Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

You said:

I never said i was a greek scholar…far from it.

Look at your comment #354. You said:

As a greek scholar I am surprised at your comments.

This is written as you claiming to be a Greek scholar. “As a greek scholar I am…” I just took the sentence just as it was written that you were claiming to be a Greek scholar. If you were meaning that I am the Greek scholar, then you should have said “I am surprised at your comments since you are a Greek scholar.”

Well, I will just take this as a bad sentence construction and take you at your word that you do you claim to be a Greek scholar. Good enough.

Now Eph 2:1 doesn’t fit ‘your’ criteria that’s all. It seems that the majority of Greek scholars and translators disagree with you. MAybe you can make a Cheryl Schatz translation to correct all the wrong translators in the world!

LOL! Well, I am not planning to create my own translation any time soon, but there are a lot of bad translations out there where the translator has put his own exegesis into the text instead of just translating it. 1 Cor. 11:10 is one of the worst. I couldn’t care less whether there are a bunch of translators who don’t agree with me. Truth is found in the text not in how many people have seen the same thing I have.

In fact many people haven’t seen what I have seen in the very hardest of Paul’s texts yet when they watched my DVDs many of them are surprised that they agree with my exegesis. I have had pastors write me and tell me that my rendering of the tough Scriptures on women in ministry has been the very best that they have read.

Go ahead and read what Rev Hicks writes about the series on Amazon.com here http://www.amazon.com/Women-Ministry-Silenced-Set-Free/product-reviews/B000FW4N60/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 Scroll down to the review by Michael W. Hicks. I have received this kind of review from many pastors. Here is one from a complementarian pastor who dialogged with me on the women’s issue during the time that I was writing the script. He was the very first complementarian to commend my work:

The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.
-Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona

You said:

“The concessive participle implies that the state or action of the main verb is true in spite of the state or action of the participle. Its force is usually best translated with although. This category is relatively common.”

Now we agree that the main verb is in verse 5 correct? So the action of verse 5, being alive, is true in spite of the present participle.

You are misunderstanding this. This is not meaning what you defined as “a present participle which by definition means a contrast is being made”. It is not a contrast of “truths” but both are true. We are both dead to sin and alive to Christ. And making the state or action of the verb as true despite the state or action of the participle would also mean that both are happening at the same time otherwise why would it even appear that there are contrasting truths?

The fact is that no definition I came across said that a present participle had to mean a contrast and the way that the text is words and with the inspired grammar, it is not wrong to take it just the way it is written. If there were no other texts that supported our being dead to sin that would be another thing, but there is. And the fact that Christ was the first one who became dead to sin and we are everything IN Christ fits quite well within the text. At the very least you should be able to say that although you can’t agree with me because you are a Calvinist, that my rendering of the passage is within the possibilities of interpretation and has no evidence that would forbid the text from being interpreted that way. I think that would be at least fair for you to admit that.

Now Eph 2:1 is an example of this is it not? Despite the fact that we were dead in our sins, God made us alive. It’s a contrast…’while you were A, God did B’,

The problem with this interpretation is that the Bible shows quite clearly that being made alive is being “in Christ” and also it is being forgiven, yet it is inconsistent with Calvinism for a unbeliever to be “in Christ” and “forgiven”. But for non Calvinist it is very consistent with our view that being made alive is only done for believers and so being “in Christ” and being “forgiven” are all things that are part of being saved and as believers. There is no inconsistency here for non-Calvinists but there are problems in the passage for Calvinism. I don’t like these kinds of inconsistencies. Didn’t anyone tell you before that Calvinism has all kinds of inconsistencies that can’t be answered? That would really bother me if I was a Calvinist.

It is not saying you are A while also B.

That is your opinion of course. But this rendering is not inconsistent with the grammar or the text or other passages that say that same thing. I believe this because of the text itself, not just because of “reason” although our Christian faith is not without reason.

But when i am in my office next week i’ll get back to you more with the other grammars i have.

Sure, why don’t you do that.

Also i comfused how quickly you dismissed ‘pote’. Surely you agree that verse 1-7 is the one sentence, and that whole sentence is reliant on the verb in verse 5. So how is that you think you can disconnect ‘pote’ from the context?

I didn’t dismiss it. It fit right in with the context. Maybe you just need to reread what I wrote. If you still don’t get it, please show me where I dismissed an inspired word.

You challenged that no such ‘extra’ grammar was present and when you are shown wrong, you simply attempt to disconnect the greek sentence, c’mon now.

The grammar clearly belonged to the next sentence and is not connected to the first by referring back. You can’t just connect two things that don’t belong together when the Greek words that it belongs to are right there. How could I in all good conscience dismiss the context of verse two in order to remove the word and connect it back to verse one? Just because it is all one long sentence doesn’t mean that everything is connected to everything else. We don’t treat language that way. If there was a clear referral back to verse one I would have admitted it. You will see that I am not a person who cannot admit an error or say that I am sorry. I will freely admit when I am wrong. But it is so clear to me that you are trying to divorce the context in order to have a piece of grammar taken away from its proper place in order to prove that the present tense is actually a past tense.

At the same time you did not give any reasonable explanation of why God would not have made this doctrinal passage clear that He is talking about a past event. You cannot use a historical present used in stories and narratives as a precedent. It doesn’t fit. God is not a God who purposely tries to confuse us with grammar that is a poor fit when He had better grammar to use.

Paul’s writings are very hard to understand and the only way that I have been successful at understanding Paul is to take the words and grammar exactly as they are written without changing Paul’s terms. It is then and only then that things come together without contradiction. If you like contradiction, you are welcome to it. I cannot stand contradiction for I believe strongly that God’s word is inspired without error or contradiction. So I keep working hard on the passage until the words and grammar can speak on their own without contradiction. I happen to think that this is a commendable way to exegete Scripture.

We dead in sins ‘in which we once walked’. What is the once walked refering to Cheryl? Verse 1-3 are all tightly knitted together grammatically, adn Paul’s conclusion is that we were by nature objects of wrath.

Yes indeed we were by nature objects of wrath when we used to walk in the sins that are not subjected to us under our feet. We are now dead to those sins and they no longer have a hold on us because of the work of Jesus. Because He became dead to sin, so we too can have mastery over what formerly master us. It just fits in the passage and with the Sovereignty and glory of God’s power over sin.

Finally i will discuss more with you what it is you think i believe about this verse. Especailly since you think Calvinism believes that being ‘alive’ is divorced from faith. These need addressing

I understand that in the Calvinist system, faith follows being made alive, but the fact is that it is a system where order is important and one thing happens after another. If it all happened at the same time, you would not be seen as a Calvinist. There is absolutely no doubt that the teaching is that one must be raised to life first before one can hear the gospel and be given the gift of faith. I would be great if you would deny that so that we could be on the same side of this issue. But then your Calvinism would have to be different than the Historic Calvinism and you would be on your own.

I’ll see if there is anything else that I can get to before I go to bed.

More to come….