Browse / Scripture Commentary / Article

Carm Alert Grace In Action

2007-10-03 debate Cheryl Schatz

I got an email from Matt Slick today. In addition to saying that I misrepresented him (he said I was claiming that he believes I am unsaved

Date: 2007-10-03
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/10/03/carm-alert-grace-in-action/


I got an email from Matt Slick today. In addition to saying that I misrepresented him (he said I was claiming that he believes I am unsaved! I know he calls me a heretic, but I didn’t hear him say that I was an unsaved heretic) 🙂

Matt stated:

you ARE in error…and your helping the church adopt your error.

and…i have no intention of having you back on the radio.

He also offered to debate me on Paltalk which I would consider if I knew if there was a fair way to have such a debate without Matt turning the debate into an attack session or having him control the mike. At this point I don’t think it would be possible, but I am open if I could figure out what I am doing.

The reason for this post is to call attention to a very gracious response to Matt that I found a link to on Wade Burleson’s blog. It is from a fellow Christian who has a blog called Voyage Blog and his name is David McLaughlin. Today he wrote a post called Carm Watch Update. David’s original post on the second debate between Matt and myself is here. I want to call attention to this blog and these two posts because of David’s gracious response. Even while pointing out error and wrong attitudes, David manages to keep a gracious attitude and I think he should be commended for the spirit that he showed. I also greatly appreciate him defending his sister in Christ!

Cheryl 2007-10-04

I went onto David’s bog site and noticed that he is getting ready to go into radio himself. From a link on his blog I found his radio blog where David has started the road to produce his own radio shows on bible teaching http://voyageradio.blogspot.com/

David is planning to teach the bible via free podcast first and then from there take his broadcasts (that he is professionally producing) to the air waves. This will be accomplished as donations come in that will allow him to buy air time and go on the radio. The equipment is costly and he is looking for the Lord’s help in getting the rest of the funds together to make his dream of radio a reality.

David’s attitude is gracious and kind and he is not like a lot of other radio show hosts who pride themselves in using cheap tricks to get a following by stirring up controversy. Honestly when Matt Slick has said that he prides himself in being obnoxious, I hear my self asking “What is that all about?” It just doesn’t seem to be the way that Jesus would do things. Jesus was never obnoxious. Strong, yes, but obnoxious – never!

So here we have David needing funds to do things the godly way. On the other side we have Matt fully funded (to this point at least) doing things on air the way an ego-filled secular radio host would do it. I am not trying to belittle Matt. He is the one who pats himself on the back for being the best looking, the smartest and the most obnoxious apologist since God created sliced bread. (Okay the last part about sliced bread I added myself to Matt’s claims. The rest of the comments I have heard from Matt throughout months of on and off listening to his radio show. I think I will be mostly “off” now since the obnoxious part has really gotten to me).

I think I would rather hear the bible and a defense of the faith from someone like David. Is there anybody out there who believes in gentleness and respect who would either be willing to help David out with the needed funds or else help him find some financial backing so he can finish the task that he has started? I think this is a good, godly project.

teknomom 2007-10-04

Yeah, that’s typical. Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.

If a Christian wants equal free speech in any given discussion of religions and philosophies, we are accused of “ramming your religion down our throats”. If you criticize government they call you unpatriotic. And if you prove that the Bible does not condemn women for preaching the truth to men, you are accused of the very faults your accusers commit and declared a heretic.

And these same accusers have the gall to condemn the Inquisition. (not that there was anything good about it, but that they have a double standard) Yes, Matt is the last person with any right to throw the personal attack stone. From what I’ve seen, he simply wants to have his cake and eat it too.

I learned not to waste time on such people; you can only beat a dead horse for so long. Most people only want to throw stones instead of actually considering that they might be wrong. No matter what the topic, it is extremely rare to see people actually deal with issues, logic, and documented evidence. And if we have this problem with people who speak the same language at the same time in history and the same culture, why in heaven’s name does anyone think the Bible should be read without considering all the layers of context?

It takes a mature adult to be unafraid of criticism or of having their beliefs challenged and examined. But any fool can spout off with impunity.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 12:16
A fool is quick-tempered,but a wise person stays calm when insulted.

Proverbs 17:10

A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool.

Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Don Johnson 2007-10-04

Dusman,

I liked it.

Under Much Grace 2007-10-04

technomom wrote: Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.

Over on http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com, under the Visionary Daughters thread, this same topic just came up. (The latest “thatmom podcast” should post late tonight or tomorrow.) In June, I introduced the problems of patriarchy on a few internet forums and found that most people accused me of gossip and of personal criticism rather than doctrinal or praxy problems among the leadership in the so-called “Biblical Patriarchy” movement. Because I pointed out that a significant portion of these doctrines were not Biblical, I was accused of calling several ministers and para-church organization leaders “bad men.” I received several emails stating that I was attacking “godly men” but was offered no explanation of the ungodly aspects of their (mingled with Godly) doctrine or their ungodly behaviours. The most robust argument that I was given by one gentlemen was that one of these men “treated us marvelously.” I spoke to Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach a few weeks ago who states that people accuse him of being “mean.” He agrees that this might be true, but asks if he’s also “wrong.”

In the age of the law of the politically correct, it seems that the church has also capitulated to this secular trend. The superficial aspects of relationships and communication override the substance. Oh, how postmodern! The medium is the message. It’s sad to see that men like Matt Slick (trained at a seminary that I hold in high esteem) and others in the Reformed faith have so strongly capitulated to this ideal. At least, this is what it looks like to me. This is a very difficult problem affecting apologetics that I was not prepared to confront. I feel sometimes as if I’m in gradeschool trying to reason with children who cry “na, na, na…”

teknomom 2007-10-04

So true, Under Much Grace. I think I wrote somewhere before about the fine balance between squelching all traces of personality and individuality on one hand, and losing all civility and Christian restraint on the other. (Oh yeah, it was This Article.)

I think the problem is not only a lack of personal application of scripture as opposed to other-application, but also a lack of discernment to know when and where to show fire and passion, and when and where to show compassion. It’s made more difficult by the PC mentality everywhere, because people cannot handle disagreement at all.

There was a time when people could really give each other a thrashing and still be friends. In the Bible we see Christians “vigorously refuting”, “contending earnestly” for the faith. We also see Paul being crude at times in his loathing of legalists and false teachers, even saying “let them be cursed!” This is properly directed and controlled passion, the kind that we should feel if a loved one is insulted.

Yet it is the passionate defense of truth and God’s very honor that is no longer tolerated. And quite hypocritically, these same PC promoters get very passionate against those who disagree with them. Somehow it’s okay for them to rage, but not anyone else. (reminding me of some earlier rants Here and Here).

I know some people think only cowards or hypocrites don’t allow comments on their writings, but personally I’m just tired of all those whiny babies and control freaks. And when you write about truth that’s the kid of crowd you draw. I figure if somebody is genuinely interested in conversation instead of a mud-slinging contest, they’ll click their mouse one extra time (oh, the inconvenience!) and send me an email.

And even if you find some reasonable people to talk to, they want it to be a debate instead of fellow believers coming together to resolve differences or at least try to understand that other people’s views have legitimacy too. And to think, here we are having such difficulty communicating among people of the same language and culture, yet we demand that the Bible be read only on the surface.

Under Much Grace 2007-10-04

technomom wrote: “And even if you find some reasonable people to talk to, they want it to be a debate instead of fellow believers coming together to resolve differences or at least try to understand that other people’s views have legitimacy too. And to think, here we are having such difficulty communicating among people of the same language and culture, yet we demand that the Bible be read only on the surface.”

Thank you for this both passionate and well-reasoned response. As an idealist at heart (working hard to overcome cynicism), I’ve always assumed that fellow believers do want to come together to resolve intermural issues in a spirit of mutual respect for the Lord’s sake. It’s been a hard learning process realizing that if this was the norm at one time, it is certainly less true today.

I’m also recalled of James Sire in “The Worldview Next Door” in his discussion/comparison of the Christian Existentialist vs the Biblical Theist. The Biblical Theist, of course, is grounded in God’s Word; however, the Christian Existentialist is grounded in his own experience and circumstances. Because everything is contextual, all knowledge and truth is inextricably bound to the knower. It starts with the man and not with God. To bring criticism then threatens his experience and knowledge which is ultimately grounded in his own concept of self, making any criticism very personal. To bring criticism to a Biblical Theist, however, even if they are in error, does not induce the same kind of personal response. A desire to learn truth and be true to the standard makes clarification and new understanding (even of concepts that are foreign) is a welcomed venture and not a personal threat.

So, in observing these responses in those like Matt Slick, I suppose that any understanding that is not earnestly focused on God’s Word and faith in God’s guidance of His people into all truth will produce this type of defensiveness. We’re apparently now in an age where it is also acceptable to launch offensive tactics also. It’s certainly not any litmus test of someone’s doctrine, but it may indicate from whence one derives his confidence. (I hope my witness demonstrates that my confidence is rooted and grounded in the Lord and His Word, moreso with each passing day. I pray that for Matt Slick and all these others like him in the body. And Cheryl’s demonstrating a fine example, IMHO.)

Cheryl 2007-10-06

Dusman,

Yup!

Don Johnson 2007-10-08

Here is a post from someone who calls themself oldschool on the CARM blog, I post it here as he does not know much about blogging and may not know of this site.
——————————————————–

Cheryl, if you read this, I hope you will agree to debate Matt on Pal Talk or wherever. A structured, moderated debate would serve you better than just having a discussion on the air. A debate will force both sides to bring their A game. It’s not about who wins and loses. It’s about expressing an idea and defending it against criticism. We the audience can decide who put forth a better argument.
I mean no disrespect, but, I found your arguments rather incoherent. They were laced with too much emotionalism and stories. I’m interested what the text of scripture says. I feel this issue shouldn’t be rocket science. However, when I heard your arguments defending women being pastors/elders, my head was dizzy keeping up with the mental gymnastics. This issue shouldn’t be hard to figure out. Doing a moderated debate will force you and Matt to stay on target. Also the cross examination will be a good way to see which side really knows what their talking about and which idea has the most merit.
On the flip side, I have to commend you for you courage in stepping up to the plate. It can be uncomfortable to have to defend your beliefs to somebody who is trained how to argue. Yet you stepped up to the plate twice. I ask you to have that same courage and conviction and be in a better position to defend your belief and to show in your opinion if the other side is wrong and why.
I read in another post you’re going to be busy for a little while. That’s fine. Maybe in a month or two would be better. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing a debate on “Is the office of Elder/Pastor just exclusive for called men only?”
You’ve already endured being with Matt twice on this issue. A formal debate would probably be easier in the long run.

Take care and God bless!
__________________
I have been crucified with Christ ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. Gal. 2:20

teknomom 2007-10-08

I have to disagree with “oldschool” on several points.

One, debate is ALWAYS about appearances and debate skill, and NEVER about substance and reasoned exegesis. The game is to sway the audience, not with superior arguments, but with superior crowd manipulation. So only those who are trained in formal debate should even think about participating. I highly recommend a site called Ex-Atheist for more information.

Second, the words “incoherent”, “mental gymnastics”, “emotionalism”, “stories” etc. are the same biased judgments Matt threw around. Exactly who was being and doing those things is of course a matter of opinion. I think Matt was clearly the emotional one, the one doing the gymnastics, the one who was incoherent. And as we have been trying to explain, Matt’s “sound bite” hermeneutic is a coward’s way out of dealing with the depths of scripture. A surface-skimming might be okay for him, but not for me.

A formal debate between Matt and Cheryl would be like the fly agreeing to duke it out with a spider on the spider’s web. It’s his game. Cheryl’s “game” is more like a long clinical study. What the Bible teaches about the Assembly and how we all fit into the Body is not “rocket science”, but neither is it “Exegesis Lite”. What they call “stories” is simply careful thought, and they’re not used to that.

Cheryl 2007-10-10

Where?

Dusman 2007-10-11

If it’s about Calvinism, I can guarantee it would get ugly. I’ve debated it many times, and even with the best of intentions it never ends well. And with Matt, I can guarantee you’d be charged at the very least with misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the teachings of Calvinism.

Even though theologically, I would be classified as a Calvinist, I agree with Teknomom. Most of these types of discussions are a real waste of time and generally end up creating more heat than light . . . especially given Matt’s history of being unkind and rude in his previous radio interactions with Cheryl. Matt strikes me as the kind of guy who comes off as “My interpretation of Scripture in the area of women in ministry is plain for any and all to see, and if you don’t agree with it, then by default, you’re a heretic.” I would imagine that sadly, he might take a similar tact in the area of the doctrines of grace. I truly hope I’m wrong.

In our church, we *joyfully* have members who are non-Calvinists and more importantly, our elders teach a two-parts series titled “How To Discuss Theology Like Incurable God-Lovers”. We encourage discussion in areas of disagreement for the purpose of sharpening and encouraging one another vs. killing the unity of the body of Christ through parading our pet doctrines, thereby creating disunity and factiousness (Titus 3:10-11). We love our fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord too much to separate from them and create disunity in the body because of our differing positions on secondary doctrinal issues.

If any of you are appalled at Matt’s behavior, rest assured, I am as well. I’d avoid him since he emits and air of factiousness. He will not be taught by Cheryl (or any other biblical egalitarian) and those who will not be taught, *cannot* be taught. So, for what it’s worth, I’d exhort you to avoid wasting your time arguing with someone who isn’t going to listen in the first place. Spend that time with your children, your church, and your family.

Charis 2007-10-11

From Jesus lips to your screen, the key to understanding if a doctrine is from GOD is doing HIS will:

John 7:12 And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people…
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man (444-anthropos-human) will 8) do his will 8), he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

And I thought this- from my little collection of quotes- was apropos.

The Lord said that He was going to send His Spirit to lead us into all truth. All truth is in Jesus, of whom the Spirit was sent to testify (Eph 4:21). The Bible is a most precious and wonderful gift from the Lord to His people. But the Bible was not meant to take the place of the Lord Himself, nor the Spirit whom He sent. The Bible is a means, not an end. Knowing the book of the Lord is not our goal; our goal is to know the Lord of the book. The many errors and divisions within the body of Christ are not due to fault in the Bible, but our misuse of it. Some of the laws and principles we have wrested from the NT rival anything that the Pharisees did to the OT! This has caused us to measure our spirituality by how well we conform to the letter. Ours spirituality is not found in adapting to a form, but by the forming of Jesus within us….

It is possible to understand all Christian doctrine accurately and yet not be a Christian. Being a Christian is not just understanding certain doctrines and spiritual principles- it is having our life in Jesus. If the truth leads us to life in Jesus, it has accomplished its purpose. But if the truth becomes the focal point, it kills- it is the knowledge of good and evil.

Christians, disciples of Jesus who He said would be recognized by their love, have demonstrated the uncanny ability to agree on 98% of their doctrines and separate from one another over the 2% on which they disagree. Required agreement on nonessentials is almost always rooted in insecurity, a symptom that the authority is not rooted in Christ. If we are rooted and abiding in Christ, we will not be intimidated by even the most severe challenges. The one who derives his authority from above understands the Lord’s supreme authority and power and will not be overly concerned with even the greatest opposition from men…

from There Were Two Trees in the Garden

Charis 2007-10-12

Dear Cheryl,

This blog has been so quiet….
I spent a very very long time last night reading through some of the stuff over there. I figured out I could turn OFF the posters which were triiggering me, (except for that DianeS- gotta wonder how she justifies her position of “authority” over there with her apparent disdain for women having any).

Before I went over there, I spent some time in the archives of your blog here. (I still wish you would have cross posted all your comments from over there to here… If I had been thinking, I would have volunteered to collect them for you while I was reading them)

I am starting to GET IT! It is such an incredibly delightful affirming and uplifting paradox. Turns the hatefulness toward women inside out! Listen, if you have time, I wish you would give some thought to the entire chapter of Rev 12. And, the seed thing… The trees have seeds too- the “tree of life” and “the tree of knowledge … death”. FRUIT comes from TREES. What about JESUS as the “tree of life” and legalism as one of the manifestations of the “tree of knowledge… death”? I did an in depth word study of the Gal 5 fruit passage and found out that the works(fruit) of the flesh cover a lot of territory- where I- A CHRISTIAN- WAS LIVING!!! (I am a recovering legalist).

AND I wish you would give some thought to another idea which I have heard from several sources and I resonate with it in my own Christian life: I was saved but I was not born again. I had the DNA of Christ planted in me, I was reGENErated when I received HIM, but the rebirthing/the forming of Christ in me/the sanctification has been a process. Almost like a growing up process. But I consider that I have been a baby Christian, not growing, for an entire 25 years (and I went to seminary, served on the mission field in a muslim country, led bible studies, etc) but did not really STOP trusting that all the “authorities” knew better than me and start really listening to the Holy Spirit and digging into the Word for MYSELF until 3 years ago.

Another thing Rick Joyner points out in There Were Two Trees in the Garden (which resonated with me personally) is that Christians are more afraid of the devil’s power to deceive them(through “women” as the case may be :rolleyes:) than they trust in the Holy Spirit’s power to TEACH THEM. BTDT! As I found them, I collected verses which speak of God HIMSELF 8) teaching ME 8) : 1John 2:27; John 14:26; John 16:13; Eph 4:21; 1Cor 2:16

If any of Diane and Matt’s disciples read here, I would challenge you to PRAY and ask GOD what is the TRUTH!!! HE surely KNOWS!!!

teknomom 2007-10-12

Charis,
If you’re interested, I have a personal commentary
Here, and Revelation is Here.

You bring up a good point about the difference between babies and disciples, a difference the legalists never seem to grasp. Here are some thoughts I have about that:
Children and Disciples
Start Me Up!
The Greatest

Cheryl 2007-10-14

Hi Charis,

I am going to try to get to the questions/comments on my blog today. I don’t think I am allowed to link to my blog on Matt’s site. They have an abundance of rules that makes linking to blogs a no-no. If you disobey their rules they can kick you off and remove all of your posts. It would love to link to my blog but I know they wouldn’t have it. They won’t even let me mention the name of my DVD. I asked if I could and they said I could it was part of the discussion, but when I did, it got edited out.

If anyone goes on Matt’s discussion board, the trick to not getting confused is to change the view to “linear” so that the posts show up in date order. The default view is confusing so say the least. The current discussion is on the major called CARM radio and there are several active threads regarding women in ministry. It has been all that I can do to keep up with the discussion and it certainly has taken my time away from here on my own blog. At least so far I have been given the freedom to teach my view.

I was listening to Matt’s radio show from just a couple of days ago and he is still talking about me! Amazing! He is saying that the “Cheryl-ites” as he calls them as well as myself are slandering him on his own discussion board and saying all kinds of lies about him that he hates women, etc. I know I haven’t even had a chance to read all the posts, but I read nothing of the sort. In fact the discussions have been on the issues not on a person. Well, that is except for the Carmites (what Matt calls his own followers) and some of them are pretty nasty and like to mock women in ministry every chance they get.

So Matt says on his program that he is allowing me to stick around (on his discussion board) because he wants me to answer his theological questions. I don’t know what he is going to do now that I have answered his questions. I asked him four of my own questions but so far he hasn’t answered any of them. I will keep you all posted on what is happening and my thought is to post some of the discussion here on this blog. It just takes time and right now time is a premium. We leave on Tuesday for a week long ministry trip and there is much to be done before then. When I get back I should be much less restricted time-wise (I hope!)

So I will be back here later today to attend to some of the comments/questions and I will get to as much as I can.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Charis 2007-10-15

I linked to that article onto Matt’s site and then figured out how to copy the article with the graphics so that those on Matt’s site can be blessed by it too without having to go off of his discussion board. I appreciated that you got my mind going on how I could do that. Unfortunately that again left my own blog without my attention. Ahhhh!!! We leave tomorrow for a week in Pennsylvania on a ministry trip and when I get back I will take the time to go through all of your questions.

I looked around at your links and found out where in PA you’ll be (because I’m only about an hour from the border of PA), but its too far to drop in on you 🙁

It really ministers to me that you remembered me (even though reading through your material over at CARM has clarified much)! AND I saw the thread with the graphics in it- that is perfect, even better than a link! Your thoughts on that topic struck me so redemptively…

When you get to thinking about my questions… Personally, I feel compelled to take 1Tim 2:11-15 as a parallel passage with 1Pet 3:1-6 and I take the “disobedient husband” in 1Pet there as inclusive of a disobedient “Christian”/pharisee husband. I just have a feeling that all you who want to look back at who the letter was written too aren’t getting how its supposed to give hope to ME who is really rather trapped with a rebellious Adam of my own. I have absolutely NO aspirations of doing any kind of Christian ministry. (And I spose I am really out of place on YOUR blog, except I have wondered about the passage so much and turned it over so many many times in my mind…) I aspire to survive a very difficult and painful marriage to an abusive patriarchal man and to be the WIFE and the MOTHER HE has called me to be. And GOD is helping me. In fact I consider HIM my husband who rules over me and I am relieved that my earthly husband’s delusions of “authority” are only delusions and “Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’.”

Bless you on your ministry trip.
You are a really good teacher!
I have a group of friends who meet for bible study and we have discussed the women issue a TON and I am going to send them to your blog here and maybe get the DVD’s to study myself (they aren’t as geeky as I am about wanting to understand how the original languages read )

Charis 2007-10-16

from There Were Two Trees in the Garden by Joyner

The Revelation was not given to John only to unfold a coming sequence of events- it was given as a “Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1)…

In John’s vision, there is also a great deal about the anti-Christ, or “the man of sin”. This man of sin is the personification of the sin of man. This is our basic nature until we are changed in Christ. This is the mature fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The root and power of the man of sin is the serpent; the beat had to be fully revealed in man- whatever is sown must also be reaped. In this beast we see ourselves without Christ. By this revelation we begin to perceive the depth of the unfathomable grace and mercy of God and our profound need to be reborn in Christ.

John further explains: “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six” (Rev 13:18 ) The number is not taken arbitrarily. Because man was created on the sixth day, the number six is often used symbolically in the Scriptures as the number of man. This number is further identification of the spirit of the beast, which is the spirit of fallen man. In verse 11 we see that this beast “comes up out of the earth”. This beast is the result of the seed of Cain having been a “tiller of the ground”, or earthly-minded. The beast is the embodiment of religion that originates in the mind of man. It comes up out of the earth in contrast to Christ who comes down out of heaven…

If we are trusting in our knowledge of good and evil to discern the beast, we will easily be deceived. The nature of the beast is rooted just as much in the “good” that is in man as it is in the evil. Satan comes as an “angel of light” or messenger of truth, because good has always been more deceptive than evil. It was not the evil nature of the Tree of Knowledge that deceived Eve; it was the good. The “good” of the Tree of Knowledge kills just as certainly as the evil.

So, you see how the beast is “everyman” and “everyman” has a war within between Christ and antichrist?

1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth (3670) that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth (3670) not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

One of the definitions for spirit/ pneuma is “the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one”
And the word translated “confesseth”
Its not a mere verbal assent as to Jesus identity as the Son of God. Even the demons gave mere verbal assent to that! It is coming into agreement with the Son in DEED.
Confess= 3670 homologeo: from homo- together; logeo-Word
And “in the flesh”. WHOSE flesh? I think it means MY flesh, your flesh, “everyman’s” flesh!

Here is another passage the Lord gave to me recently:
1JN 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

I discern the Lord telling me (for my marriage) that the antichrist spirit within each one of us us will GO OUT from among us because they do not belong to us! (The antichrist being that beastly sinful “disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul”)

Scripture is not dead words to a church 2000 years ago.
Its alive and active, sharper than any double edged sword.
Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

teknomom 2007-10-16

Charis said,

I discern the Lord telling me (for my marriage) that the antichrist spirit within each one of us us will GO OUT from among us because they do not belong to us! (The antichrist being that beastly sinful “disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul”)

We have to be careful to distinguish between what the scriptures mean in context, and what we can stretch them to mean. While it’s true we can apply scriptures to our daily lives, we have to stop short of coming to conclusions that may violate other scriptures. I know you mean well, but I see some danger in this idea of having an “antichrist spirit within each one of us”.

Of course, the meaning as John wrote what he did is that some claiming to be believers are not, and their leaving us proved it. But we have our own spirit, the essence of our being, and we have the Holy Spirit. There can be no other spirits within us, because “greater is the one who is in me than the one who is in the world”. No one else can “fill and govern the soul”.

What we do have battling within us is “corrupt flesh”, and we live in a corrupt world. And because we are “made in God’s image” we have free wills that want their own way. Only externally is there an antichrist spirit, which can oppress and tempt, but cannot govern us. Our command as believers is to “resist the devil” and walk closely with God, learning what pleases him and trusting him instead of ourselves.

There is much evil in the world because people choose it. I ache for the suffering of many like yourself, and have some sisters who have been in abusive marriages. Our responsibility as believers is to do everything we can to help the oppressed. But we must also remember that this life is a test of faith and character, and God will sometimes delay his deliverance for that reason. I pray you find relief soon.

Cheryl 2007-10-16

Charis,

I now think I can understand where you are coming from. I have little time this morning as we ready to leave on our week trip, but I do want to tell you that I almost lost my daughter because of Rick Joyner’s books and I would warn you to be very careful. For most people I would just tell them to stay away from the books but for you I think you can learn from the things that I learned that saved my daughter. Rick Joyner’s main problem is that he gets these visions where the people in his visions (angels, Jesus, dead saints and OT saints) reinterpret scripture. The dead speak to him in his visions and actually contradict scripture. My daughter was deeply involved in this and so was a former youth pastor at our old church. He had prayed to have his own visions and like Rick Joyner he too found himself talking with the dead who spoke things that contradicted scripture. My daughter had come to the place where she believed that it was fine to talk to the dead because she was an avid reader of Rick Joyner’s books.

The problem that complicates the matter is that Rick Joyner advocates an internal war in the church between those who are “spiritual” (are they the “blues”?) and those who are not (my memory fails me but I think they are the “grays” or something like that) and anyone who doesn’t follow Rick Joyner and accept his interpretations is the enemy. The enemy has demons on them peeing and defecating on them. When one points out the errors of the visions of Rick Joyner, they are considered the enemy and are considered on Satan’s side. This is where we just about lost our daughter. The former youth pastor ended up leaving our old church and took much of the youth with him. He had written his own book about his own visions of talking with the dead and my daughter was editor of that book. It is a long story but a sad one where we fought hard to save the young people who had become followers of the youth pastor and his visions. We were successful with our daughter and she is safe but we lost most of our youth. As a result of our working with the elders of our church, (we had educated them concerning all the deviation from scripture that the dead people in our youth pastors visions were teaching) our church banned the youth pastor’s book from the church and that particular pastor ended up leaving the church because he refused to come under discipline because of the unscriptural nature of his book and he pretty much took the youth group with him. They went where they could all experience the supernatural without having to test these experiences by the word of God.

It was personally a very scary time for us but one that solidified in our hearts the warning about testing all things. It doesn’t matter where the teaching is coming from, we must test all things by God’s word or any of us can fall into deception.

I hope that you are still open to hear what I have to say and that I am not now considered the enemy. My job in the body of Christ is to (lovingly) point out error and to expose false doctrine and to lead people back into the solid foundation of truth found in God’s word. This is why I am always saying on Matt’s board that we need to test all things and to hold fast to what is good. Nothing (including tradition) is to be beyond that test. Tradition and experience can be good and wonderful things, but when they refuse to tested by scripture the alarm bells start going off in my head. I never want to be one who is led astray so I am constantly checking the inspired words and the inspired grammar so I can know that I have a solid foundation for my belief. It is this strong conviction and the amount of work that I put into understanding scripture in context that allows me to speak out with such confidence. I have done my homework and I am able to challenge faulty tradition without fear.

Respectfully and with much Christian love,
Cheryl

Charis 2007-10-16

NO you are not “the enemy”!
Actually I only read a few chapters in the one book (and just this am I found a link to an online book- The Final Quest, which BTW has some of the quotes you referenced in your post). SO I am by no means a “Joynerite”- to coin a term. I was saved in 1979 through the “ministry” of a cult group (The Forever Family), so I have a long history of God using what was meant as a snare for good in my life.

But, I won’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. The whole Hal Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth “theology” of Revelation never sat right with me. When I was an LCMS Lutheran in the 90’s I did an in depth study of Revelation (LCMS Lutherans are Amillenial). Personally I chose pan-millenial: “it’ll all pan out in the end”. But recently, when I was looking at Adam and Eve, 1Tim 2:11-15, I picked up the Bible and read from Rev and was confused by it and PRAYED that GOD would show me. Then I picked up Joyner’s book (which is borrowed and had been sitting around untouched for ages) and found the synthesis/the continuity which he presents of Adam and Eve and the trees with Revelation.

Nope, I don’t follow Joyner. I don’t follow Chip Ingram, James Dobson, Rick Warren, Rob Bell, or John MacArthur. I don’t follow Beth Moore. And I don’t follow Cheryl. Though I have listened to all of them and have learned from all of them. But, I want to follow Christ. And I am very open to learn. And I do trust you, Cheryl. I find you trustworthy. I doubt you are always right. But you are trustworthy.

You mentioned the difficulty with your daughter. My 12 yod seems quite taken by “Blue Like Jazz”. She is saying she is like Miller, doesn’t like the “religion” and wants a relationship. I am somewhat concerned that she isn’t mature enough to sort out the facts from the opinions and could get off track in a similar fashion… So I know what you mean.

But I also know what Rick Joyner means about the “religious spirit”. And I think I know what John- the apostle means about the “spirits of antichrist”.

Charis 2007-10-16

When one points out the errors of the visions of Rick Joyner, they are considered the enemy and are considered on Satan’s side. This is where we just about lost our daughter. The former youth pastor ended up leaving our old church and took much of the youth with him. He had written his own book about his own visions of talking with the dead and my daughter was editor of that book. It is a long story but a sad one where we fought hard to save the young people who had become followers of the youth pastor and his visions. We were successful with our daughter and she is safe but we lost most of our youth. As a result of our working with the elders of our church, (we had educated them concerning all the deviation from scripture that the dead people in our youth pastors visions were teaching) our church banned the youth pastor’s book from the church and that particular pastor ended up leaving the church because he refused to come under discipline because of the unscriptural nature of his book and he pretty much took the youth group with him. They went where they could all experience the supernatural without having to test these experiences by the word of God.

The necromancy does sound odd and manifestly unbiblical. However, I have personally seen nothing of that in what I have read of Joyner’s. And frankly, having read a few pages of “The Final Quest” online, Joyner’s imagery strikes me as NO different than that in CS Lewis Chronicles of Narnia (I could post a quote where Lewis paints a word picture of sanctification as the Lion Aslan taking the dragon skin off from Edmund, but I won’t take the space on your blog for that- I really like that quote though 🙂 ) NOR is Joyner’s imagery much different than that in the book by Hannah Hurnard Hind’s Feet on High Places nor John Bunyan’s book Pilgrim’s Progress (didn’t he write that when he was in prison as a heretic?). If you took the writings of John Bunyan or CS Lewis and put the microscope on them and did exegesis on them as if they were scripture, SURE you could find all kinds of things that you could label “heresy”! I just don’t think they are intended to be authoritative like scripture! It doesn’t mean that we can’t glean some truth from them.

As for the church split, isn’t that the story of Christendom? It happened between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:39-40 “And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other” The church I attend NOW split off from a Wesleyan church because of an outpouring of the Holy Spirit with supernatural manifestations which was quenched by the then leadership of that Wesleyan church. My present church is under the covering of Elim Fellowship which accepts the supernatural. (The church split happened in the 80’s- long before we joined; but we joined out of a Wesleyan Church where I felt my spirit being quenched)

teknomom 2007-10-16

Here is a good intro to Joyner and the book, “There were two trees in the garden”. It is by a very respectable discernment ministry that includes Sandy Simpson and Mike Oppenheimer.

I have to say also that a red flag goes up whenever I hear people trash Hal Lindsey or use the phrase “left-behinders” in a derogatory way. I’ve studied scripture all my life and still strongly believe it teaches a literal fulfillment of Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel’s prophecies. There is no contextual basis for treating them as allegories or stories about the general struggle between good and evil. No Bible commentators are perfect, but I’ll take Lindsey over Joyner in a heartbeat.

Charis 2007-10-16

To hit closer to home, after your experiences at the CARM board,
do you think that malice, reviling, and slander come from the Spirit of Christ?
or antichrist?

I just wanted to mention that back when I prayed about the interpretation of the book of Revelation, the Lord led me to some wonderful online books here:
http://www.justworship.com/
I read the first two cover to cover (and even underlined!) and found them full of scripture and resonating with me entirely.

BTW, Technomom, I would venture to guess that 5 years as an LCMS Lutheran and my time as a missionary had much more impact on my view of Revelation than reading a few chapters written by Joyner. (Literally, I have not even read one of his books cover to cover.)

I am very into Graham Cooke right now. I can’t even pick out quotes from his books because I couldn’t STOP. They are THAT RICH!
Warfare Worship 🙂

Charis 2007-10-17

Dear Teknomom,
Your concern for me is really very sweet. Thank you.
You needn’t worry. I think it was on your blog where I read that Christ lovers should be having to disciplining themselves to stay AWAY from their immersion in HIS Word lest they have no time for other things. I identify! For my first 25 years as a Christian in 12 different denominations (my husband has had 11 jobs and we have lived in 6 states and two foreign countries) I became like unto the Revelation church of Ephesus. By golly, I persevered, but it was a legalistic dutiful relationship and I had lost the first LOVE! Now I have it, and there is no turning back. …

And while you are thinking what a teeter tottering heretic I must be…. I agree with Henry Cloud who wrote in Changes that Heal

It is interesting to compare a legalistic church with a good AA group. In this kind of church, it is culturally unacceptable to have problems; that is called being sinful. In the AA group it is culturally unacceptable to be perfect; that is called denial. In the former setting, people look better but get worse, and in the latter, they look worse but get better. Certainly there are good churches and poor AA groups, but because of a lack of grace and truth in some churches, Christians have had to go elsewhere to find healing.

Personally, in 25 years as a Christian, in 12 different denominations, I never found healing for being raised in a controlling abusive alcoholic home. That’s not the churches’ nor God’s “fault”, but I have learned that GOD does not live in a Baptist Box! 😉

Oh and to really seal your skepticism about me, I LOVED Captivating by the Eldredge’s, and it was in Sacred Romance by Curtis and Eldredge that I first discovered that anyone else besides ME knew about the kind of INTIMACY I HAVE with Christ. (I really wondered about my own sanity- I can feel it so much…)

So, don’t worry about me, Teknomom.

teknomom 2007-10-17

Charis,

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant in my blog about discipline and balance. The idea is not that we can get too much of the Word, but that we should have that kind of attitude towards it that we crave the Word like we crave other things. I really don’t believe or teach that it is possible to study the Word too much. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, to compare being immersed in the Word with a legalistic, controlling congregation is inaccurate at best. I’m talking about self-control and self-discipline. Being a student of the Word is not about controlling other people but about spending every possible minute reading the “love letter from God”. The Spirit who indwells us is the same Spirit that inspired the Word; it’s all from God. But the written Word is not changeable like our emotions, or potentially misleading like our experiences.

What knowing the Bible will do is keep you from being fooled. Measure everything else by what it says, not the other way around as you seem to be doing now. That’s what I’m trying to say. The evidence of the Resurrection is the foundation. Then comes the understanding of who Jesus is and what he did, and then acceptance. The relationship follows from there, and grows as you learn more about God through his Word.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”… Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:14-17)

Charis, if the relationship you have is not coming from the Bible but from others who have contradicted it, I have to seriously question the nature of that relationship. “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15) The writings of people who contradict the Bible are not the place to find truths about God. The fault is not with the Bible, but with those who have improperly taught it or failed to practice it. Please don’t blame the written World for the way it has been misused.

When you put other writings above God’s Word, does it not grieve him? Does it not put up a wall between you and him? Also, why is it that you pay more attention to the written words of people than those of God? Why are their written words better? Please ask yourself why God’s written words are not as good as people’s written words.

It would be sinful for me to stand silently and watch anyone skip happily toward the edge of a cliff. I had to warn you, because I care and because I live to honor God. I won’t bother you about it any more, but please think about it.

Charis 2007-10-17

Charis, surely you know that blog profiles aren’t always in the blogger’s control. Blogger and Myspace put an astrological sign on your profile whether you want it or not, simply because you enter your birthdate.

OK. I am new to looking at blogs. I was a regular at http://www.familylife.com/community/forums/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi and that was enough. Left there recently. I did check several other profiles from that blog and they didn’t have Zodiac signs attached to their profiles. I’m sorry for assuming that you had chosen to allow that. (BTW, I had noticed that some time ago. I didn’t go digging for it today.)

Anyway, I dislike taking Cheryl’s blog off topic. I feel disrespectful doing so, so I’m not going to add more off topic posts.

As for y’all being called “feminists” take it as a badge of honor.
“Christian” was coined to be derogatory.

teknomom 2007-10-17

It’s hard to show how to do html when the post will interpret the code instead of showing it to you, but I’ll try.

The Part You Want To Show

If that didn’t work, then replace the brackets [] with less-than/greater-than in the text below:
[a href=”http://www.the_website_url.com”]The Part You Want To Show[/a]

Justa Berean 2007-10-17

testing…

Terri 2007-10-19

I rarely post but, I wanted to let everyone know that I keep up with the discussion at the carm website as well as here. It is disturbing to me as I watch the discussion at carm digress ( i would like to say progress.) Don and Exegetist present thier replies with a logic and reason that seems to escape the regular posters and moderators at carm. They do not seem to want to dialogue and discuss where egalitarians and complimentarians differ but insist on a stiffnecked stance of resistance to the information that is presented to them by eagalitarian believers (by the way you guys are doing a great job there.) Diane and Simple Theist replies to Don and Exegetist seem to be based squarely on thier emotional stance and what they have been taught by others concerning women in leadership with a few out of context scriptures thrown in for good measure. Both of these women, Diane/Simple Theist say that they have studied this issue and are confidant of thier beliefs but I don’t see this deep knowledge/wisdom in thier responses. They only respond to questions with scriptures taken out of context, along with thier personal beliefs, followed sometimes by a series of question marks or exclamation marks that sometimes appears somewhat childish and immature to me (i don’t know if they realize that that is the impression that they are giving some.) The fact that they have labeled the discussion forum as “Evangelical Feminism” was strategic in nature, all of us here know that. We also know that complimentarians define feminism only in a negative context and therefore consider it to be against Gods ordained order. The goal for the regulars at carm is to dominate the discussion and to (publicaly) reject factual information (not discuss it) given by egalitarians.

One of the last posts I read reffered to the egalitarian poster as an amazoness with a loin cloth and spear…………now how does that help us understand one another?

I affirm one more time that you are doing a great job esp. in Cheryl’s absence.

Terri 2007-10-19

The main problem with the posters dedicated to carm is that they teach authority as domination whereas, egalitarians view authority among believers as a partnership between equals. To hierarchalists theological truth is to be found through hierarchial ordering instead of interdependance and inclusion among the brothers and sisters. The exclusion of women from leadership/gifts as stated on the carm discussion boards is said to be divinely sanctioned by God so, who do we think we are to allow something that God forbids. They would lead us to believe that the submission asked of the wife negates or nullifies her authority. Therefore, not only must she be obedient to her husband but she must take a back seat when it comes to spiritual gifts, because of this lack of authority. They have indoctrinated women into believeing that having men/husbands reign over them is better than having Jesus? Women are asked to accept this as natural, normal and divinely sanctioned by God…………..

The women over at carm have taken the bait of patriarchy and swallowed it whole and now they are hooked. They will have to overlook and turn a blind eye to the inconsistancies in complimentarians interpretations of scriptures when they are compared to other texts dealing with the same issues. It takes alot of juggling and acrobatics with scripture to hold on to thier cherished “chain of command” doctrine. But complimentarians feel that all this division in earthly roles and spiritual roles between the sexes is necessary to maintain order………….ca’nt you just see the devil laughing!

To work for the Lord we can be
adders and multipilers but never subtractors and dividers.
I think it is easy to see what they are doing.

Cheryl 2007-10-24

Donna,

Thank you for your encouragement! Yes, courage is needed and also a strong reasoning ability from the scriptures, but our attitude too needs to be with love and respect. I have been amazed at the attitude of the complementarians who go on line to dispute the women’s issue. Their lack of love and patience with brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with them over this one secondary issue is telling. My goal is to be transparent so that Jesus can be fully seen in me. I know that love is what reaches me and if I was the one who was wrong, I would want a loving, kind and patient Christian to help me see my own blind spots. Those who argue without love, without patience and without kindness do not show the very essentials of the faith. This is the essential for Christians:

John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

For everyone else online here on my blog….I am back after more than a week away on a ministry trip. I am tired and still jet-lagged but I do look forward to carving out some time to post back on my own blog. It looks like all of you fine folks have been communicating with each other quite nicely while I was gone. I am grateful that you have come to this space to share your thoughts with me and all of the others here who love Jesus and who desire to see women empowered to minister with their God-given gifts in the entire body of Christ.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Michael Terran 2007-10-25

“Emerging Church”…..WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!!!!!!!

This movement is deadly, It’s a bridge back to Rome! All the religions of the world will go into a “One World Order” and Anti-Christ will be right there to rule it with the False Prophet! It will all “appear” Christian to the world but it will be a lie…..truth mixed with lies=Falsehood/Poison!We can see this happening now and after the Rapture it will be worse because then Anti-Christ comes on the scene!

I have no problem that women are teaching truth however we need to stay out of movements that are going down the wide road no matter how friendly they “appear” to be. Don’t put nothing pass the Devil, that’s just like him, get a movement going, where everyone can be accepted etc…”The Emerging Church”mix alot of truth with some Lies etc etc etc. However The Emerging Church/Emergant Church (Same Thing) is a false movement. They want peace (now) but without Christ, They think man will do this. This movement is into newage/pagan practices under/using Christian Lingo!

The “Emerging Church” is a tower of Babel. When we first read of Babel in Genesis 11, we see that The LORD God scattered them (The People) abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

But now we see our generation of people going back to Babel (so to speak) to finish where those wicked people left off! Only this time they will finish but God will not scatter them like before but Destory Them and There Tower (One World Religon”)!

Your my Sisters in Christ and I must warn you all to stay away from that movement no matter how friendly it may be to women because that movement is false and that would reck everything that women in Christ are contending for, which is…..The Faith/Bibical Equality/Jesus!

Under Stand the Times ministries By Rogar Oakland exposes this movement. Test Everything!!! Here is his website: http://www.understandthetimes.org/

Dusman 2007-10-28

I know you know this but it is no secret that reformed/ calvanists “the frozen chosen” lean towards arrogance. It is part of their church culture . They are very sure of themselves, and generally highly educated. They practically worship the church fathers though and they are not a charismatic people experientially. So they DO have blind spots.

I speak here as one who holds to the doctrines of grace yet abhor the arrogance you speak of. Our precious church decries the prideful arrogance displayed in all parts of the Christ’s church, not just those in the Reformed camp. A cold, dead orthodoxy is no one’s friend, and yes, it is sad that those often who are the most intellectual within Christ’s church often display a rude arrogance and pride. However, there are many evangelical scholars who hold to the doctrines of grace and/or are in the Reformed camp yet are humble, loving people. Many of these folks have also done much for the work of removing heirarchicalism in the churches by promoting the idea that people should function according to their giftedness versus their gender. Dr. Bob Wright, Dr. Doug and Rebecca Groothius, and Dr. Jon Zens would be a few names of mention. These are lovely people, and they exude humility yet maintain intellectual rigor. It is easy to broadbrush people who are of the same conviction in one area because of their convictions and subsequent negative behavior in another. That’s why we must remember to carefully avoid poisoning the well against the whole group just because one bad apple is located therein. Thanks and much love!

Kim Kaze 2007-12-28

Let me say again here, that the Bible gives us an easy way to test these things. Jesus said that by their fruits you shall know them. If a woman is in ministry and it is Godly, with Godly fruit and Biblically sound doctrine on the essentials, then is she not Biblically proven to be acting in The LORD’s will? If not then…why does the fruit test not apply here?

Why are there women prophets, priests, Judges and Queens in the Bible that God raises up, does nto condemn, speak against nor does He set a man up in the place of? Quite simply, you have to leap through all sorts of hoops to try and prove that women shouldn’t be in ministry.

I still believe that most men with this issue are trying too hard to maintain what they see as pure scripture. Their aim is not to allow culture shifts to alter the Word of God, a noble aim! But, feminism is not the same thing as a woman called to ministry. Not at all. Ministry is serving, it is getting down on your knees to scrub the ground under the feet of everybody else, it is if anything, historically better SUITED to a woman’s role! When you tip the whole thing on it’s head, suddenly the pride aspect is exposed. Why are some men (and even some women) afraid of having a woman ‘lord it over them’? Why do they see church leadership in this way, when the Bible quite clearly teaches that leadership is not about being first, but being last?

I think once we understand how Jesus viewed His own role in ministry (that He could only do what he saw The Father doing, and that He came to serve and be last), we see why there is no Biblical or cultural reason for a woman not to serve in this way.

Cheryl 2007-12-28

Amen!!

Debate Points

Counterargument

I got an email from Matt Slick today. In addition to saying that I misrepresented him (he said I was claiming that he believes I am unsaved

Your Tags

Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.

...more

Topics

Debates
Ask Claude about this