Cheryl Schatz

Going back to @Mark #41, you said:

Where your exegesis becomes troublesome is when you appeal that the ‘they’ is husband and wife, since then it inevitably means that the future salvation of the wife is not only dependant on certain things but also on several people. Her salvation is conditional on not only her, but also on him remaining in faith etc.

It isn’t the exegesis that is troublesome at all. It is the very words of Paul that have been troublesome for Paul never used sozo in his epistles for anything else but spiritual salvation. Paul also connects the source of the salvation to the promised seed who is the sin bearer. The troublesome issue is that the grammar depends on having an alive person who can be a part of the conditions. Certainly all women cannot be a part of the conditions of one woman. But can a husband staying in the faith be a major factor in keeping her in the faith? Or can it be said that if he leaves the faith then it will be difficult for the one who has already experienced deception to stay in the faith if he leaves? As Christians we need support and at times a brother in Christ can rescue us from the fire where we have been caught and held by deception or sin. (Jude 23) It is a biblical doctrine that some need help to be pulled from the fire. One cannot be qualified to be a “puller” out of the fire if the “puller” is one is in the fire himself.

I find it incredibly revealing that you have no answers to any of my questions on this issue including the conditions that Paul sets up for “they”. You accept faith and love and seem to deny that help is needed in the issue of deception.

Jude 23 (NKJV)
23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Perhaps you would rather see the Bible say that those who are in the “fire” with “defiled garments” do not need help getting out? That they have no need of being pulled out at all as a condition? But the Scripture says otherwise and in Jude 23 it says that we are to save them “with fear”. Why “with fear”? It is that in saving them from the “fire” we do not become encompassed by that fire and fall in ourselves. Jude 23 fits in very well with the condition of 1 Timothy 2:15.

I do not think your statement “I already told you. She is fully deceived. She is not coming out of her deception without help. Do you need more help to understand this?” solves the problem of your exegesis. This is becasue we are not just talking about ‘coming out of her deception’, we are talking about her eternal salvation which is what you take sozo to mean. I’ve asked this a few times now. If you can’t answer, that is fine, just admit that this is a exegetical hole in your argument.

There is no exegetical hole at all in my argument. Coming out of her deception is what her salvation is. One cannot be saved and be spiritually deceived. It is necessary to come out of the deception in order to be saved. If you cannot see that and think that this is a “hole” in my argument, then it appears that you are failing to “see” on purpose. That greatly concerns me. Those who do not have an agenda haven’t had a problem seeing my point. They do not see a “hole” that you alone see. And it is also interesting that while you see “holes” that are not there, you have no idea who “she” is or who “they” are in 1 Timothy 2:15 and neither can you explain why there is a condition required of “they” for the salvation of “she”. My explanation makes perfect sense in the context of deception. Your context of the stopping of true teaching and the shutting up of true godly teachers makes a huge contradiction with the entire Bible. Can you name one godly true teacher whom Paul stopped from teaching? Where are the NT church councils who were set up to judge godly women who were caught teaching the truth of the gospel? Please tell us more about the serious sin of teaching the truth of God’s Word!

Finally, i stated from the beginning that i’m not here to engage in more battles over and over. I simply wanted to comment on your exegesis, that’s all.

If I could interpret this statement, I would say that you are not here to answer questions or to prove your point nor are you here to have your point challenged by us. You are here just to throw stones at my exegesis. I welcome honest stones and any stones sent from those who love the truth. Your stones have missed their “mark” and when you fudged a knowledge of grammar that you couldn’t prove, your stones actually exploded on your side of the fence. If one has to make up grammar to prove their point, then their point is not worthy of consideration. I still consider you my brother in Christ, Mark, but your tactics are not wise. It seems that my exegesis has caused you a great amount of discomfort and fear and you are responding in that fear. I will pray for you that God will help you to accept what God’s Word says in context even if it goes against the tradition that you have lived your life by. Godly Christian women have many things to teach men that God has gifted them with. When men are willing to accept what God has given to them through the human vessel of a woman, men are strengthened in the faith. When they reject God’s gift because it is housed in our of God’s female “sons” then they are found to be resisting God and His gifts. I would implore you to fear God enough to desire truth more than anything that male privilege can give you.

You often ask for people to critique it so this is what i offer. I’m not going to engage in an exegetical argument back and forth between your view and mine- we have been there unsuccessfully.

I love a critique, but you have given a falsified critique that has been made up in your own mind as a grammar rule that doesn’t exist. I do not welcome lies because I fear God enough to want only truth. And as far as your exegetical view on 1 Timothy 2:15, you have not offered one. You admit that you don’t know what the verse means. How then can you know for sure what it doesn’t mean when you have to invent a grammar rule to try to force a hole into my argument? Mark that is a shame. Don’t do that. Who is ever going to believe a word you say when you stoop this low? No wonder you do not want to engage in an exegetical argument.

I do admit that this verse is hard. But so does everybody else. It is not a weakness to admit that you don’t understand a certain verse.

It is a weakness when you have to tell an untruth to try to tear down an exegesis that you don’t like. And it would be an untruth for me to say that I don’t understand this verse. I believe with all my heart that God put the verse in the Bible for it to be understood. My position makes sense and since no one yet has showed where my view cannot fit into the natural sense of the passage from Paul’s context of an individual letter to his ministry friend who knew all about the situation regarding false teachers and false doctrine, then my view stands so far as the only view I have ever come across that does not have holes. Poke away if you want, but don’t tell lies in order to poke. Fair enough?