Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

My argument is clear, the context reveals that the translation of verse 1 and 2 must be related to older women not elders.

I have not been using 1 Tim. 5:1, 2 in my argument. The issue is whether or not the elderly widows are women in ministry or not. My argument stands whether 1 Tim. 5:1, 2 refers to older men and women or men and women in ministry. The question is does the women who have taken a pledge for Christ show them as people in ministry that serve the church and are supported financially by the church in their ministry? The fact is that the rest of the chapter does refer to women in ministry and does not rule out women as having a work for the church that can be supported financially by the church.

I am being consistent with the passage, you are pushing eldership into this passage when it doesn’t belong.

Again you are guilty of failing to read my own words. While I can fight for the fact that Paul makes it clear that anyone can strive to be an overseer, I haven’t said one way or the other about an “eldership” found in this chapter. I have been consistently fighting for women in a position of ministry.

Let me repeat myself again an again. I DO NOT THINK MARRIAGE IS A CONDEMNATION!!!

Then this is where you are wrong. Marriage itself cannot be a condemnation unless one has pledged themselves not to be married and then go back on that pledge. In this particular chapter, the desire to be married brings condemnation. I specifically showed you the sentence structure that proves this and you did not interact with it. Instead you just ignore the fact that in one specific instance marriage can be the source of condemnation.

If you read my post and infact re-read verse 11 you will see that it is the ‘desire’ which disregards Christ not the marriage.

If you read my comment #160 with the Lexham chart, you should be able to see that it is the desire for marriage that disregards Christ. Why? Because marriage in this instance is turning one’s back on a pledge to not be married for Christ’s sake in order to minister. You will also see that the comments that I copied all say this too. And because these women have a desire to minister to the body, there are restrictions on who is eligible for this work.

The marriage is just the by-product of the sinful motive beforehand.

No sir. The marriage is the “desire”. The Bible doesn’t talk about their “sinful motive”, but their natural desire for marriage.

I’m surprised you keep overlooking this important point. Like anything it is the motive of the heart that causes problems.

Our motive for anything is important, but the issue here is leaving aside the pledge. The pledge is the key issue. Who cares why they leave aside the pledge when every reason for leaving aside the pledge brings condemnation? This is a consistent issue in Scripture where giving ones oath is a highly important thing. To go against an oath brings condemnation. The Bible does not say that to go against an oath is okay if your motive is good. No. Breaking an oath is always considered to be a serious issue motives aside.

So is it okay if these women who have taken an oath of celibacy break this oath with a good motive? If you can say “yes”, then please provide a biblical argument that oath breaking with a good motive is okay.

Thus once the sinful desire disregards Christ, they get married and then cause condemnation upon themselves. Until you actually look closer at this verse you will keep having the issue of trying to balance ‘condemnation’ and the ‘pledge’.

There is no balance here. The sentence structure is clear. Marrying is breaking the pledge and oath breaking brings a condemnation.

But it doesn’t really surprise me because of course you will look for any passage to seemingly support the egalitarian position.

This actually challenges my motive which I will not allow you to do. I do not “look” for any passage that “seemingly” supports the egalitarian position. I am submitted to the Scriptures in context and my focus has not been on egalitarian passages but on the complementarian passages as you would know if you have seen my DVDs. I sincerely believe that any position that sets itself up as the truth on any issue must be verified by the passages that seem to contradict. These are the passages that are of key importance to me because if one can deal honestly with the passages that seem to contradict then the “clear” passages will stand on their own without contradiction.

If I have come across as attacking any of your motives, I apologize as that is not my intent at all. My focus is always to deal with the issues and why I consistently tell you that you don’t deal with the challenges given you. But it is one thing to say one hasn’t dealt with the arguments and another thing to challenge one’s sincerity or one’s motive. No one can read another person’s heart.