Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

I am glad you attempted to address all of my post, I give you credit for that. It seems that since I last logged on, comments have risen so I won’t have time to answer them all- but a few observations.

I make a habit of trying to address all of the questions. I see that you don’t try to answer all of the questions but miss out on a lot of them. If I can suggest subscribing to the notify feature that is below the comment box if you haven’t done that already. That way you will be sent a copy of the comments to your own email address so that you can keep track of the questions that you have been asked so that even if you cannot answer now, you will consider the questions worthy of answering later.

Why have you over emphasised what I said about Eve being technically made from the earth.

Why do you say I “over emphasized” what you said? Does this mean that you are prepared to changed your view or are you holding onto the same view. If you are keeping the same view, referencing that view and commenting on it is not “overemphasizing”. It is so easy to say that someone is “overemphasizing” your view if you have no answer to their questions.

Technically she is, since Adam was made from the earth, and Eve from him.

Technically the only thing that is ever said about Eve is that she was made from Adam. If God considered this the same thing as being made from the man, then the text would affirm this. The fact is that there is one and one only person who was made from the dirt.

However I am not trying to deny all the texts you raised. You have taken something you thought would help your view and pushed it way beyond my intentions, rather than engaging more fully with the more crucial matters.

This is called muddying the water. I am allowed to deal with any argument that you make and to say that I “pushed it way beyond your intentions” is quite revealing. Who knows your intentions except for you? And it seems to me that you are trying to bypass the fact that you are wrong. Eve was not made from the dirt and the Scriptures verify my position an never state your position about the dirt. I would be better to say that I am write and you misspoke.

Regarding ‘ha’adam’, we know in 3:9 it can only be referring to one man (not Eve) since the very next verse reveals this- only the man responds.

That isn’t correct. God could have called out to the “humans” and Adam answered. After all he is human. The fact then that Adam answered doesn’t mean that God was referring only to him. The proof is not who answered first. God called to only one person by saying (singular) “you”. “The” Adam answered. The woman said nothing at this time. The singular grammar (and the single man answering) is the best proof that God was using “the Adam” for the male.

However in immediately after the banishment, who is introduced, Adam and Eve- both of them. So the context helps determine who is intended, in 3:9 only the man, in 3:22ff both of them.

This is very poor logic. The fact that both left the garden does not prove that both were kicked out. You can only prove that the man and the woman ended up together outside the garden and the reason why she left would have to be read from the clues in the passage. There is no statement by God, Adam or Eve that God kicked her out.

It saddens me that you dismiss even egalitarian scholars, rather than questioning whether it is in fact you who has it wrong.

I am not parochial. I have no problem in rejecting an eglitarian viewpoint just as I have no problem in rejecting a complementarian viewpoint if I can see that it isn’t a view that is supported by the Scriptures.

Perhaps you can list which complementarian viewpoints that you don’t affirm. Or do you hold to all views because you are parochial and always stick to the party line?

It is not good enough to simply blame them and me that it is comp ‘tradition’ that effects out exegesis.

I didn’t simply blame comp tradition. I first of all showed from the text where their view is wrong and then gave my view of why they held to this view. If I had no Biblical reason for dismissing their view, then I should not have said anything. But my view is based on the truth of Scripture and I don’t accept any position, egalitarian or not, which doesn’t fit with the Scriptures.

It might help you to know that I didn’t grow up in a Christian home or Church, so I am not affected by anything. If anything, the opposite is true, I grew up in a feminist culture. So it is not my past ‘traditions’ that are affecting me.

I guess we could say that you switched from one tradition to another. That usually doesn’t come without baggage.

Also regarding your texts to disprove my point that Eve was not a ‘threat’. I asked you to show me a text that talks about ‘sin’ or even ‘sinners’ as not being a ‘threat’ to God, not to quote texts that talk about unintentional sin.

You may have thought that question in your mind but that is not what you asked. You asked me to show where one sin not rebellion. You originally asked:

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.

As far as being a “threat” to the tree of life, no other person was in such a position. I can only show you that God said that there were unintentional sins and others sins were willful. I would like to turn this one around and ask you where unintentional sin is called rebellion?

Your conclusion draws that unintentional sin= not threat, which I think is wrong.

No, that is not right. I am saying that the one who sinned unintentionally, when they have their eyes opened to the sin is not a threat to re-offend. Because Eve only sinned because she was conned, and now her eyes are open, she will not take of the tree of life when God tells her not to take now. She was not in rebellion before and she will not disobey God now that she knows the truth.

Sin is an offense to God, whether it be intentional or not, if that were not the case there would be no need for sacrifice, either through Mosaic law or Jesus Himself.

What you have missed out on is that God judges the heart. Those who sin unintentionally do not have the same heart condition as those who sin willfully.

Did Jesus die once for ‘all’, or once for ‘intentional’ sin only?

No one is saying that unintentional sin is not sin. But the heart is different and Jesus died for all of our sins.

Also please engage with relevant biblical texts regarding sin, rather than simply saying they are ‘Calvinistic’. Either the text is saying no-one is righteous or it isn’t.

I do not want you to force Calvinism onto this blog. I will answer your question but I am warning you not to high-jack this blog.

The OT reference that the NT is linked to tells exactly who the text is talking about. And Scripture clearly calls some people as righteous. If no one is righteous (even though all still need a Savior) then the Scripture contradicts itself. Perhaps you care to explain why the Bible says that some are righteous. Jesus said that no one is good. But the Scripture says that some are righteous and they are credited with this righteousness because of their faith in God.

It is either saying no one seeks God or it doesn’t.

It isn’t saying that. The OT reference is to the fool. No fool seeks God. No fool is righteous. No fool fears God. But the fear of God is the beginning of righteousness.

Also why are Noah and Abraham declared ‘righteous’, is it because of their works or because of God’s grace?

They were declared righteous by their faith in God’s word. Thus they were saved by grace through their faith.

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

You said:

Faith is a gift of God

The “kind” of faith that is a gift is the spiritual gift of faith and just like the gift of miracles and tongues, not everyone has these gifts. But the our faith in God is a response to His revelation that we are required to have.

Paul conclusion therefore in Romans 3 is that by or in themselves, no one is righteous- “all have fallen short”. Notice the text does not say ‘except Eve’!

You are arguing in circles. No one said that Eve didn’t sin. What I am saying is that Eve did not have Adam’s sin nature. She was not in rebellion. You cannot compare apples to monkeys.

I can see now how you come to very wrong conclusions about sin in the fall narrative, since you don’t understand how sin is understood in the rest of the bible.

You my friend do not understand. You are the one who thinks that all sin is alike and that all sin is rebellion. Until you come to a Biblical understanding, you are unlikely to understand the difference between the one who sinned because of deception and the one who sinned in rebellion. I would encourage you to study this issue.

Also it is not good enough for you to say that these sorts of issues are not relevant to the issue of women in ministry. The aspect of sin seems very relevant to your arguments right through the bible, so please don’t ignore them, when you yourself use them in your own arguments.

I will not have you argue Calvinism on my blog. Your arguments are not following women in ministry but arguing a system of theology that is not appropriate for here. After all you give an argument for righteousness when no one was arguing that she did not sin. Since our argument was on the sin nature, your appeal to Calvinism was out of order.

There are more than enough questions for you to answer that have already been asked you regarding women in ministry. If you would like to argue the different views of Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God, I may open a blog on this issue when my DVD comes out but I would ask you to respect me by not making this an issue on this blog. Thanks!