Cheryl Schatz

Ah, I think I am finally coming to the end of Mark’s challenges. Mark, you wrote:

Cheryl has told me before that Eve was not “a threat”. What a wrong understanding of sin. I would challenge Cheryl to find any scripture which talks about sin in this way. Sin is rebellion against God.

Here you go:

Leviticus 4:1–2 (NASB)1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them,

There are also 2nd and 3rd witnesses and more at: Lev. 4:22, 27; 5:15, 22, 24, Ezekiel 45:20.

Now it would be good for you to prove that there are not differences in sins and that God does not judge between one sin and another. Go ahead.

Paul makes it clear in Romans that no one seeks God (Rom 3:11), no one does good, not even one (Rom 3:12).

This is a Calvinist argument and I will deal with that in my DVD on the Sovereignty of God. Suffice it to say that many were called righteous including Job and Abraham who feared God and shunned evil.

However let’s deal on this blog with the issue of women in ministry. As the blog marm I want to keep us from going off topic.

There is no evidence that Eve had a sin nature that kept her sinning against God. God didn’t say that the tree of life was in danger of Eve’s rebellious will to eat from what is now forbidden her. Without any evidence of a sin nature, and since Eve could not possibly inherit a sin nature from Adam, you cannot assume another position without a single piece of evidence concerning Eve herself instead of using Adam’s offspring who are indeed sinful.

Cheryl has given Eve a sin nature that is contrary to scripture by insisting that she was not a ‘threat’.

Again you misrepresent me. I didn’t say that Eve had a “sin nature” and that is not my position, I couldn’t give her a sin nature that is contrary to scripture.

She must therefore be considered in the same way as all people-sinful and therefore included in the banishment.

All people are from Adam after he sinned. Eve is not so to give her a equal sin nature like all sinful people has not been proven. Please show me from the text where Eve’s sin nature is shown.

The fact that the new testament talks about sin coming though Adam not Eve (Rom 5:12ff) confirms the Gen account that Adams headship makes him the responsible party of the fall.

Again you forget that this is an assertion and you have given no proof of a “headship” of one ruler over another. Also Adam was certainly not the only one help responsible for the fall. The serpent was also held responsible for what he did he was cursed because of this. If Adam was a sole ruler of the earth, then he alone would have been responsible. But remember there were two deliberate sinners that were dealt with by God.

Eve was banished from the garden, she did not simply ‘follow’ her husband.

Here again you are assuming your position. I have admitted that the Scripture does not definitively say why Eve left, but I used God’s words as a good reason for why she left. You just say that she was banished without a single piece of evidence.

On top of that most scholars actually see the banishment as a sign of grace. Had God allowed them to eat of the tree of life, they would have eternally stayed in a state of sin. Thanks be to God that we are freed from the bondage of sin through Christ.

We are not freed from the bondage of sin by our death. We are freed from the bondage of sin by Christ’s death. I can’t believe that you got this one wrong.

Final thoughts
Cheryl’s understanding of Gen 3 has many flaws. It assumes a conversation between Eve and God that is not recorded nor can be confirmed grammatically.

The only way that you can say this is to completely ignore Eve’s testimony yet you give no reason why her testimony given before the fall should be considered as an untruthful statement.

It paints Eve’s sin nature as not serious.

We can all agree that she sinned by falling into the transgression through deception, but to add a sin nature to her when the Scripture is silent on this matter is going beyond what has been given us.

It distorts the true meaning of the punishment of Eve and her desire against her husband.

There is no other punishment for Eve other than of death which God said would happen. You have also not proved that Eve heart had things against her husband when the text is silent on this too.

But most importantly it attempts to prove that Eve was not banished from the garden. However under scrutiny the view does not hold.

Well who is the one who has scrutinized my view and found that it does not hold? I would like to meet them. You have not proved any such thing so you will need some help.

The historical position of the church holds.

There is lots that the church got wrong. The true test is not the “historical position of the church” but Scripture in context. No other test is the standard by which truth is measured.

Adam’s headship is re-affirmed, no doubt to the disgust of Evangelical Feminists.

You have not proven any such thing so no one here needs to have any such disgust regarding provable truth. You have some work to do.

But we must be faithful to the bible and do proper exegesis not eisegesis.

You have done only eisegesis through your arguments. Honestly I have changed many times when I have seen that I have been wrong. But you haven’t used Scripture in a way to prove me wrong. When you change the the earthy man to be a man and a woman, you just lost me. These kinds of arguments will never stand up in a real debate. They are extremely troublesome as they attack the uniqueness of the last Adam in opposition to the first rebellious man and that rebellious man alone.

The ‘Woman in Ministry’ blog fails to accurately exegete Gen 1-3 and as a result comes to wrong and unbiblical conclusions about the banishment of Eve from the garden.

That’s wishful thinking. If you are indeed successful at “proving” my “unbiblical” exegesis, then there will be something for all of us to learn.

Truth is provable and will stand the test. Keep trying Mark, because truth is worth working hard to gain. If you lay aside your traditions and come to the text without your presuppositions, I am confident that you can at least understand the egalitarian position that I hold instead of just misrepresenting it. It is going to take a little bit more of actually listening and engaging the argument first.