tiro3

look above your comment nt. I answered you before you reposted your comment. 🙂

to answer nt’s question (on the old site) of whether there is some middle ground where both can work together. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground on disallowing someone their freedom to move in the giftings that Christ has given us all in the Holy Spirit. As a person who has struggled against the constant resistance to allow women to speak, teach and preach in the Body, it is like someone who cannot breathe. I live beneath where the air is free. I must constantly search for a hole where I can grasp a few breaths and breathe deeply for as long as that opportunity is available.

I am certain this is how black Americans lived while the free whites argued over whether or not these inferior humans should be allowed any amount of the freedoms the whites lived with.

context, context, context

… as pretty much every person on this blog would say. 🙂

These recent bully tactics by Matt have caused me to open my eyes and take an interest. Right now I’m listening to some of Matt’s radio tapes. Here are some things I’m noticing. And Yes, I am critiquing. And yes, it is on the border in my mind, of being the patient and gracious person I normally try to be.

While there were many good things the guest speakers said, I am not critiquing them, but rather Matt’s responses, the things that he liked. This man is a huge bully. As I listen, I hear Matt perking up at things that will be enablers for him to defend his bullying.

“Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth”
“I’ll be a preacher and preach what the pulpit ….. (permits, says?? Couldn’t hear)”
“Woe to those who call good evil and evil good”.
“Don’t be ashamed of being men” …. “BraveHeart is God’s kind of man”.
“We are not to stand by when non-Christians run roughshod over us”.
“what kind of victory would it be if there was no fight”.

Bullies and dominators listen with a filter to what they can use to excuse and permit their bullying ways. They want to view things women do or those who they consider lesser, as demeaning things for “real men” to do.

Matt applauded the idea that the church is trying to make men be like women by inviting them to do things in the nursery and being an usher. IOW doing humble ministry is feminine, not to be desired, and not “authoritative” enough for “real men”. Sad.

While I do think Christians (all Christians) need to stand up for God’s Word and God’s ways of living — in a strong way —, I do not think that in doing so we need to revel in the “me Tarzan, grunt, I eat steak raw, let’s wrestle”, kind of mentality. (The opposite mentality of “me Jane, I like pink, and can’t get my hands dirty, I’m so helpless”, is just as improper, soulish and carnal IMO). We are to seek to be like Christ not …….

OK, now I’m not going to listen to that stuff anymore. 🙁
PS. how do you put things in quotes. don’t see a tool for it!

If you don’t mind, I would like to emphasize for posterity the points made by Matt that show forth a very bad attitude, regardless of whom he might be addressing. Such “trash talk” is really unacceptable behavior for Christians. And the deplorable thing about it is that he is a leader who is teaching other Christians to do the same.

“If you write like you talk on the radio, you’d KILL ME!…. not with competence, but with sssllloooowwww and condescending remarks buried in so much error that it would take volumes to expose the idiocy you posit as support for your position.”

“I was ready to shoot myself to get away from the droning, incessent, drivel you offered for your position. You were so difficult to deal with — NOT because of your content. It was your manner and deliver is what was so irretatingly difficult.”

“Now, stop your whining. If you want a debate with me, Paltalk is the place. I’ll put your stupid arguments in the trash where they belong. If you’re not up to it, then go away, stop whining, stop playing around. I mean, sheesh, just get over it and take your liberal feminism somewhere esle and help the enemy undermine the church from some other location.”

“You want to take the man’s place and teach and have authority in the church? You want to compete with men? Okay, bring your pants, step up to the plate”

Let me say it plainly. This is the way abusers and bullies talk. There is nothing Christian in his attitude, nothing anointed in his words. It is shameful. It is so shameful that even Matt does not want to risk being exposed by those who would disagree in a more godly manner.

The written word remains for a much longer time and is more readily available than the spoken word. One can say “I didn’t say thus and thus” regarding a spoken dialogue, and unless some go to the trouble to record it few are going to make the effort to research it. But a written dialogue is much more easily open to critique. Writing a paper is one thing. Written discussion is different. It is my opinion that Matt is so deeply tainted with arrogance and a desire to dominate that he is unable to have a respectful dialogue with those who disagree with him or with those he imagines himself superior to.

Please forgive my bluntness. But this man needs a mirror and glasses!

Good point about James, Don.  And excellent questions Cheryl.

I think James puts another kink in the whole thing because he is believed to be the author of the epistle of James. He addresses the leaders when they came together in Acts 15 admonishing them from the OT, siding with Paul on not troubling the new Gentile Christians with Jewish “rules”.  I believe he was also an apostle, a fellow laborer in laying the foundations of doctrine and a pillar of the early church to whom many looked to for direction including Paul. (Acts 21:18).

So, it seems that the twelve were not the only ones who laid the foundational beliefs of the early church. So then the question is, what exactly did the 12 do that was different than the other first leaders of the church?

I still maintain that all of the apostles were chosen directly by God even those who were not verbally named by Christ when he walked the earth.  So the twelve seemed to be a transitional group of some sort, with their mapping to the 12 tribes.  Yet, God still called others to lay foundations, set doctrines, etc.  And that group when the foundations were laid, were not repeated in the next group of called apostles.  Once the foundations were laid, they were laid.

Interesting discussions.
Regarding Paul… I also am not convinced that he was the twelfth apostle.  But I do think he carried the same HS given authority as I believe every HS gifted apostle did also.  It does seem that there was a difference between those who were apostles chosen by God as was every named apostle, and those messengers sent by the church, which would still be called apostolos in Greek.  And it would also seem that there was a special giftedness imparted by having known Christ in the flesh.

I think the twelve were specifically chosen FIRST as representative of the twelve tribes.  Secondarily, they were part of those God chose to lay the foundations for the new body of believers.  While it is interesting that Paul played such a large part according to the written records we have, we do not know fully the extent of the involvement of everyone.

Just pondering here.  🙂

Good thinking Lin…. 🙂

OK, please feel free to delete this post if you feel I’ve gone too far, but I’m reading on CARM the moderators posts about Matt’s and Cheryl’s possible debate…. and this came up…..

“Cheryl refuses a professional debate with Matt, she wants to blog, attack, gossip,insult, whine victim and claim she is misrepresented….Sorry, but historically, when I have had to deal with such types, this is the ONLY thing they understand…I know what I am doing…She wants to threaten ministries, this ministry will fight back…..This is what Paul taught us, to reach them on their level, THIS is her level….she is being handled……”

Those things I underlined are the very things the CARM owners have done, not this blog. Furthermore, because she refused to allow links to verify claims, her readers are not permitted to see the reality of it, but are forced to take her words as accurate. This makes it become a double dishonor to herself when readers do find this blog and realize that it is she who has misrepresented the whole thing.

Link to post and discussion:

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=2914974#post2914974

p.s. what is the code for hiding a link inside one word?

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

Only one person that I can think of would call that “editing”.  🙂  What is amazing is that she really thinks that others cannot see through her obtuse verboseness which is only aimed at elevating herself.  And I will stop there.  Nuff said!

Well, said Greg.  I missed seeing that in Grudem’s stuff. It is excellent that he noted the “fence”.  Grudem’s problem is that he has demonstrated himself to be rather poor in dealing with the Greek.  But what Cheryl has put forth regarding the Greek “N” is easily verified from interlinears and other scholarly writings.  “Or” is a very weak and misleading  translation. But there is so much of that kind of weak translation going on throughout many Bible versions, that I shouldn’t be surprised.  🙂

Slick and Co. on CARM are so afraid of their posters hearing other viewpoints, that they have forbidden posters from giving links even to other websites. Amazing, ey. I think this is one of the signs of a cult isn’t it.

I am also looking forward to it….. You may be deluged with orders Cheryl. 🙂

You might want to take a look at the ensuing conversation. . . rather cute.  

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=108945

Matt popped up on his forums challenging you to accept his debate offer on paltalk. You already talked once on his set up. What is so frightening for him that he cannot now accept your offer on your set up. Does it always have to be “his way or the highway”?

LIN! good going.

I have been doing book by book studies for several years now. It is truly amazing how unskilled the average Christian is in studying Scripture. As you implied, they only know how to parrot the words of the then popular Christian writer or speaker.

Very good case, both of you. It would be good if you could write a post about this (minus M.Slick references) for the EqualityCentral Blog. 🙂

These points need to be spread around the internet. YES! o/o/o/

can you please correct the link for the equality central forums to:
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/. We are no longer using YaBB.


thanks.  🙂

The spirit behind this offer is commendable.  Well said.  And you can be assured that you have established such a good rapport with those who read your blog, that we would be willing to hold you accountable to your own parameters on this.

It is interesting that Diane S. has chosen to claim that you are again lying, that Matt did NOT refuse your challenge, that you refused Matt’s challenge on the radio.  Though considering Matt’s requirement to be limited to a 1.5 minute response to each question, who in their right mind would ever accept such a “debate”.

“claiming that since God called Adam and Eve “man” that this indicates male supremacy”
It always amazes me when they do something like that, and call themselves scholars.  It is understandable when a new Christian or someone who has no knowledge of how to study Scriptures makes that kind of mistake.  But it is such a basic kind of mistake that they have no excuse to keep proclaiming it as accurate.  We have to start at base one with them and keep patiently explaining that the meaning in the original language has nothing whatsoever to do with gender, but is a name for our species.

Finally, Matt needs to acknowledge that the issue of primogeniture is of human construct. God did not authorize this tradition. Some would like to rest it on the promise of Christ’s birth who will of course be God’s “firstborn”. But the problem with that is that Christ is God’s ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. There never was to be another. Therefore, any concept of “firstborn” is a moot point and not one that God would be bringing up, which He didn’t. And that is the thing. God did not establish these patriarchal traditions that they attempt to impose on the rest of Christianity.

Where is there any statement in the creation account where God is reserving certain privileges for Adam that He does not give to Eve. What happened before she was built from Adam’s side is not reserving something that she can never do, which is proven by the fact that Eve named their children. Naming was not reserved for Adam or men. He just got to experience it first.

Good thoughts.  I’ll be following this.

looks like the thread is gone now Elizabeth.  I couldn’t find it.  ??

Hello Elizabeth, I’m sorry to see that you’ve been banned from CARM. But you are in good company. Many others have also.

You might want to check out http://www.equalitycentral.com/forums for another good place to dialogue. Many from here also dialogue there.

blessings,
TL

Amazing story. thanks for the link. Certainly does make one think.

LOL  that made my day Cheryl.  Where do you get your art work?  Do you do it yourself?

If Bruce Ware became an egalitarian he’d have a lot to lose…. which is why he probably won’t without a thunderbolt of some sort from God.

not sure where to put this, but you should take a gander at Burleson’s Friday entry on his blog.  He quotes Cindy Kunsman’s complaints about Patterson, Ware and others.  Good stuff.

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

I just found an old barbeque grill at a garage sale. Going to clean it up and invite a few friends to use it. I love diversity. These particular friends like to sit around play backgammon and cribbage while talking about theology n stuff.

Takes all kinds to make up the kingdom. 🙂

How is your DVD on the Trinity doing Cheryl?