teknomom

‘s k, Dusman… I kallz it “keyboard dyslexia”.

How embarrassing! I should have typed “patriarchs”. I get so peeved when people can’t punctuate, and now they’ve got me doing it!

It’s also interesting to analyze the arguments of modern day polygamists. They think that since the Bible never condemns it and the patricarch’s practiced it, it must be God’s will. And of course, Paul only said that elders had to be the husband of one wife, so everybody else is off the hook!

(sound familiar?)

I’m sure we all have thoughts, but not necessarily the kind we should express in public. 😉

Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. But his fans saw this too, so I’m sure something good will come of it. Kinda reminds me of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but God sent his angel to stop it at the last second. You’ve been tested and found faithful.

And like I said, he should be required to post his list too, for everyone to read before the debate. And be restricted to 1.5 min. himself, with Cheryl having the right to cut him off if he exceeds it.

It still isn’t fair for him to impose such rules when he has control of the mic.

Just a quickly I’d like to quote from the Introduction to The Source NT:

For centuries, the meanings of numerous NT words remained unknown, and translators simply made educated guesses. In the late 1880s and again in the mid 1970s, large amounts of papyri and inscriptions were discovered. These impacted our knowledge of word meanin in the NT to such a degree that scholars labeled the finds “sensational” and “dramatic.”…

Yet nearly every NT translation of today follows the traditional translations of the earlier versions, which were published centuries before the evidence from the papyri and inscriptions revealed to us the meanings of numerous NT words.

So even our lexicons are outdated, yet the people who make them know they need updated but refuse to do it. And it is to these outdated “authorities” the supremacists always appeal. Big problem.

Greg,
Yes, I bought the printed version of GWTW just so I have it even if we lost electricity. I do that for every important book I can afford. It is absolutely shocking, even after a hundred years.

Cheryl,
So Matt wants his PalTalk venue no matter what. Then let him have the same restrictions as you, including not allowing interruptions. But every formal debate has to have ground rules, which apply equally to both sides. Problem is, there is no neutral moderator, so he can break the rules with impunity. He gets the best of both worlds.

I’d recommend having someone with you who will have a stop-watch, and you have every right to cut him off after his allotted time. And he too must supply a written list to you, in all fairness, so you can make sure he sticks to what he wrote and not go off on one of his tangents. I would also require that both your list and his be posted online before the debate, on the website of someone who can be trusted not to alter them… hey, maybe one of those polite atheists would do this!

There is a good reason his listeners keep wanting to hear more from you, because they too know that he keeps cutting you off before you can make a point. If he had treated you with any degree of civility and let you finish a point, they wouldn’t keep asking for more. He wants sound bites, not depth.

If this comes to pass, you’ll have to be quick and pointed. That can seem impolite to those of us who value such qualities, but it’s the only thing he can comprehend. And for what it’s worth, a quick google search on Matt’s so-called polite atheists paints a much different picture. They have nothing nice to say about him, for the very same reasons we’ve seen in this debate. He shut down parts (all?) of his own message board because various people were being extremely rude, so for him to put you in their category is just a wild stretch and he knows it. He wants only to belittle you.

He’s a name-caller as you know, and commits a variety of other logical fallacies as well. But he’s hoping you won’t have time to call him out on them, much less see them. His listening audience must surely be aware of them though, because he makes such a big deal about them when others commit them. If they have ears to hear, they’ll see his double standard; he won’t be able to hide it.

And since he openly and publicly called you a heretic, it is hypocritical and a violation of scriptural teachings for him to even want to debate you. The fact that he does anyway, tells us all that he knows the charges he has leveled against you have no basis in scriptural fact.

As has been pointed out, pin him down on “ezer” and the Bible’s absolute silence on any establishment of hierarchy before and at the Fall. Make sure he doesn’t bring in any other scriptures to interpret this, since he won’t allow you that same privilege.

Well, got things to do. Hope this helps.

I’ll second that. Not everybody is willing to face giants. Goliath lost his head and now the rest of us can chase away the Philistines.

I put together a simple grammar guide, just for quick reference, at This Link. There is an easy Greek course at This Link. It also includes many books of the Bible translated into Greek without the added accents that can force a meaning that was not in the original. Very good intro to Greek. Other sites include Learn Greek, Learn Hebrew, and Greek Lexicon.

AS,
If she had been blocking posts, why do you suppose she’d let the mocking one stay?

Cheryl,

It was unconscionable for Matt to call you names like that. It’s ad hominem and he knows it, not to mention in violation of the most basic Christian principles. And as you keep saying, but the supremacists cannot hear, if “authoritative teaching” (which they cannot support from scripture) is forbidden to all women for all time, then they are hypocrites and guilty of the blood of all Christian women teachers who are sinning ignorantly. Like Adam who stood idly by while Eve was tempted, they stand silently and refuse to speak out that which they believe in their hearts: that it is SIN for women to teach with authority. And if SIN, then they cannot excuse their failure to plainly call it that and have all us “heretics” thrown out of their Church of Testosterone Supremacy.

Regarding “she” and “they”, I should point out that even Dr. Nyland thinks “she” is Eve. But it cannot be, because there is no way Eve could be saved by the obedience of anyone else, much less women living millenia into the future. Without it being Eve, it gives much weight to your argument that this is a particular woman being addressed, and “they” are she and her husband.

I’ve seen many commentaries take the coward’s way out and say “Wow, this is very difficult; we just don’t know what to do with it”. But they can’t figure it out because they have already told God what He can and cannot tell them.

I still can’t get over how strongly Matt insisted upon male supremacy. Why would any believer crave such power, and over other believers no less? Why does he guard it so fiercely?

And here’s where his Calvinism really becomes absurd: If we are, as Calvinism asserts, incapable of free will such that God must necessarily direct every thought, word, and deed, then what’s the point of debating anything at all? Are we not “heretics” because God decreed us to be so, “all for his good pleasure, from his eternal decree”? How is this not a case of fighting against the sovereign will of God? He simply cannot reconcile his invective against women teaching authoritatively with the micromanagement theory Calvinism asserts for God. When he rails against you, he is really railing against God who made you the way you are.

Matt’s foundtional assertons are of course the root of how he interprets all else, and the first is his complete misunderstanding of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

He ASSUMES that Adam is in charge of Eve, in spite of not one word from God to that effect. Animals were created prior to Adam, so are they his boss? Adam was formed from dust, is dust his boss? If Matt is to be consistent, he must say ‘yes’ to both questions or he can’t say Adam is over Eve due to his being created first and her being formed from him.

He IGNORES the fact that both of them were commanded to “subdue the earth”.

He CHANGES the meaning of “ezer” (bad KJV translation “helpmeet”) to a lower-rank assistant, knowing full well that this same word is used of God in relationship to Israel. This also ignores the fact that the one needing help is dependent upon what only the helper can supply. It would be perfectly justifiable to claim Eve’s superiority over Adam with this argument.

And that’s all before chapter three!

When Eve was being tempted, scripture plainly states that Adam was there with her. He said nothing. Some leader! Matt would have us believe she snuck away behind Adam’s back to meet the serpent, but the truth is Adam stood idly by as the temptation went on. He never corrected her when she said “or touch it”, which Eve attributed to God, not Adam. He never said anything at all to the serpent. This is “covering”? This makes Adam fit to lead? This makes ALL MEN over ALL WOMEN for ALL TIME?? It is nothing but presumption to claim Eve did this in a dark corner away from Adam’s knowledge.

So Adam watches the temptation, does nothing, and takes the fruit without hesitation. Then God wants them to confess, and what does Adam say? “It’s YOUR FAULT God, for giving me this woman who gave me the fruit!” But what does Eve say? The truth! She did not pass blame but freely admitted her sin, and truthfully stated the cause: “the serpent tricked me”. She didn’t even blame Adam, whom she had every right to blame. This is all proof that Adam had neither the command nor the authority nor even the willingness to rule over Eve.

And look at God’s response: the serpent was cursed, and the earth was cursed because of Adam, so he would have to sweat for his food. But neither Adam nor Eve were cursed directly. No mention is made of “the death of man’s spirit” in the very spot it allegedly happened. Not one word or hint. But notice how God dealt with Eve, in great contrast: He BLESSED her! Through “her seed” the Savior would come!

Does it make any sense to think God then did a 180 and started CURSING her? Not at all. He did NOT say Adam “shall” rule over her, but that he “will”, and this as a result of Eve’s TURNING, NOT” DESIRE”. God then orders ONLY ADAM out of the garden so ONLY ADAM cannot take from the Tree of Life. That’s how the Hebrew reads. This is where God’s prediction to Eve begins: she follows (“turns”) Adam out of the garden, which God never ordered her to do. And as a result, Adam ruled over her, which God never ordered him to do.

And conspicuous by its absence is any claim that the relationship between Adam and Eve is to apply to all their descendents for all time. God never said any such thing, neither did he order it. All God did was curse the earth and the serpent.

So Genesis 3, which Matt takes as proof of authority of all men over all women for all time, does not support his view at all. He wrongly claims Adam was Eve’s boss before sin, and wrongly claims Eve usurped Adam’s alleged authority in the temptation. This makes a very shaky foundation for everything he builds upon it. And lest he demand that we bring in NT verses to supply his interpetations, we would remind him that he allowed no such thing from Cheryl. If she tried to use one scripture to interpret another, he always cut her off.

Why does he not do with “ezer” what he does with “didasko”? Is it because “ezer” is mostly used to describe God? More specifically, it’s because he wants to use a principle only when it looks good in a debate.

And here again, Matt kept equivocating on whether this was a debate or a conversation. Since he offered a formal debate, then at best this was informal, and he can therefore not demand “concise” answers. He can’t have it both ways.

I could go on and on about all his double standards, logical fallacies, and continual eisegesis, but why shoot at a building whose foundation is on shifting sand?

Well, well, well…

First I’ll just dump my hasty notes I took as I listened, then post my comments:

M– one woman not fit context of 1 Tim 1-2

C– subject can change, not an issue 1 tim 2:11 has grammar shift from falsehood to leadership, plural to singular; makes v15 make sense

M– if “a” woman can’t teach falsehood to “a” man, claim H & A as false teachers

C– they are deceived but know better;

(M showing signs of impatience at 7 min.)

M– mere opinions and philosophy, not scripture (he ignores scriptural basis)
M– calls sincerety in the heart is FALSE and RCC; relies on Calvinism here
M– moaning at 11 min.
M– still doesn’t get it, that people can be shown mercy because they are sinning in ignorance; accused C of teaching Palagianism

M– change subject to “the word ‘quiet’” hezukia=”subdued, quiet (not silent” = sagao)
M– argues that can’t be about false teaching cuz she’s told to be “less false” instead of “less quiet”
M– back to “husband of one wife” = must be a man
M– wants to bring in other passages to this one, but won’t let C do it
M– back to “less false”; still doesn’t get that “be quiet” applies to the teaching, not the fact that she should sit down and learn instead of teaching
C– tries and tries to explain her point; M doesn’t get it
C– Paul never says “stop women from teaching anything at all”
M– interrupting, voice getting higher, moaning at 24 min.; still going on about the meaning of “silent”; cut C off on this point

M– hetera didasko kaleto = false teaching, but not in 1 tim 3, so this can’t be about false teaching
M– compares her to JW again over this
M– keeps going on about CHAPTERS which are not in the originals
M– more moaning at 28 min;
M– she can still teach heresy while she learns! (”whew” at 30 min.)
M– wants to ‘red herring’ by asking C how things are in her marriage
C– “Im shy by nature” M– “oh really?” under breath
M– unsatisfactory, fabricating, reaching, answers from C
M– Paul has a pattern of using didasko only concerning true teaching (won’t let C cite patterns)
C– so she can’t teach / authority over men in CHURCH
M– suddenly doesn’t want didasko to mean ALWAYS sound teaching; never answered Q about women teaching correct doctrine
M– keeps waffling on whether women can teach correct doctrine

M– Adam had priority cuz Eve was “helpmeet”
C– Adam not deceived cuz first created, Eve deceived cuz created second; nothing to do with priority at all
M– Eve sinned cuz she didn’t go to her BOSS Adam to ask him what God meant (wow!)
M– didasko for true teaching but no, I didn’t say woman can’t ever teach true doctrine
M– “household of God” == CHURCH (oy)
M– cuts C off cuz he thinks she’s just babbling and telling “stories”
M– C can’t come back unless she stops with the “stories”; expects C to be an experienced debater like him or she “doesn’t know what you’re talking about”; he wants only short answers
M– more sighing at 43 min.

M– going on more about “in the church” and “authority”
M– women cant teach authoritatively in the church; elders have “authority”
C– why ALL women not allowed to teach from this passage?
M– C’s logic not good; back to “male” words in text, appeals to OT, STILL doesn’t know diff between grammatical and biological gender, men failing in taking authority “in the church”
M– Adam authority over Eve
M– men RULE well
M– created order = order of supremacy
M– C is teaching falsehood and hogging the show she was invited to; “it’s my show”
C– offered her dvd for hearing the other side
M– didn’t like her plugging that
M– thinks C is undermining the church and the home, deceived, says she should be absolutely silent
C– woman teach with authority sin? M won’t answer with def. ‘yes’
M– admitted she is in sin finally
C– am I sinning?
M– “I listen to heretics all the time, and C is one!”; don’t know if C is allowed back or not
M– back to “you know better” as in first debate; blamed C for not knowing Greek; keeps interrupting
M– long answers “drive me up the wall”; wants always short answers or nothing
M– women can’t have spiritual authority on basis of the flesh alone
M– said C used term “authority” illogically
C– OT did not stop women from teaching
M– all OT and NT teachers are male so end of story

M– wants a formal debate instead; still won’t commit to continuing here
C– why more patient with atheist than a sister in Christ
M– atheists are more polite than C; called her “dear”
M– “I can’t get a word in edgewise” (!!!)
(this blog comment was copied from another post to this one)

Just wanted to say I posted my notes and some comments in the wrong debate thread. I’m sure Cheryl will move them when she feels up to it, but for now please visit the first one if you’re really bored and want to read more about this second debate. C you all tomorrow.

Hey there J.O.E. (nice initials!),

Take heart; Paul himself had to spend half his time battling heretics and was frequently at the end of his rope. This is the age-old conflict, and the age of faith, not sight. We walk in the trust that our Savior will see us through, no matter how the battle rages around us. Stay true to the gospel and the scriptures, give defenses without expecting kind responses, and you will be greatly rewarded.

I’ve been in the “trenches”, on many topics, and it can jade you. I have to say that almost all the “scars” I carry have been from the hands of fellow believers as far as I can tell. I’ve been stabbed in the back so many times I whistle when the wind blows. I keep wanting to withdraw from the battlefield, but God always brings in someone to drag me back. We must “not become weary in doing good”, but “put on the full armor of God” so we can stand firm to the end.

The more Satan attacks, the more I grit my teeth and vow to never give up. You are not alone “joe”!

OOPS! Sorry Cheryl, I posted this under the wrong debate. Please move? Thanks. (Like you want to just jump back in and do tech work)

General comment: Matt’s arguments are very basic, predictable, standard male supremacist fare. No surprises, no apparent awareness of the many scholars who have written rebuttals to them. (Maybe their writings are too long, eh?)

I’ll wait for others to comment before dealing with specifics. But Cheryl, once again you held up well and didn’t get flustered as he did. But I honestly think further debates with him would be a waste of time. He has become so deaf to what you’re saying that he’ll only continue the interruptions, insults, and put-downs, and this won’t help the listening audience. You planted a seed and from here we must trust God to make the crop grow.

I still stand amazed that any believer can want to RULE over other believers, especially on the basis of one’s physical appearance and not spiritual gifting. His foundational premeses are all about male pride and anecdotal evidence which HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER than to use since it’s a logical fallacy. I had hoped he would have shown some of the mutual submission he knows the Bible commands, but instead I heard his heart hardening and his heels digging in.

He wants a formal debate because he knows he can beat you with rules and regulations since you are not experienced in that. What he does NOT want is written documents that people can sit and read (the ones who like more than short answers that is). Writing and DVD are your elements; fast talking and controlling the mic are his. Don’t let him lure you to his arena.

You did us all a great service and God will richly bless you. Satan of course would dearly love to shut you up as Matt would. Keeping women silent is Satan’s wish, but we all rest in the finished work of Christ, the “seed of the woman”, and “greater is the one who is in us than the one who is in the world”. God bless.

Well, well, well…

First I’ll just dump my hasty notes I took as I listened, then post my comments:

M– one woman not fit context of 1 Tim 1-2

C– subject can change, not an issue 1 tim 2:11 has grammar shift from falsehood to leadership, plural to singular; makes v15 make sense

M– if “a” woman can’t teach falsehood to “a” man, claim H & A as false teachers

C– they are deceived but know better;

(M showing signs of impatience at 7 min.)

M– mere opinions and philosophy, not scripture (he ignores scriptural basis)
M– calls sincerety in the heart is FALSE and RCC; relies on Calvinism here
M– moaning at 11 min.
M– still doesn’t get it, that people can be shown mercy because they are sinning in ignorance; accused C of teaching Palagianism

M– change subject to “the word ‘quiet'” hezukia=”subdued, quiet (not silent” = sagao)
M– argues that can’t be about false teaching cuz she’s told to be “less false” instead of “less quiet”
M– back to “husband of one wife” = must be a man
M– wants to bring in other passages to this one, but won’t let C do it
M– back to “less false”; still doesn’t get that “be quiet” applies to the teaching, not the fact that she should sit down and learn instead of teaching
C– tries and tries to explain her point; M doesn’t get it
C– Paul never says “stop women from teaching anything at all”
M– interrupting, voice getting higher, moaning at 24 min.; still going on about the meaning of “silent”; cut C off on this point

M– hetera didasko kaleto = false teaching, but not in 1 tim 3, so this can’t be about false teaching
M– compares her to JW again over this
M– keeps going on about CHAPTERS which are not in the originals
M– more moaning at 28 min;
M– she can still teach heresy while she learns! (“whew” at 30 min.)
M– wants to ‘red herring’ by asking C how things are in her marriage
C– “Im shy by nature” M– “oh really?” under breath
M– unsatisfactory, fabricating, reaching, answers from C
M– Paul has a pattern of using didasko only concerning true teaching (won’t let C cite patterns)
C– so she can’t teach / authority over men in CHURCH
M– suddenly doesn’t want didasko to mean ALWAYS sound teaching; never answered Q about women teaching correct doctrine
M– keeps waffling on whether women can teach correct doctrine

M– Adam had priority cuz Eve was “helpmeet”
C– Adam not deceived cuz first created, Eve deceived cuz created second; nothing to do with priority at all
M– Eve sinned cuz she didn’t go to her BOSS Adam to ask him what God meant (wow!)
M– didasko for true teaching but no, I didn’t say woman can’t ever teach true doctrine
M– “household of God” == CHURCH (oy)
M– cuts C off cuz he thinks she’s just babbling and telling “stories”
M– C can’t come back unless she stops with the “stories”; expects C to be an experienced debater like him or she “doesn’t know what you’re talking about”; he wants only short answers
M– more sighing at 43 min.

M– going on more about “in the church” and “authority”
M– women cant teach authoritatively in the church; elders have “authority”
C– why ALL women not allowed to teach from this passage?
M– C’s logic not good; back to “male” words in text, appeals to OT, STILL doesn’t know diff between grammatical and biological gender, men failing in taking authority “in the church”
M– Adam authority over Eve
M– men RULE well
M– created order = order of supremacy
M– C is teaching falsehood and hogging the show she was invited to; “it’s my show”
C– offered her dvd for hearing the other side
M– didn’t like her plugging that
M– thinks C is undermining the church and the home, deceived, says she should be absolutely silent
C– woman teach with authority sin? M won’t answer with def. ‘yes’
M– admitted she is in sin finally
C– am I sinning?
M– “I listen to heretics all the time, and C is one!”; don’t know if C is allowed back or not
M– back to “you know better” as in first debate; blamed C for not knowing Greek; keeps interrupting
M– long answers “drive me up the wall”; wants always short answers or nothing
M– women can’t have spiritual authority on basis of the flesh alone
M– said C used term “authority” illogically
C– OT did not stop women from teaching
M– all OT and NT teachers are male so end of story

M– wants a formal debate instead; still won’t commit to continuing here
C– why more patient with atheist than a sister in Christ
M– atheists are more polite than C; called her “dear”
M– “I can’t get a word in edgewise” (!!!)

Yes, I should have defined “deceived” more precisely. I agree that being deceived is not a sin (unless one has been careless or deliberately ignorant), but knowing what scripture says yet teaching otherwise is deliberate deception, which must be opposed. And seeing that something we’ve long believed is false is a matter of vision as well as exegesis. But spiritual insight can only come from God, which is why it is definitely a sin to muzzle half the Body through whom some of that vision will be revealed.

That’s because we’re not Arminians 😉 … at least not me.

But “free-willer” is becoming a popular derogatory term too, albeit one of the less vitriolic I”ve been called. And of course everyone, C or !C, comp. or egal., pre- mid- or post-mil, claims to be following scripture. The question is whether any of them are calling other people lost or deceived or poor exegetes.

Just an “on the other hand”…

There is also a problem on the “receiving end”: people who are so hypersensitive that even the slightest disagreement is seen as a hostile attack. I’ve been in message boards that were so restrictive that people lost their individuality and personal expression. That kind of environment can be as stifling to the Spirit as the “Hatfields and McCoys” kind.

Paul was known for his wit and sarcasm (which rarely comes out in translations), and could be very crude and angry at times. He was a passionate man. And I consider Jesus’ repulsion of “blandness” to the assembly at Laodicea as applicable in this regard. So I think there is to be room for personality and colorful expression, and even forceful defense. The problem is that one person’s colorful personal expressions may be another person’s anger and meanness.

The Word is “alive and active”, not a laboratory specimen, and we should be alive and active too. Ideally, we can cut each other slack and not take offense so easily, while being careful as we can about how we come across. I use the phrase, “If it’s about someone else, err on the side of tolerance; if it’s about me, err on the side of abstinance”.

Exactly, Don. And that’s where Calvin and Luther failed miserably, and where the likes of CBMW also fail. All sides of various issues believe they have correct doctrine, but each individual will be held accountable by God for their attitude toward others who disagree with them. Some of the most vile talk has come from the mouths of “Christian” leaders, past and present, when they have been confronted over their teachings. I would not follow such a leader, even though I may glean some geunine crumbs of insight from them. (As Jesus said about the Pharisees, “Do what they say but don’t do what they do!”)

For example, I once found an excellent egalitarian article that showed from the Greek that Paul was refuting male supremacism in the assemblies. Yet other articles from the same author were blatantly heretical. I kept the “wheat” but tossed away the “chaff”. In contrast, there are many who seem to “roam abut like a roaring lion” and send hate mail to people who disagree with their doctrine. One such person, the infamous Dan Corner, hates the notion of Eternal Security and rants continually and aggressively against it (I personally believe in ES). And he is also anti-Calvinist. So I look for good arguments and ignore the bad, but the man will be humbled on judgment day over his hatred of fellow believers.

Or even look at Dr. Nyland, who translated The Source NT. Some of her views on things like homosexuality and possibly even a form of universalism are way out of line, but who can fault her expertise in Greek? I quote from her translation because of its accuracy and willingness to part from church tradition and prejudice. Yet I would consider it unthinkable to send her hate mail because of her views on those other things.

There is a fine line between righteous indignation and just indignation. The former remembers the Golden Rule in everything, but the latter is proud. The Truth has no fear of examination, no ego to protect. But we must always speak out forcefully in defense of the honor of God and his Word. It’s a narrow path indeed.

Yes, well said Greg. I get animated when there is injustice, or when we, unlike the Bible, whitewash leaders and actually hold them to a lower standard. I’ve seen both Calvinism and male supremacism chase people away from the gospel; there is plenty of evidence in the writings of atheists for this. Along with the general hypocrisy of many who claim the Name (sex scandals, flaunting wealth, etc.), these things have eternal consequences and I cannot remain silent while many are lost as a result of such things.

Dusman,

Yes of course, the important thing is the spirit in which we disagree, and Calvinism is one of those things people can rarely disagree amicably about. But that was the point of relating the “dark side”, that the spirit of a teaching can speak louder than its words.

However, I’d have to take issue with the genetic fallacy charge, as I have in fact studied Calvinism thoroughly. A few years ago I had never heard of it, but an online friend steered me to all the most respectable Calvinist literature for study. I spent a solid six months at places like monergism.org, CARM, and other “reformed” sites, and read a ton of their documents. And it all seemed so sensible.

But in accordance with my favorite verse Prov. 18:17 and wanting to be a good Berean, I knew I had to also read the other side. So more months were spent studying the opposition. Then I complied the information and compared the arguments. No one can say I was prejudiced against Calvinism because I knew nothing about it before I started my quest. But in the end, I was appalled at what the TULIP does to the character of God and the nature of salvation itself. Of course, the universal rebuttal is “misrepresentation” but I can assure you I got my information straight from respected Calvinist sources.

So I can say in all sincerity that I am a non-Calvinist by informed decision and not secondhand information or failing to have studied carefully. For what it’s worth, I’ve had more trouble with KJVOs than Calvinists, and some of the most vocal opponents of Calvinism are KJVOs! (Laurance Vance for instance, and yes I own “The Other Side of Calvinism”).

But I should point out that while Calvinism, KJVO, etc. are divisive issues, none is so pervasive as male supremacism. It alone is intrinsically opposed to the most basic Christian principles of freedom and equality of all believers, and it alone seeks to suppress half the Body of Christ on no other criterion but the flesh. So I’d put the issue of male supremacism in a league of its own when it comes to things that divide.

Hope that helps!

Greg Anderson,

Yes, Slick is a Calvinist. But I should also point out that not all (certainly most however) Calvinists are opposed to women in ministry.

I used to own Fox’s Book of Martyrs and had read it through. It then sat on my shelf for years, until I picked it up again and read at random. I came across the section on Michael Servetus. This book, which had repeatedly and rightly decried the murders of the Roman Catholic Church, suddenly pleaded “product of the time” and “well, the guy was a heretic after all” when it came to Calvin’s death threats against Servetus and the subsequent execution. They excuse Calvin by pointing out he wanted a more humane death, but miss the point: Calvin wanted Servetus dead! They also try to claim it was a civic execution and not a religious one, yet Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist and there was no “separation of church and state”. I threw the book away in disgust.

The Puritans were not known for their Christian love but for their ironclad rules and repressions. I’m not sure if I’m remembering the same account you related or a different one, but I recall one woman was exiled for having a WOMAN’S Bible study in her home. She was forced to live off the land in a remote area and was eventually discovered dead– murdered by the native Indians. The reaction of the Puritans was “She deserved it!”

I’ve observed elsewhere that this view of women is indistinguishable from that of other religions such as Islam. How low do people have to sink before they realize that it is Satan, not God, who would enslave half the human race?

Vs. 34-35 are a quotation from the Corinthains which Paul strongly refutes with “What??” There is no law, even in the OT, which commands the silence of women. This is a rabbinical tradition, not God’s law, and Paul refuted those who tried to make it a law for the believers.

We’re not arguing against Godly, Biblical leadership, but against bossy, fleshly leadership. And I strongly disagree that a study of the Greek is not helpful; it is vital! It would be eisegesis to impose English word meanings onto the original Greek.

And you still have not answered my simple question: can you limit the Spirit’s leading? And can you tell women (or any believer) not to obey the Spirit’s leading?

Limits only apply to the flesh, but we’re saying the Bible places no limits on the leading of the Spirit. As I said, if the leading is from the Spirit, do you have any reason to put limits on it? And do the same limits apply to men and women? That’s what I’m asking.

Also, re. your question to Dusman, I disagree that “someone has to be in charge”. The assembly is not a business or a military unit, but a Body and a family. Parents lead their families, not as military commanders, but as guides and teachers. Their goal is to raise the children to be parents and leaders themselves. Their “authority” only reaches to the extent that the children need their protection and guidance.

In the same way, Elders are to protect the weaker believers from doctrinal error. The weaker ones are instructed to listen to them for their own good and out of respect. However, what is practiced in the churches is not this kind of teaching and guarding, but bossing and “lording over”. Just as it’s bad parenting to tell the children “Do as I say, not as I do” or “Because I said so!”, it’s bad leadership to tell people they must not question you or fail to obey your “final word”.

My husband and I are soon to celebrate our 18th anniversary. We are a team; we always talk things over and neither of us feels “in charge”. Yet we make many important decisions, without a “leader” and a “follower”. We’re both adults and recognize each other’s strengths and weaknesses. That’s a healthy relationship.

So it should be in the Body. Each part has a vital contriubtion. For any group to say certain people must be in charge is not spiritually or mentally healthy. The NT knows nothing of “faith statements” beyond the scriptures, or strict schedules, business meetings, liturgies, or any of the other trappings of “Churchianity”. All adult believers (not “members”, as all believers are “members” already of the Body) are capable of participating in the direction of the group and must not be excluded. The Spirit speaks through whomever He wills, not whomever people elect.

Sorry, e-quality link didn’t work in my previous post:
Here it is

ccanuck,

You said,

Do you have an example of Christian males killing Christian females for preaching? Wow, I am betting that they weren’t really Christians….

I assume you mean the killers weren’t Christians. That is not for us to judge, is it? Personally, I don’t see how a true believer could do this, yet if we say killers can’t be believers then Calvin was an unbeliever. So whichever way you see it, be consistent.

Some examples can be found in the book, “Ten Lies the Church Tells Women” by J. Lee Grady, a man. It’s not easy to read the chapter on how women were treated. Here is an excerpt:

We have no idea how many women have been physically, emotionally, sexually, and spiritually abused by their husbands wielding the submission verses as a weapon. When they finally tell their pastor about their husband’s rage-outs and physical assaults, they are often not believed, and sometimes they are told that if they would learn to submit the violence would stop. Then they are counseled that it would be a sin to separate and hold the husband accountable for what is a crime! Some abused women, who feared for their lives, have actually been told, “Don’t worry. Even if you died you would go to be with the Lord. So you win either way. Just keep praying for him. But you are not allowed to leave.”

A comprehensive study on domestic violence in the church in the mid 80’s revealed that 26 percent of the pastors counseled an abused wife to keep submitting and trust that God would either stop the abuse or give her the strength to endure it. About a fourth of the pastors believed that abuse is the wife’s fault because of her lack of submission! And a majority of the pastors said it is better for wives to endure violence against them than to seek a separation that might end in divorce.{12} I respectfully suggest that separation with the goal of reconciliation is often the only way to motivate an abusive husband to get help.{13} Just as we cast a broken limb to enable it to heal, separation is like putting a cast on a broken relationship as the first step to enable change and healing.

And another article on Christian men abusing women:

And then there are the well-known attitudes of Luther and other church fathers, who held women to be mere animals or birthing machines. “Products of their times”? Not for Christians, and even less for those who call themselves leaders. We are to hold leaders to a higher standard, not a lower one. So you see, there are many men who call themselves Christians who batter and kill women and think the Bible says they can! Needless to say, atheists use this “fact” as one of the reasons they reject Christianity. Had Christianity been treating women Biblically, who knows how many atheists would have been saved?

You said,

On another note:

There must be some sort of limit to where the spirit leads to teach. Certainly I can’t just go wherever I please and teach whomever I want. I am a married man, I shouldn’t be going into the home of a young single female alone to teach her. There isn’t a specific verse that outlines this but it is a principle I would build up from scripture.

I don’t think you can say that you should as you put it “be free to go where the Spirit leads”. My flesh would like to go teach that young lady in private but Jesus’ clear teaching on adultery of the heart would tell me otherwise.

Why must there be limits? Do you think men have limits too? If so, are there different limits for women, and where are the verses that say so? And if the Spirit is the one doing the leading, dare we tell Him where His limits are? Also, wouldn’t it be equally wrong for a female leader to go alone into the home of a male to teach? The key lies in your statement, “My flesh would like…”. We’re talking about the Holy Spirit’s leading, not the flesh’s leading. So the question for you is, given the Spirit is leading, can you justify telling only women not to go where He leads?

If I may…

Nobody here is saying “Waaa, I wanna teach!” What we are saying is that one half of the Body is telling the other half what they cannot do, and it has nothing at all to do with the gifting of the Spirit. This is unbiblical, to say the least. More importantly, it does great damage to the Body, and we are compelled to get the truth out so the Body can be well.

What we object to is Pride, Power, and Prejudice. No one, man or woman, is to “lord over” the other believers.

There is no “office of Pastor”; that is a manmade invention. There is a GIFT of shepherding, of guarding the weak, but this is not a position of authority. Our authority is God, and His Word alone. We are led by and filled with the Spirit, not anyone’s law.

Sin is sin, and we are commanded to expose it. Pride is most definitely sin, as is telling other believers not to use the spiritual gifts they’ve been given. In addition, women who are gifted to teach, shepherd, lead, etc. are being called heretics and sinners.

Would you think we should stand idly by while believers for whom Christ died are called heretics when scripture does not so designate them? Are we to ignore injustices in the assembly? Can we grieve the Holy Spirit by telling Him He can’t give certain gifts to certain people?

Christian women are being called sinners for teaching the Truth! They are being held in bondage to man’s rules, and this results in many who would have heard the gospel to lose out. Many remote tribes throughout history would still be in deepest darkness were it not for those few brave women who defied male supremacism and obeyed the Spirit’s leading, no matter what it cost them. And many of them were brutally tortured and killed for this– by their own “Christian” brothers!

None of us seek our own glory, but only to be free to go where the Spirit leads. Is this so much to ask?