Cheryl Schatz

Susanna,
You said:

Hey Cheryl, I think we won the debate (doing the victory dance…), for you know you have won when the opposing party gets nasty (rule #1 in debating: the one who gets mad has already lost).

It was interesting that Mark came out swinging even though he has not been a major part of this discussion so very little has been addressed to him. I was surprised in one way but not surprised in another way. I think I understand why he comes across in anger. If one cannot respond to the questions and your position is something that you have a strong emotional attachment to, then when your security blanket is being pulled on, you will react aggressively. Anger is a good cover for other emotions.

Mark just doesn’t have the answers, although he has convinced himself that he does, without actually giving those answer to us. But I am starting to get to know Mark a bit and I think he is a good guy at heart and in the basic Christian doctrines we are in agreement and likely he could be one of our good friends if we knew him face to face. But he gets hot when he is challenged and some of his conversation is less than charitable. My first thought is, boy he must be really insecure in his position to throw out shots like that, but then another part of me has a lot of sympathy for him because I know that he is showing discomfort because of the challenge. I know that it takes a big man to change one’s position and sometimes it takes years, but if we keep acting in love even when we are mocked, we are following what we have been called to do by our Lord. I trust the Lord that he can get through to Mark. I believe that Mark’s heartfelt desire is to stay right where he is theologically. Who will win in that battle will depend on the two of them.

Now to Mark, I agree with Susanna. When you attack the person instead of dealing with the argument, it will be seen as a sign that you lost the debate. If there is anything you need to work on to make you more effective in your argument, it is to work on the charitable nature which I am sure is there within you. Fair enough?

As far as Gen 1-3 is concerned, Grudem & co all agree that it does not mention the man’s headship which is why they have to go to the NT to find it (which is equivalent of saying the Constitution affirms slavery three thousand years from now).

It amazes me that they don’t seem to think this one through. What happened for all the years before the New Testament was written? What happened during the years that the apostles were teaching the church but they were still using the Old Testament? How did they appeal to the Scriptures that God had assigned a “role” of authority to only the husband over his wife? Now we are back to an authority that is never given by God according to the Scriptures.