Cheryl Schatz

From reading Neopatriarch’s post, I can see that some there are admitting that Neopatriarch is indeed the “Chris” the complementarian that used to post here. Neo writes:

BTW, Schatz has misunderstood my position since she believes I’m making the salvation of any woman dependent on all women continuing in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. I believe Kostenberger has the right view on this in his paper ““Saved Through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan’s Deception” (see reference #7 in my post). Please read my references so you can better understand my position on this.

Ironically, it seems that Schatz’s view is more vulnerable to this criticism than mine is. Schatz would have the salvation of that one specific woman dependent on the one specific man or perhaps the woman’s husband. In either case, the woman’s salvation through the Messiah is dependent on someone else.

The “normal” interpretation of sozo is biblical salvation not safety from deception. While Neo appears to agree with Andreas Köstenberger that any women who stays within her proper function as wife and mother in the home will be kept safe from deception, this view makes God out to be an unfaithful one who does not keep his promises since many, many women who have stayed home with their children have fallen prey to the deception of the door-knocking Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Since my believe that the “they” is the woman herself and her husband, it is natural that his help in getting his wife away from the deception and into sound doctrine will be a part of her road to salvation. This is not a “problem” as Neopatriarch says it is. It is a natural interpretation that fits within the complete context of deception and the deceived teachers.

Neopatriarch now says that he may revise his article one more time. Good for him. I hope he does for his article has many holes in it and I have soundly refuted his latest attempt. I am eager to hear how he will try once again to present a view without holes and attempt once again to refute my exegesis. No doubt I will have another “good try” award for him should he care to try once again.