “The funeral director.”