Favorites ?

All items you've starred. Filter by source database or search by title. Use the star (☆) button on any detail page to add items here.

...more

Kay, I tried posting my comments on Mike’s site a second time, and if I read the message that popped up, I think it went through but will be posted later. And I think your are correct in your assessm

Hi, new here. [though I have read off and on] I come from that Radical Feminist camp [years of study/and I still advocate on women’s rights issues] so I’d like to address some things here. Because th

[Isaiah 3:12](logos4:///Bible/Is 3.12) (King James Version) 12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and dest

Cheryl, I’m glad I popped by too 🙂 and lets use your style of response to clarify my stance, (C)There are many things that Jesus is to the Church that the husband is not. (T) I agree. (C)Althou

Tarun, Again, welcome and thanks for posting. > You said: I was not trying to imply that the Husband “is” the Saviour/Lord and God of his wife.That is a role that only Christ can fulfill. However ev

@Kristen 86 Thank you so much for your excellent link regarding “a one woman man” typically translated as “the husband of one wife”! I love it! Here is an excerpt: “Two of the most prominent comp

Mark said: “I am still interested to know why you think ’one woman man’ is generic (and thus includes female overseers) and yet why Paul needs to single out ’gyne’ in verse 11 since in your own admi

Craig, Whats the evidence that women struggle more with that or at least did in Paul’s time? Why can it not just be what it says…simply a qualification that applies to women or wives? This is the h

Mark, “masculine” words in Greek do not mean the word is masculine. That’s a common mistake Enlish speakers make. The gender of a noun is part of the language; it doesn’t mean a “masculine” word there

@ Mark “As I understand [1 Tim 2:8-15](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2.8-15), the teaching restricted is that linked with authority in the public congregational setting. That is, the preaching from the pulpit s

Mark, “C’mon mate, let’s be realisitic” is not a valid argument…especially when I am realistic! Kay responded on my behalf with regards to you first point. Thanks Kay, Mark did miss the point. I shou

Dave, We are always going to but heads. I recommend you read the scholarly work of comps such as that book i recommended before you continue to argue for Cheryl’s exegesis. s Kostenberger has con

Mark, you said, “We are always going to but heads. I recommend you read the scholarly work of comps such as that book i recommended before you continue to argue for Cheryl’s exegesis”. Are be butting

Craig, You can argue with Kostenberger over your issues, but your up against all the evidence. Here is what he saids… “These example set forth the NT evidence that ‘oude’ joins terms that denote act

Dave, “Now, in regards to the use of the word “teach” and “authentein”, how can it be positive in this context? Paul is saying he does not permit it. Nowhere has Paul suggested that it is ok for anyo

“I’m some what in agreement with you about interpretation. Thus a good proper solid exegesis is required. It is not simply good enough to say…’well that doesn’t apply ot us anymore’, nor is it excepta

Mark, I am continually amazed at how you refuse to engage the challenge and yet you come back as if you can find another source of accusation against me now charging me with being “selective” in the

Cheryl, Thank you for clarifying your question. Now i can see what it is you are asking. And please stop with your rhetorical hogwash, you sound like you’ve just stepped out of the 16th Century. Now

Hi Mark, > Thank you for clarifying your question. Now i can see what it is you are asking. Well, I am glad that you are roundabout admitting that you were the one that was not understanding, but wi

Hello K, Men do not carry a different sin nature than women do. We are all born in sin and all of us have inherited the sin nature. This sin nature comes from Adam through the father’s seed. Since

Hey Cheryl, I am continuing to read through all your archives. Lots of food for thought – thank you for such stimulating discussions! Some questions/comments I have regarding this particular post

Good day Kerryn (that’s Canadian for gidday!) Great questions. You said: > The verses you use to make your point regarding Adam being a ‘man’ use the word anthropos, ([Romans 5:12,19](logos4:/

Kerryn, I forgot to answer this question: > Cheryl I am not sure how watertight the use of “he†in [Gen 3:15](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3.15) is for your argument… (My Greek is better than my Hebrew!)

Why have you set things up on this blog so that biblical references are automatically linked to the website of ESV, a version which (as documented at [the Better Bibles Blog](http://englishbibles.blog

Hi Michael, You ask a great question about the creation of animals. First of all in answer to your question, the issue is not about animals ONLY being created after Adam. The Hebrew is specific in th

Hi Michael, I am not a young earth type per se, because I just want the truth of God’s word and whatever that is, is good with me. I have looked at Hugh Ross’ material and I have seen his debates

Sam, I don’t think that these kinds of conversations expose ignorance at all. I think they are wonderful at helping us as Christians to experience “iron sharpening ironâ€. When I first understoo

Michael, You said: “[Genesis 2](logos4:///Bible/Ge 2) does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He h

Cheryl, I understand your position on [1 Timothy 2:12-15](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2.12-15) to be that Paul is telling one specific wife in the church to stop teaching her husband false doctrine, and that

#44 CLC, You said: > 2. Second, my NIV translation makes it seem like only women fell into sin: “14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” We all

Dear Captain Planet (cool name!) I agree that most egalitarians do not preach on the hard passages of Scripture like [1 Timothy 2:12-15](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2.12-15) but I am different. Here is why.

“Words have set meanings and always will. Do you use a dictionary?” I certainly do use a dictionary, as you suggest Douglass, but it is important to use the right dictionary. A dictionary of English

Re: On Length of Days: > ([Heb 4:4-11](logos4:///Bible/Heb 4.4-11)) > The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours? I think you’re mixing days

Michael, Martin, Paula – go ahead and continue to discuss the issues as I work on my responses. I may not be as fast as you folks are 🙂 Michael: Regarding your first post (#1).  You said:  “Cher

Michael: Regarding your post #2 on the length of days. You said “The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours?†I understand and I think most

Michael, > I am not saying that individual days are equal lengths, only that they are unspecified lengths of time but distinct periods. I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days woul

Paula, “I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days would be equal to ages, that is, they would stand for ages.†I went back and reread. You are correct, my error. I misread. “

Okay, I’m back. There must be a limit to how long these posts and comments can be because my post kept disappearing. Oh well, to carry on… Michael you said “I am sleepless so I have been surfing the

Michael, Thanks a bunch for posting some of your questions, because it helps me to understand your mindset and I am hoping I can help you understand my mindset too even if it is only a little. You sa

Hi Michael, No your teacher analogy isn’t correct. I didn’t even think it try to pull it apart because it is meaningless to me. I would rather put my effort into the inspired Hebrew. English does not

Hello! what an interesting blog. i have spent several hours reading through your material today and really enjoyed it. One question/comment though… I am not sure about the “distinction” b/w Adam

Hello there, I am back in the saddle although I am doing ministry work at the same time as I am packing up our second load of belongings. Busy times! I appreciate that your husband is trying hard to

Hi Matt, Thank you for coming to this blog. You are most certainly welcome here and your opposing viewpoint is welcome to be expressed. Don’t be surprised, though, if you find some well thought out c

Kerryn, Boy I thought I was being thorough, but I forgot to include some of your questions that you posed earlier regarding verse 3. You asked: “further regarding v 3: what is interesting to also n

Lawrence, Apparently you didn’t read my article very carefully because you didn’t answer the fact that the meaning of a word is evident in its context. The context of [1 Cor. 11](logos4:///Bible/1Co

Hi Martin, Dave Hunt is a very good apologist in my opinion. We will attending his conference this summer and then I will get to meet him in person. As far as Sandy Simpson and his DVD – yes there w

“H”, Your point is well taken. If we continue to lift scriptures from their context, then we are left with following a new “law” to the letter – are men lifting their hands in prayer as Paul “require

Hi Cheryl, I realize this is an old post and I’m dragging it back out, but I’m doing research for a study of [1 Cor 11:1-16](logos4:///Bible/1Co 11.1-16) and I’m a little confused about something you

LNE, You also asked: > How is it proper to render this imperative verb as merely permission to have her hair shaved, as if it said “If a woman is not covering her head, let her also be permitted [b

Thanks Cheryl, that was very edifying. I kind of figured that imperatives could sometimes be used in the permissive sense, since I had noticed certain imperatives logically seem like they must be only

Dear Zach, Amen to Cheryl’s response to you. 1) You seem to think the Bible establishes a power structure where one group (males) is given, by God, the right to have power over another group (femal

Well, well, well… First I’ll just dump my hasty notes I took as I listened, then post my comments: M– one woman not fit context of [1 Tim 1](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 1)-2 C– subject can change, not an i

I’m glad the focus will be on [1 Tim. 2](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2), because Dr. Nyland’s notes for this book are available for free at [This Link](http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/Source/

Well, well, well… First I’ll just dump my hasty notes I took as I listened, then post my comments: M– one woman not fit context of [1 Tim 1](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 1)-2 C– subject can change, not an i

Regarding Matt’s comments on the Greek word for teach which is didasko, Matt was trying to say that because the word for teach used in this passage is a normal word for teach not one specifically for

Guys, As you listen to the audio from last night’s debate remember one thing…I asked to share why I believed that “a woman” was a particular woman and not “all women” and Matt refused to allow me to

Thanks so much for your patience with me. I had some ideas swirling around but I have only a rudimentary greek training and rely on strong’s and the interlinear. I don’t know the conjugations of verbs

God does not contradict itself and if I am seeing a contradiction in Scripture then the problem is with MY interpretation, NOT with God’s Word!!! I could see QUITE CLEARLY other examples of women exer

Metacrock, No offense taken at all. I don’t mind people arguing with passion. I happen to love people who have lots of passion. By the way, you may be interested to know that “a woman” absolutely can

Dear Cheryl, This blog has been so quiet…. I spent a very very long time last night reading through some of the stuff over there. I figured out I could turn OFF the posters which were triiggering m

> I linked to that article onto Matt’s site and then figured out how to copy the article with the graphics so that those on Matt’s site can be blessed by it too without having to go off of his discuss

NO you are not “the enemy”! Actually I only read a few chapters in the one book (and just this am I found a link to an online book- The Final Quest, which BTW has some of the quotes you referenced i

I rarely post but, I wanted to let everyone know that I keep up with the discussion at the carm website as well as here. It is disturbing to me as I watch the discussion at carm digress ( i would like

Charis, I apologized because I got the date wrong. I also wanted to re-listen to the quote myself and couldn’t find it. I know that he said that I couldn’t come back on the program because I was “rad

Don, Thanks also for keeping me up to date without me having to go back on that abusive board. The fact that CARM’s VP keeps calling me “radio poison” shows that the charge is accurate. They are not

I believe that what John is writing about is the fruit of practiced sin. In other words this is the habit that one practices i.e. one practices hatred and therefore unforgiveness. A true Christian may

My final e-mail to Gerald. I have be in dialog with him on this issue but it came to the point where I have to kick the dust of so to speak. I want to show the Love of Christ but there has to be a tim

[Jude 14](logos4:///Bible/Jud 14) Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all,

I thought this was an interesting essay, but with generally weak or unconvincing arguments throughout. Much of the text is confounded by the writer’s inability to recognise and address key paradigms

Charis, No you are not going to be disowned here. It is my desire that this blog will always be a loving community. One way to show love and community is to show acceptance. Another important way to

I think we are really getting off topic here and I think it might be good to move this discussion somewhere else. I just don’t know where that somewhere else would be right now. I will have to think a

#62 Happy Promise Keeper said: > The Bible shows a clear difference between giftedness and authorization. Spiritual giftedness in a Christian woman does not confer upon her authority to lead and teac

Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test ever

“. . . because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.” Neither of these a

Tiro3 (#89), You said: > “Patriarchalists such as the ones on CARM regularly teach that women are ONLY required to be of a submissive attitude to their own husbands, their own fathers, and their own

Donna, Regarding your “questions” regarding the subordination of the Son: > 1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is

Donna, let me answer your points, but first make one of my own: that “misrepresentation” is a very common charge on this topic and many others. When Christians disagree, it seems to be the first react

Lin, #149: > Notice the strawman argument we see being used everywhere about egals: Technically, it’s the “slippery slope” fallacy: A causes B causes C causes D… It proposes causes and effect where

Donna, You said: > “So, what I have suggested to myself and to others is to stay in your communities and discuss these things of common interest.” I don’t think that we need to necessarily stay in

Don, While I can see “tender” is a by-product of circumcision, I think there is a much greater application concerning what is **cut off** not what is left. This is why I believe very strongly that t

Diane Sellner posted “En Hakkore’s” “refutation” of me on CARM and here is my answer: > Originally Posted by Diane S (Quoting “En Hakkore”) > “Firstly, you baited with the name Bergen for three pos

It is interesting that Diane Sellner keeps repeating that “En” has refuted me regarding Dr. Buth’s work on the Hebrew grammar that proves that [Genesis 2](logos4:///Bible/Ge 2) has the animals and the

Hi Lin, I’ll see what I can do. What the French prefer is completely irrelevant to what the apostles wrote in Greek. Two completely different cultures and languages. And *tis* can be either masc. or

There are some interesting points that most people miss in [1 Tim. 3](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 3). It starts off with pistos ho logos – faithful is the Word. Paul continues with tis episkopE oregO kabos er

#54 Lin, Regarding [1 Timothy 3:12](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 3.12), the quote you gave from the person who said this could not be about polygamy is not following what has been an historical interpretatio

Lin, Thank you for expressing your thoughts so clearly and by doing so you have encouraged me too!  I too feel the same way as you do.  These are our brothers in Christ who deserve to be encouraged

Thank you, Bob K. Wright! Cheryl, I too am baffled at how Bruce Ware can remotely and with any sense of good conscience quote Augustine (when discussing Christ being the Eternal Son of the Father —

My dear friend and theological mentor, Dr. Robert K. Wright, told my about your sight, Cheryl, and the discussion on the current Neo-Arian heresy that has arisen within the Evangelical churches, thank

**I notice a commen theme in those who opposes our viewpoint. They say ONLY married people can “Reflect” Christ in the Home and Chruch ( a brick building made with human hands). ALL believers can Refl

Thanks Truthseeker! I had never read about it either any where. It HIT me some time last week…the context can only support who Paul was refering to in v3 when he penned the word “God”. I want to se

Diane Sellner from CARM has apparently decided to do Matt’s work and reply to my article so I gladly put her comments for all to see and so I can soundly answer them. Diane is answering my articles th

Don, I have heard the interpretation before about the Gnostic teaching that woman authored the man. Although I do believe that it is possible that Paul could have somehow been referring to this teac

Matt Slick has answered my request for a written debate by posting this on his discussion board: > I am in the midst of two debates right now, prepping, etc. and I find out that “a woman” has said I

tiro3, What you do is highlight a word when you are in the regular comment mode (not html) and once the word is highlighted the little chain above will become visible. Click on that and you can add a

Oops. I missed the anti-spam word and copied the code from the other page. Grudem’s Open Letter to Egalitarians has been well answered many times. In fact, that webpage used to contain the responses

Hi Don, > ” The lot was an accepted way to make decisions and besides being random it might mean they voted.” While the “lot” was an accepted way to make decisions in the OT, it is not shown to be a

Don, 1. In [1 Cor. 15](logos4:///Bible/1Co 15) we see several very interesting observations that will help us to understand this passage. First of all we see that each “group” of listing of people do

Don, You said: > On 2, lots may be votes or they might be random, it is not clear. Even if random the lot is in the hands of the Lord as they were acting in faith. There is no other place in script

My response to Matt’s post: > My pastor is very, very interested in finishing his communication with you in person. He is not back until August. Anytime after mid August is fine. There will be no nee

Lin, You asked: > Really, we are seeing more of this from other Christians than we are from the secular world: Name calling, hate, sarcasm, lording it over, deception, lying, etc. All of this to adv

Truthseeker #30 You said: > They also do not refer to such things as the women’s issues as laws.  They are principles written for the church.  Somehow in their minds, that is a significant differen

bgk, > Cheryl, you put up a straw man.  I did not say God gives permission and then withdraws it.  I said God can make exceptions and that not all exceptions are necessarily recorded in every place.

bgk #54, > The carageenan in my ice cream comes from seaweed, but I don’t know if it has seeds.  Very cute!  And a mighty fine sense of h

Don, The real question is whether we should trust Eve’s testimony.  Eve said “God said…” In Jewish tradition, woman was not to be trusted.  The woman was not to be believed in court because women we

Don, You said: > “We see examples of this truncation in Jonah, where he gives no escape clause in his warning, yet they escape;” While we do not have the words quoted from Jonah, we can know for su

Here is my “iron sharpens iron” attempt. Jon 3:4  Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” is the verse I was ref

Don #43, Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you.  I have had a full plate here for days 🙂 You said: > Jon 3:4  Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Y

Don, You said: > I used to think there was ONE RIGHT WAY to interpret each verse in the Bible, but more and more I see there are “clouds” of various ways to understand various verses and a believer

Don, You said: > Everyone SHOULD have a current understanding and should be teachable, but if something does not convince them, then it would be bad faith to pretend it did. I agree completely.  We

This does not really go here but it is about Eve and the teaching out there about her. A friend sent me this today. It is a quote from Mark Driscoll about Eve.(CBMW disagrees with Driscoll as he allow

Pinklight and Don, I apologize for being so slow in answering.  Your thoughts and your questions are worthy of a new post of their own and I will be doing another post on Eve’s comments.  There is so

Th[is 1985](logos4:///Bible/Is 1985) paper by Harold Bussell (which I found through the link at Cindy’s post on [evangelical Christians’ vulnerability to cults](http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008

On a previous thread, I referred to an audio download from Walter Martin that I had listened to that day: <http://www.spiritwatch.org/cultrise79.ram> I’m amazed at how much of what he said stuck wi

This week’s column is written by Megan Greulich, editor of Mutuality magazine. A prominent sociologist on evangelicals, Sally Gallagher, published a fascinating study on evangelicals, “The Marginaliza

Don, The premise is that there is no universal law that is not repeated in scripture.  I am not saying that God has to repeat the law to the exact same people that he said it to the first time.  What

I have seen some blogs/web sites/discussion boards that claim to be Christian and they delight in abusing those who do not believe the same way as they do on secondary issues.  I am thoroughly amazed

Strong’s is a concordance, which gives the usages of words in a particular book. So each translation or paraphrase of the Bible would need its own concordance. Strong’s is tied to the KJV and thus on

I don’t think that one could call the complimentarian view of the Trinity “unorthodox”. The doctrine of the Trinity was something the early Church had to wrestle through and they opposed the Arians so

Cheryl,I just ordered the DVD and I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say about this issue.  The clip on youtube was very good and what I would like to know is how Ware handles the fact t

Paula, Good point. We must take into consideration that KJV translators were laboring under a church/state mentality. Cheryl, one reason you may not have gotten a posted question about Hebrews is be

John, Welcome!  Thanks for your comments. You asked: > I am just absolutely stunned! I dont know how you can attribute that passage to “Judaizers”! The Judaizers were a problem in many of the Gent

*“In regards to the statement in verse 35: “As also saith the Law”* *Does not find its root in the oral law. Its inception comes from [Genesis 3:16](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3.16):* *To the woman He sai

John, I am afraid that you are protesting too much without a shred of evidence offered.  You said: > Again you are making a declarative statement that is false. > > Again “The Law” only refers to th

I would also like to comment on John’s quote: “A person who pushes for equality in the Church to their own benefit is doing it from their own flesh and not from a pure heart.” I agree with what Lin

An excellent exposition on [1 Corinthians 14:34,35](logos4:///Bible/1Co 14.34,35): Relative to every truth, there are extremes. Extremes are not seen on God’s part, but they enter in as a result of m

John, I am thankful that you are still here.  It must mean that you are willing to try to hear us out.  Coming into a blog atmosphere where the majority believe in women’s freedom to serve without re

John, In your comment #97, you copy and paste from a scholar that you say gives an excellent exposition.  This scholar says: > Paul with this explanatory injection states the reason why these women

Don, Your statement is beautiful.  I really don’t understand the “my way or the highway” approach to some of these matters that some camps hold, and it applies to a great many different doctrines, no

HI, Cheryl, I’ve been reading your blog for a while, and I want to say that I enjoy it a lot. I agree with what you say on a lot of things concerning Adam and Eve’s relationship and the fall. Howeve

I absolutely do not agree with the meaning that Ortlund ascribes to the Genesis account here, but I think that there is some Scriptural basis to argue against the points you brought up.  I will play d

Cindy K, Good questioning attitude!  You said: > Ortlund seems to be saying that Eve set out with the willful intent to twist what God had said, as if she needed no encouragement from the serpent.

What do I think? I think you are right.  I think that [Genesis 2](logos4:///Bible/Ge 2) and 3 makes Eve out to be the first apologist (one who gives an account of their reasoning for faith in God).

Paula, Thanks for your consideration. It has been a stressful week for sure! This is a great discussion. > 1a – I don’t agree that Adam’s words contradict the idea of Eve being made from a “female”

Though we attended an Assemblies of God Church, I was fed a fairly steady diet of Ken Copeland from the time I was a young teen. Later, my mother forced a great deal of Benny Hinn on me, and I’d been

Paula, I am going back to the comments from #10 as I took a break for a few days to deal with other matters. I am glad that you agree with me that the passage is literal. I asked you “what was Adam

#18 Cindy K, You said: > Unfortunately, much of that ideology has shaped my thinking, sometimes to the point that I wish I could take a toothbrush and toothpaste to scrub out my brain. I understand

#22 Cindy K, > I intended to say more directly before that I don’t think that it is expressly “pagan” to believe that the “they” of [Genesis 1:27](logos4:///Bible/Ge 1.27) means that there was one pe

#36 Cindy K, > And I’m glad you’re catching up and specifically said so, as I had a tiny twinge of concern that I might have shut down the discussion, (even though I found that unlikely). If you wer

#46 Charis, > I feel frustrated at having to keep repeating myself. I am truly sorry for your frustration. I personally do not mean to offend you in any way and I can also sense your frustration. I

gengwall, I think it would be helpful for us to define our terms because some reading this blog may not understand what we mean by “ruling” people. We must look to scripture to see what the context i

Paula: “As you surely know, ‘most commentators’ is an appeal to popularity. ” Not really. See <http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html>: “If an elite group of people are in a position to kn

Ha! The security word is Adam! 🙂 Well, no “answer” has arrived yet. But I’ll go ahead and examine the rest of it. [Genesis 2](logos4:///Bible/Ge 2) provides detail to the overview that is [Genesis 1

James, I am not the blog owner, nor am I the author of this post. That would be Cheryl. I simply saw your comment in the recent comments section, and responded– that is all. I appreciate your words a

Don: “In Greek the presence of the definite article makes the noun definite, but the absence of the definite article does NOT necessarily make the noun indefinite, see Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond th

Cheryl says in her blog post “What does [1 Timothy 2:11-15](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2.11-15)?” under point #17: “The grammar f[rom 1](logos4:///Bible/Ro 1) Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a si

#20 Chris, You said: > Here a command is given to the congregation. The pronoun ‘she’ refers to ‘a woman’, but the command isn’t just for one specific woman, it is for all women. This is no proble

Cheryl, it seems to me that you have fabricated a rule of Greek grammar for yourself regarding what ‘she’ and ‘they’ can or cannot refer to in order to prop up your view on [1 Timothy 2:11-15](logos4:

#24 Chris, I apologize that I haven’t been too fast this past week. It has been an extremely busy time for me. > Cheryl, it seems to me that you have fabricated a rule of Greek grammar for yourself

Well, Cheryl, as some of my CBE friends will tell, I see my sharing of “the big picture” as a means of engaging in what Carolyn James describes, in The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough To Break The R

Don, > I see part of the reason for differences is that the origins narratives do not say everything we might wish them to say, so people fill in the gaps in different ways. God has given us everyth

Don, > As I stated, one sees the polemic in [Gen 1](logos4:///Bible/Ge 1) in contrast to the other polytheistic origins stories. I don’t know about the other polytheistic origin stories. What I was

#91 Don, > And a natural metaphor (for me) is evening is the onset of darkness/night, which is associated with less order and morning is the onset of light/daytime, which is associated with more orde

Don, You said: > #2 “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Ralph Waldo Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish and wise consistency. Who are we to say that it is

Don #7, It is a “tradition” because it is proper word usage within the text. If this “tradition” is not correct, then it must be shown why it is not correct. Just saying that it is incorrect and tha

I have read through Interview Rounds 8 and 9, and found them very good. But I wonder if our rigid distincitions between elders, overseers and ministers (which in Greek are prebuteroi, episcapoi, and d

#24 Frank, Sorry that I am so slow at getting to some of these comments. > Years ago, when I studied both prophecy and prophetic ministry in the NT, it became apparent to me, as I made a comparativ

Martin #26, > I’m just wondering why Paul didn’t mention women in particular in verses 1-7. The question then is why would Paul mention women in verse 11 but not in verses 1 – 7? I don’t know why Pa

Martin, Here are a couple: > Inscriptional Evidence for Women as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: SBLSP 20, ’81, 4; B’s rendering: ‘Here lies Sara Ura, elder [or aged woman]’; > Arndt, W., Danke

Thanks for all your good comments. It is an interesting thing that Neopatriarch posts on the CCC forum under the name “statisticallyodd”. That forum has decided that I need the gospel preached to me

Well, Cheryl, I’m sorry to learn that Chris, when he couldn’t defeat you on the “home field,” had to make a playing field of his own, where he plays against “straw women and straw men,” which are noth

gengwall, > My “guarding” stuff was kind of shooting from the hip. Suffice it to say that I do not think of Adam as the guardian of Eve so much as the guardian of an environment. I think we are in sy

We have gone through this exercise before but it bears repeating to help make the *entire* passage “clear”, if for no one else, then for Mike Seaver. Instead of paraphrasing as we have done in the pas

#64 truthseeker, > She cannot logically be Eve, the ’saved’ cannot mean original salvation, so childbirth taking the meaning of ‘being raised up in the faith’ makes the most sense. In Paul’s epistle

I am all a twitter! This is great dialog. My take on the context and Sarah’s example follows Paula’s a little, with some of truthseekers insight included. Let me lay it out. I love Cheryl’s synopsis

Paula #1, I disagree that the only reason for the wife’s submission is to win over an unsaved husband. [1 Peter 3:1](logos4:///Bible/1Pe 3.1) starts with literally “in like manner” linking it to wha

#6 gengwall, > I also agree with truthseeker that “unbelieving” may have a broader idea in mind, and that is of any husband whose behavior is “unscrupulous, unfair or dishonest”, whether he is a Chri

Wow – am I late to the party. This discussion is great and I don’t want to get too far into gender wars. On the other hand, being the token male here (right now), I suspect and hope my perspective wil

#67 Lin, > Besides the obvious biological differences, what characteristics do you see as different by Design? Where are they listed? I don’t see any characteristic as belonging just to one gender.

Craig, Thanks for your questions. Under question #1: The Greek term asthenes can refer to weak or powerless. The grammar is “comparative” which doesn’t mean that this is her essence, but in compar

Hi Mark, You said: > Father, Son and Spirit are all equally God but perform different functions. While the incarnation was a difference in function since only the Son became human, I would like to

Hi Mark, I don’t expect everyone to be clear on the Trinity. It is a difficult subject to comprehend and explain. You said: > What i am trying to emphasise is that Jesus and the Spirit are not jus

Mark, I believe the surrender required by mutual submission is so radical in its demands that it causes “wife/obedience to husband/authority” to pale by comparison. The beauty can be seen in Jesus ex

Mark #35, I am behind at least a day in my responses so I will be working backwards through the comments. You said: > My wife and i have no decided that i make the final call because i am a better

#24 Mark, > Cheryl i cant help but feel that you base the comp position on yours and others experience, rather than the bible. That’s because I don’t see the position in the Bible. The only thing I

Mark, I am going to try to get through as much of your questions as I can before I have to leave. > 2. In [Gen 2](logos4:///Bible/Ge 2) there is the introduction of the definate article so it is rig

Mark, You write: “I obviously disagree with you that Adam is not the leader in [Gen 1](logos4:///Bible/Ge 1)-3. You talked about the ‘them’ of [Gen 1](logos4:///Bible/Ge 1) and how both genders were

Mark, You asked: > A note to everyone else- i am currently reading through ‘Discovering Biblical Authority’ and would be greatly interested in discussing issues in it with people- Cheryl should this

Cheryl, thaankyou for your questions and answers, I see the garden as the place where God dwells with man- i think we would agree with this. I also agree that it was Adam and Eves home not God’s, for

I LOVE Lists! > 1. Where in [Gen 3](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3) does it say Adam ‘intentionally’ sinned. He is charged for ‘listening’ to his wife. This is ‘read into’. I think we have a symantic disagree

Mark, Again there is a huge difference between attacking a person or disputing and refuting their position. This blog is about giving a reason for the hope that is within us that allows women to fre

Hey Mark, I am trying to get through all the questions brought up on my blog the last couple of days as well as the questions on the Australian blog. I hope that I don’t miss any questions. If I don

one passage: The mistranslation hinges on the Greek verb, authentein. I have been a pastor for 35 years and a Christian for 45 years. I now have a house church and left the big church with all its i

Kephale God doesn’t base His word on pagan meanings, though they may be good for a ball park understanding. Usage must fit the heart and context of scriptures. Two things we must understand about kep

Cheryl, will you please delete my first post and replace it with this one? Thanks. Mike, you said,” The [1 Corinthians 14](logos4:///Bible/1Co 14) passage has to do with the corporate worship setting

Parden me ladies. You all have a male listening. { ; o (…. You are using the word “men” and “church” alot. “”Or maybe “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly, because only with their pre

Mark, I would be honored to be known as your friend! These kinds of dialogs, I believe, are very helpful for understanding. It is my personal opinion that when there is a disagreement we all need to

#28 Mark, Sorry for the slowness. I am trying to slow down some as ministry work has taken up so much time and I am working on my first book. It isn’t easy to carve out a few hours at a time and whe

Ladies, ladies, please relax, calm out, and enjoy some peace, and let me be mad, annoyed, cross, vexed, irritated, indignant, irked, furious, enraged, infuriated instead. { ; o ) Pastors? Hmmm? D

Mara Thanks for the referral. “The way church ought to be?” Bob Lund says some thoughtful things. and the book has many quotes from other authors. “Where in the New Testament do you find the

Hi Pan. The law allows for a certain level of “assault”, if you will, when it involves domestic parties. Parents can legally spank their children – to a degree – and a certain level of physical restr

I’m coming in late to this discussion, but it seems to me what Paul was saying to wives and to husbands was “Be submissive to one another out of reverence for Christ,” and that this MUTUAL submission

Since I do a lot of community theater work, I have a particular concept of what a “role” is. I find it very difficult to translate that concept into marriage, especially in light of scriptural teachin

1. A correction for post #61. Mara thought that Piper was part of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). He is not. From what I know SGM is led, at least in part if not primarily, by C.J. Mahaney. Piper is

Cheryl, I hate to say it, but it seems to me that as long as [1 Timothy 2:12](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2.12) is understood by Mike as meaning that Paul prohibits the proper exercise of teaching authority,

Dave, I appreciate both your and Kay’s comments and suggestions on my last comment. Right now, I am expanding and editing my comments on [Colossians 3:15-17](logos4:///Bible/Col 3.15-17), as suggested

@A. Amos Love Nice. Very insightful. It is foolish to be quibbling about who should and should not be a leader when we are all called to be disciples with one Leader. Though…., it is a worthy cause

Well, Cheryl, I think you are doing a good job in accurately explaining what the Scriptures actually teach about women teaching and preaching, while pointing out the contradictions in his own position

Holly – the KJV only debate is a whole ‘nother can of worms. It boils down to quantity vs. quality. The Greek foundation of the KJV is called the “Received Text” because it was basically all we had “

Craig @103 You said: > I can see the context of false teaching in ch1 and 2 and clearly relate this to 2:11-15. Your argument from v14,15 concerning a particular woman and man seems conclusive to m

Craig, Thanks for thinking out loud and answering your own question! Your answer is very good. I would only add an answer that is referenced in the passage but Paul saying (vs 14) And it was not Ada

@163 Kristen, You said: > But I still have some questions. First, are there any articles in Koine Greek equivalent to the English “this” or “that”? Yes. Houtos means **this** and you can find this

@207 gengwall I think I failed to congratulate you on thinking outside the box. Even if your view does not agree with mine, the fact that you are thinking for yourself and considering all the options

@227 Kristen, You asked: > Would Paul really be saying that only those women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples, should be dressing modestly? That only they should be focusing on inn

gengwall, You said: > I think you are overly concerned about a supposed connection of the “women” of vs. 10 and a generic woman in vs. 11. Actually I do see a connection between the two. The godly

Okay, I’m back and just going to catch up on gengwall’s comments that I didn’t address. Gengwall @210 you said: > Yes – I’m saying that maybe Paul wanted Timothy to understand vs. 11 and 12 to mean

Wow, we are up to comment 55 and still haven’t begun looking at the text! You are correct in assuming that i haven’t read or know alot of what Wayne Grudem has written. In fact i have a book on the

“2. It was never used in relation between PEOPLE without the notion of authority.” Wrong! [1 Corinthians 12:21](logos4:///Bible/1Co 12.21). Head is used metaphorically to represent one person in the

I simply can’t hold back any more. Sorry for the length but this simply must be resolved. Below is a breakdown I did some time ago on the use of *kephale* in the NT. I present this as textual proof th

Well, it seems the discussion with Mark has gone to quite some length. And I’m sorry got to it much later than Lin did; I wish I could have commented on some of these points myself. But I think everyo

Frank, You make this claim: 2. The insistence that kephale in [1 Cor 11:3](logos4:///Bible/1Co 11.3) must mean “authority over” and not “source” so as to weigh an argument in one’s favor against h

Mark, I apologize for the terseness of my previous comment. It was addressed more to Cheryl, Dave, Lin, and Kay who know me better than you do, and who understand where I am coming from. For on both C

I’m sorry it has taken me longer, than I originally intended, to make a response to Mark’s latest comments ( #228) of my critique of the ESS teaching. But as you well know, Cheryl, the responsibilitie

Now, I hope the readers of my “little treatise” on the Trinity and the Subordinationist use of [1 Corinthians 11:3](logos4:///Bible/1Co 11.3), which I began in Comment #280, will carefully note and re

Here are two excerpts from my book which deal with the question of the subjection of the Son to the Father and how it relates to the assumed subjection of the woman to the man. (I didn’t feel like re-

Hi, Cheryl. I’ve been following these video posts with interest and am astonished at how much comp teaching has in common with JW teaching. Really! I’ve worked as an overseas missionary most of my li

Ok i have now watched video 2 and have a few thoughts/ comments. 1. I’m not very familiar with the Jw’s or there theology, so i can only go off what is presented in these videos. I do not agree that

Mark, Continuing on, you said: > 2. I would also not use the Levitical priesthood as ‘proof’ for my argument for the headship of Adam in the garden. The priesthood does show us something about Lead

The comments are extensive so i will reply the best i can… 1. Obviously i believe that there is a ‘formal’ type gathering demonstrated in Pauls epistles, and many don’t. I have shown why i believe th

ok i think we need to clarify a few things… it seems like Dave and Cheryl are expecting me to find the term ‘office’ in the NT to back my claim. I have no intention of trying to prove such a thing be

> Again [1 Cor 14](logos4:///Bible/1Co 14) and 1 Tim are church gatherings. What you and others here are classifying as church are not what Paul is discussing. If you can disprove this please do? The

#129 Mark, You said: > Again you are playing semantic games with my words. If you have any legitimate claim to show that there is no difference between Pauls letters and [Acts 16](logos4:///Bible/Ac

Ahhhhh, Mark, you dragged me back. My floor needs washing! But I only came back to look…. Here goes, and after this I really am leaving and turning off my computer so I don’t get tempted to look. 😉

Now video 5, Who exactly is the prosecution- JW or CBMW or both? That’s a side interest. Now the first thing to note is in [Acts 18](logos4:///Bible/Ac 18) it is ‘they’ who explain to Apollos. I’m

Lin, Regarding your post # 169, remember that what i am saying is that i think Cheryl mis-quoted the CBMW. IF you don’t agree with me show me how she didn’t. If she has mis-quoted them, then her arg

Mark, You asked: > Now video 5, > Who exactly is the prosecution- JW or CBMW or both? “Human tradition” is the real prosecution with the JW brand of tradition contributing all of the charges exc

Mark, To continue on with your comments: > And, finally, she minimizes her privileges by proclaiming “we may eat” of the fruit of the trees; God had said that they “may eat freely” from the trees (

Mark, You said: > You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are

Mark, > so essentially you are saying that the command we have recorded given to Adam by God doesn’t really count, because at some other time which is not recorded, God gave them both another command

Dave, I’m still not following with the commandments line? I’m not sure what you are trying to say in regards to Genesis. Cheryl, I appreciate your lengthy resposes and i also appreciate your will

Mark, > I think you were a bit sneaky though now saying Eve was somehow like Mary after Jesus return being revealed something special- or being trusted or what ever you were trying to say there. Inte

Mark, > Cheryl, i agree 100% with the following… > > “I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or ve

OK let me say a few things… Cheryl, I very much appreciate your trust in the Spirit, but we must alsways keep in mind the auhtor’s intent/purpose/culture of their writings. What i find amazing aswe

Mark, You said: > They are not identical so which one is TRULY Jesus words. I too agree that the spirit helped them remember, but i also relaise that the nitended audience of Matthew is not the int

Cheryl first of all look at my post #241 and then im sure you will see relevant bible passage that show that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all call God LORD, not to mention all the other people, the slave,

Mark, I missed your Bible references on your post. Sorry. I have been copying and pasting sections for comment and for some reason I must have been interrupted and didn’t finish reading that one post

Mark, > Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until [Exodus 3](logos4:///Bible/Ex 3)? If so

Cheryl, “I also accept that the Hebrew grammar makes a distinction between knowing God’s name and knowing His full character that He revealed with Moses.” This is a massive debate which we have bar

Mark, > This is a massive debate which we have barely touched on, so i hope you can appreciate why i had to probe your view since it was producing a contradiction in the word. But it is good to see y

Mark, > Not true! Moses wrote this and God used him to record what God wanted recorded. It in no ways makes it deceptive. I’m sure you will realise this once you get a chance to do some research on i

Mark, I am not even convinced that you understand the Hebrew scholar correctly. Is he really stating that men have taken the liberty to add things to God’s word and God was fine with that? The first

Hello, everyone. I have read through this post and the comments made on it, at least twice, first to make sure I correctly the arguments and counter-arguments, and then to decide what are appropri ate

I just finished reading through both postings by Mark, as well as their respective comments. And I’m wondering if I should abandon the line of argument I began in Comment #168 on this posting, and try

Jim, I would like to give you a special welcome to my blog. I think that it is a very brave thing for you to comment on this blog after silently following the blog for some time. Kudos to you! I thi

Hello Cheryl and all of you in this forum. I am a relatively new believer and for months now I have had the issue of women preachers on my heart and in my mind so much so that at times I’m awake in th

Susanna, You said: > the comps are arguing that only Adam was called by God. This is the central argument which supports the beliefs that > > 1. The man was created to lead the woman > 2. The woma

*“Why would Moses say things differently? Well, he’s Hebrew, comes to mind. Plus, he may be trying to be more explicit on what was actually said.”* How is being more cryptic being more explicit? “Th

Susanna, You said: > He is given the name because he was made of ‘adamah (ground) just as Eve is named Chawah (from chay) because she was to become the mother of all living. Then could you explain

Mark, Concerning Question #3. I asked you where the Bible says that only elders could teach? I also asked you if single men are in sin for being pastors? You did not answer these questions. I would

Mark, Under question #9 You had originally said “The curses show who is MORE responsible for the fall.” I answered: > Says who? Where does God say that the man is MORE responsible for the fall? Si

Under question #10 I asked: > If Adam was a leader of his wife, then he would have to be called to account for his failed “role” as a leader. Eve also would have to be called to account for failing t

Dear NN, I never said you said anything about the usage of hypotasso and epitasso together. I wanted to draw your attention to them since it is usually simply assumed that hypotasso is the antonym of

Yes, Paul was well educated in the Greek society, but were his readers? Considering that the majority of the early Christians were illiterate slaves, it is a stretch to say that the readers would have

John, Welcome to my blog! I am delighted that you came to answer to our concerns. 1. Although it is already noted that a woman is not to follow her husband into “sin”, there is a whole lot of quest

Hi all, Hope you all had a great Christmas and New Year! Cheryl i have a response for that ‘question 1’ from way back so im just gunna post it hear…feel free to move it or whatever. Please know that

…continued… Mark, you said: > Also in relation to the ‘prophecy’ of the New Testament, it has to be understood that we can not relate it exactly to the prophecy of the Old Testament. For example t

Hi Cheryl, Thankyou for your reply. A few observations. I have to disagree that i failed to answer the original question. What i attempted to do was distinguish between the different gifts because

Cheryl, Yes i did feel you were harsh or frustrated and i understand that, but i still do not believe that i am throwing a low ball or presenting logical fallicies. Very briefly i will respond in a h

Mark, You mention my lack of Greek exegesis on [Eph 4:11](logos4:///Bible/Eph 4.11). Well let me enlighten you so that we can be on the same page. The grammar of [Eph 4:11](logos4:///Bible/Eph 4.11)

Mark, You said: > Now about [1 Cor 12](logos4:///Bible/1Co 12)! First of all i don’t believe it is a less ‘teacher’ than [Eph 4](logos4:///Bible/Eph 4). Second the reason why Paul numbers the gifts

Hi Cheryl, You asked me as one of your hard questions “Do you or do you not believe that [Ephesians 4:11](logos4:///Bible/Eph 4.11) gives “teacher” as a gift for the body of Christ?” The short answe

Lmb, Good to have you engage in the conversation. Let me respond to your comment. You said “Actually it isn’t a stretch at all. In Greek a masculine plural is the grammatical form used for a group

Mark, Let’s talk about context, context, context for [1 Timothy 5](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 5). Does your church congregation/denomination “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of a

Hi Kay, I am so glad you have responded, and equally glad that you agree that context is important. However you are making a serious error by assuming that ‘presbyterio’ always should translate ‘elde

Mark, You also answered Kay that a widow who was older ([1 Timothy 5:9-12](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 5.9-12)) could be nothing more than one who needed financial support. I would like to differ with this

Cheryl, I understand totally where you are coming from. But unfortunately there are just as many other commentaries to quote in opposition to your view. Bible exposition commentary “From the begin

Mark #137, > I understand totally where you are coming from. But unfortunately there are just as many other commentaries to quote in opposition to your view. First of all if my memory serves me righ

Cheryl, your article is a wonderful reply to that old saw: “If Jesus were really counter-cultural in his treatment of women, why didn’t he choose any women to be his apostles?” And a complementary res

Now that I’m back home and on my own little computer, I can finish my comment. (I was at the library, doing job hunting research, having been umemployed for some time). As I was saying, Gordon Fee exp

It has been a long day for me, but I am going to try to answer as much as I can before I head for bed. Mark, You said: > I have no problem saying that God was in control of what Adam said and knew

Cheryl, There are a number of problems with the complementarian interpretation of [Gen 1](logos4:///Bible/Ge 1)-3 that you and the others have pointed out. In the comments and observations that foll

Mark, You said: > The parellel is the same with Adam and the woman. Just because God uses a human agent does not detract from God’s foreknowledge. The text simply saids that it was the man who ‘nam

Mark, You said to pinklight: > Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective. We do know alot of other details from verses other that verse 23. However how

Mark, You said: > Naming her was the mans responsibility. Sigh! Where does it say that in text? There is no authority or responsibility given in the text. Or do you think that just repeating the s

Mark, Again you misrepresent me. You said: > Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat ([

Mark, You said: > When have i said that ‘ha’adam’ has to ‘always’ mean more than one person. You have assumed this about me. But i have clearly said semantically that it ‘can’ mean more than one pe

Now concerning Mark’s answers about Eve not being banished from the garden. Mark, you said: > 1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Ther

Ah, I think I am finally coming to the end of Mark’s challenges. Mark, you wrote: > Cheryl has told me before that Eve was not “a threat”. What a wrong understanding of sin. I would challenge Cheryl

LOL – I feel my contribution at this point is equivalent to adding 30 seconds to “Lawrence of Arabia”. Never the less, here goes. This refers to Cheryl’s post 89 above. I agree whole heartedly with

Mark, You said: > I am glad you attempted to address all of my post, I give you credit for that. It seems that since I last logged on, comments have risen so I won’t have time to answer them all- b

Gazza #169, As usual you have well-thought-out questions that shows you are thinking through the process. Bravo! > Firstly in [1 Timothy 1](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 1) v14-17 Paul goes on from saying he

I agree with Bushnell on this issue. LESSON 16. GOD’S WARNING TO EVE 122. The N. T. teaches us that “He that committeth sin is of the devil. . . Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. . . .

Gazza, Welcome back! I missed you! > You say that the knowledge of good and evil is part of being created in the image of God and was not a result of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In [Gen

Jessica, Welcome to my blog! I always appreciate when complementarians are willing to dialog. > For me, it isn’t so much that Eve usurped Adam’s authority, but she denied the goodness of God. The s

gengwall, I am very pleased that you are allowing yourself to be open about Eve not having sinned in rebellion after the fall. > Either [Gen 3:16](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3.16) is exclusively about Adam

gengwall, > You misunderstand. I am not saying that a and b are the only possibilities, I am saying they are the only possibilities I will accept as reasonable. Alright, then it appears that you hav

Cheryl – we clearly aren’t understanding each other. You keep taking examples from human history but, it seems to me, are trying to read them back into our universal sin nature to say that sin itself

gengwall, > Cheryl – we clearly aren’t understanding each other. You keep taking examples from human history but, it seems to me, are trying to read them back into our universal sin nature to say tha

Lin, On the past post <http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/07/why-was-eve-punished/comment-page-4> that we are now answering here on the issue of sin here, you said: > Syllogism of your premise >

I just wanted to remind people that this blog is open for questions and for challenges from those who agree with me and those who disagree with me. I believe that as Christians we can dialog with grac

Mark, You said: > I appreciate your attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin. I agree wholeheartedly here with you. I take this as a kind word from you and it feels really good to have someo

Lin, You said: This is because ‘desire’ is not a good translation and takes us into all kinds of error and problems on both sides of egal/comp. God warned Eve that she would turn to her husband an

I received an email from a friend who was interested in dialogging on the issue of sin but didn’t want to post on the blog so I am going to address their concerns/questions to me here for everyone to

gengwall, You said: > God: Eve, there are some unfortunate consequences that are going to affect you personally because of the situation. You will have an increase in sorrow and in pregnancy and ra

to continue with gengwall’s comments: > On “desire” – we continue to use that word because it is in all the modern translations, but we all know that “desire” is somewhat inadequate. The correct term

Cheryl, Thanks for your answers. A few more comments. 1. First off- good on you for correcting my wrong biblical quote, sorry about that. However I can’t see in [Num 14](logos4:///Bible/Nu 14) how t

Mark, You said: > 3. About the incarnation. First I must confess that I believe that this doctrine is probably the hardest to understand, even above the Trinity. How Jesus could leave glory, humble

Greg, You have brought up an excellent question for discussion. I think that first of all that there is an issue of definitions that needs to be discussed. In my discussions with Calvinists, they h

#66 Mark, I am just going to bed so I am going to pick just one of your comments for tonight and catch the rest as I can hopefully tomorrow. > My point though was simply that exegetically, reading

Mark, You said: > You can’t say that the woman’s seed (in the context) is victorious over the serpents-so whether you translate it crush, strike, bruise etc you must do the same for both. Yes, I a

>”God has placed us all under sin so that we would all be in a position to have faith in Him instead of earning our way to God.””My friend, let me say it this way. If Jesus was born with the same natu

Anon y mous, Welcome to my blog and to this conversation! You said: > We didn’t all sin “in” Adam. Death spread to all men because all sinned. Adam, whose name means humanity, is the archetype for

Mark, > I appreciate your comments regarding [Gen 3:15](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3.15). Let me just say one final thing in case you missed it. I do agree with you that looking bcak at this verse in our pos

Re Cheryl #63 & #76 1) When I argued that humankind also has the ability to fulfill the law of Christ, I was thinking in terms of [Galatians 6:2](logos4:///Bible/Ga 6.2). Restoring, helping, and doi

Greg, Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your view. > 1) When I argued that humankind also has the ability to fulfill the law of Christ, I was thinking in terms of [Galatians 6:2](logos4:///Bi

Mark, > I can’t see how your view is any different to Greg’s really. You say we are born with a sinful nature, yet you say that we have the ability to not sin. Since Greg doesn’t believe that we hav

Cheryl, I understand that you believe in a sin nature from Adam and Greg does not, but the logical conclusion of what you are saying leads to the same path. You say we have the ability as unregenerat

Mark, You said: > I understand that you believe in a sin nature from Adam and Greg does not, but the logical conclusion of what you are saying leads to the same path. You say we have the ability as

Mark, You said: > I would like to know how you think that ‘dead people’ can respond to God. “Dead” is a metaphor. We know that “dead” people can bury the dead. They can eat, drink, be merry and th

Cheryl, I’m quite astonished really. What makes Noah righteous? His own free-will? No I don’t think so. Was it not his faith? [Heb 11:7](logos4:///Bible/Heb 11.7) By faith Noah, being warned by God

#97 Mark, > By the way let me be clear that i do not think that non-calvinists are not Christians. I myself was not always convinced of reformed theology but i would never have said i wasn’t saved. N

Cheryl, I appreciate where you are coming from. But first of all i have never deemed myself a ‘calvinist’ because simply it puts me into a theological bucket i don’t want to be in. Nor have i said th

Mark, You said: > In the 2 Chronicles verse, you forgot to mention the verse before which show God intervening through the Prophet Azariah. So the same principle applies, God has to work first befo

It is another day and we will see how much we can get through today. Mark, You said: > You said “Faith in God and receiving Jesus comes before we become children of God.” > Really Cheryl, I don’

Mark, It looks like you and I are online at the same time for once. Welcome buddy! I am going to answer your last set of questions now and catch up on the others just because you are here…now. You

1. “No. [Romans 1:18](logos4:///Bible/Ro 1.18) doesn’t say that all men suppress the truth. But the passage says that those who deliberately suppress the truth, God gives them up. Here is a descriptio

Ok one last point since it regards universal language 1. [John 12:32](logos4:///Bible/Jn 12.32) (NASB) 32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” Is there any rea

Mark, You said: > [Mat 3:2](logos4:///Bible/Mt 3.2) “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” > Now is he talking about heaven Cheryl? kingdom of **heaven** Sure seems like he is talking a

Mark, You said: > Therefore to deny that saving faith is in itself not a gracious gift of God necessitates that it is something we do without the help of God. Who is claiming that our faith is “wi

Mark, You said: > “Where does the Bible say that Cornelius was born again before he heard the gospel?” > > You can’t keep copping out and saying everything is human tradition Cheryl, it’s hardly co

Cheryl, The kingdom of God/Heaven is the same thing, but just expressed differently, so although the term ‘heaven’ is used it is still the kingdom of God. And please don’t give the impression that I

Mark, You said: > The difference between us is you think people can accept the message of salvation while dead in sin. You base this on the fact that Jesus told the pharisee’s that they did ‘good’

Mark, You said: > Cheryl, this is exactly you, because you think it is unfair that God’s ordains all things as you have said before. My guess though is that you have re-interpreted [Romans 9](logos

Mark, You said: > No issue with [John 6](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6) and surrounds, but please don’t compare me to a JW. I am not comparing you to a JW. You have to understand one thing – my ministry si

Mark, You said: > Again you are convincing me more that you don’t actually understand the people you oppose-namely reformed Christians. No one i know who holds to a reformed doctrine would come to

Mark, You said: > I agree with you that context is important, but the question remains- how far do you take it? To me the context is the whole Bible. Does the verse or the passage contradict the re

Gazza, You said: > Thanks for your response to my last post #146. Unfortunatly I was not clear enough – ever a danger with analogies. The roast dinner/ carcus was not meant to represent any individ

“See to me the test is in the scriptures, not in philosophical reasoning!” Mark, I understand what you’re getting at, but I think we are allowed to use reason. (Isa.1:18) Let’s consider II Peter 3

Mark, You said: > Now about being a child of God. I have agreed with you that we are children of God once we believe. However like I said [Romans 8](logos4:///Bible/Ro 8) and [Eph 1](logos4:///Bibl

Mark, You said: > I have agreed with you all along that we are all called to seek after God. But how can we as sinners. God gives us all common grace to seek after God. He has promised everyone th

“But again I mentioned that [Romans 3](logos4:///Bible/Ro 3) is a quote from the OT where the context is the fool who says there is no God. Paul would not illegally use an OT quote to mean the opposit

“Also the doctrine of predestination (unconditional) also emphasises God’s grace. Nothing we do or can do will save us. It is merely according to God’s pleasure and will that some are saved. [Rom 9:

Mark, One more thing – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before

Kay, Let me say first of all thankyou for actually addressing a text. But let me say I am unconvinced of your exegesis. After all if Paul here is talking ONLY about the nation of Israel being elect w

Kay, Again let me commend you for addressing [Romans 1](logos4:///Bible/Ro 1). Can you state though at what point you disagree with me. Are you saying you agree that [Romans 1:18-3](logos4:///Bible/R

Kay About [Eph 2](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2). Look again at what we are predestined for. It is not simply that the way to salvation is predestined (as Arminius taught) but us. We are chosen in Christ be

Mark, You said: > I agree that God is rich in mercy- none of us deserve to be saved, we have all fallen short of the glory of God have we not? But still only a limited number of people are saved. E

Mark, You said: > I don’t think you should doubt Jesus. But I don’t think taking universal language the way you do is correct. After all [Romans 5](logos4:///Bible/Ro 5) says that Jesus justified ‘

Mark, You said: > Let me see if I understand your view. > 1. Jesus draws every single person in the world to himself > 2. But not everyone comes to the Father > 3. Those who come to the Fathe

Mark, You said: > So we both agree that God draws, calls, opens eyes, soften hearts all before people accept the message of Christ. But yet i guess we still disagree that faith is a gift. I’m quite

“Both of Isaac’s children have the same mother and indeed both are conceived at the same time, yet God in his sovereign mercy, chose Jacob and not Esau. Paul then quotes various Old Testament referenc

Hi Gazza, and thanks for joining the discussion again. You said: > Yet in Post 244 you expressed sadness that people believe “that God deliberately and unconditionally creates people to go to hell.

Thanks for your participation Mark on our dialog on [John 6](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6). We did start with a little bit from [John 5](logos4:///Bible/Jn 5) to set the stage. You mentioned that the Jews wa

Mark, you said: > I’m a bit concerned about your 7 points. None of your references mention at all that the Jews did not fear God. You are bringing that into the text. I am actually quite shocked tha

Kay “Why do you assume that Paul’s phrase ” all israel is not israel” could only be refering to individuals and not groups?” Because that is the only thing that makes sense. What ‘groups’ within nat

Mark, You said to Kay: > Let me encourage you to look at the passage exegetically. In my experience i rejected reformed theology, but after I studied this text my arminianism was shattered. My armi

“Here we see clearly that Jacob is chosen unconditionally before they were born. Paul is very precise to include that it is not ‘because of works’. So your hypothesis that God chose the Israelites (Ja

continuing on… [Joh 6:26](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6.26) Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. [Joh

Mark, I would like to add some comments to your exegesis of [John 6:26-30](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6.26-30) because you missed some things. > [John 6:25–26](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6.25-26) (NASB) > 25 Whe

Mark you said: Mark, Thanks once again for taking the time to work with me through this passage. I think this is extremely helpful in working towards a clear word in the Scripture, but I think it

Mark, Honestly, I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry over your reply…that wasn’t the only point of agreement we had. Here are our quotes side by side: ————- Mark – “Yes the Edomites were ‘ha

Mark, You said: > People can only recieve eternal life by being reconciled in Christ. That is precisely why ‘life’ can only be ‘given’ to God’s elect, because only God’s elect have their sins ‘aton

Mark you said: > regarding my exegesis you said… > ” Jesus revealed in verse 33 that the bread of God (which is later revealed as His flesh) is given for the life of the world. So naturally the cro

Cheryl, First I will respond to some of your comments regarding the nature of the atonement and after that I will move on to your last two lots of exegetical points. “You keep saying that only a spe

Your exegesis from #303 “Jesus said that the crowd had “seen” him (they had been a witness and experienced or caught sight of his miracles) yet they did not believe in Him. Now we are going to find o

Mark, Thanks for your quick response. You said: > It is important to note that the atonement is the ‘canceling’ of our debt. That is, Jesus took our sin and the punishment for our sin onto his shou

Cheryl, I will answer your question which is ” How can your sins have been forgiven by the atonement of Christ yet you were still called a sinner and in need of being regenerated because of your sin?

Mark, you said: > So therefore i disagree that God forgave or ‘atoned’ for non believers sins. The fact is that we were all non-believers and sinners at one time and yet Christ died for sinners. >

Mark you said: > Let me say it again as I already have done. I am not saying one can receive eternal life apart from the death of Christ. The issue is whether ‘world’ is meant to be understood univer

Mark, You said: > By the way i did just a quick bit of research to see whether your claim that no lexicons prove my point about the word ‘world’, and unfortunately for you your wrong. > > For examp

Mark you said: > Second point, not all are ‘able’ to receive Christ. People are blind ([2 Cor 4:4](logos4:///Bible/2Co 4.4)). But people are blind for several reasons. One of the reasons is that the

Hi Cheryl I would have thought the usage of the present text in [Romans 6:11](logos4:///Bible/Ro 6.11) is exactly in line with what I was saying about [Eph 2:5](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2.5). In the Roma

Mark, You said: > “[Joh 6:37](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6.37) All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” > > And then you said “Jesus says that “all” (no

Gazza, You said: > The [Romans 6](logos4:///Bible/Ro 6) passage dosn’t actually say anyone is dead now rather that the believers should “count themselves dead to sin” Paul then explains what being

Cheryl, “So why is it that God did not take the complete payment of Jesus at the cross and put it to your account at the time that Jesus died? Was His payment not full and complete at that time?” Le

Mark #337 It will likely take me awhile to answer your comments. My time is limited once again as tomorrow my son arrives with his new fiancée whom we have not yet met so I will want to spend time wi

Hi Gazza, As far as English translations, here are three translations that list the verb as present and I am also going to copy the NASB with the note that the literal is the present “being”. > [Ep

Gazza, What you need to realise is that the Koine Greek present tense, is not the same as the English present tense. So therefore if a greek verb is in the present tense, it does not neccessarily imp

Mark, It is interesting that you admit that the tense is not set as a past tense and the that it can be something that goes on and on and on if it is a participle. The grammar is present verb active

Mark, To carry on with your comments: > “Yes. Permission is granted to anyone who is thirsty to come.” > > You did not answer my question. Does God ‘grant’ everyone to ‘come/believe’, yes or no. Th

Gazza, One more comment on the present tense. Jesus said in [John 8:58](logos4:///Bible/Jn 8.58)- > [John 8:58](logos4:///Bible/Jn 8.58) (NASB) > 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to yo

Hi Cheryl, Thankyou for your comments. A few points… you are correct that the verb to be in verse 1 is a present participle- I missed that and I’m glad you corrected me. However this does not change

Cheryl “So the $64,000 dollar question is why did God inspire [Ephesians 2:1](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2.1) in the present tense and not the imperfect tense which would show a past state? If we believe th

Cheryl, I agree with you that people cannot come to God because they do not love Him. But I guess the difference is because I believe that unregenerate people are unable ([Rom 8:6-7](logos4:///Bible/

Mark you said: > By the way here are some true representations of what the Present Greek Tense denotes or means… The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as

Mark, You said to TL: > I appreciate your call for us all to be in continual repentance- i couldn’t agree more. But maybe you can show me if the Cannanites in the conquering were given that opportu

Cheryl, I’m a little perplexed with you. As a greek scholar you are being totally unfaithful to how the greek language functions. I have agreed with you that the present indicate can have a linear fu

Kristen, “Arminians (in general) believe that when God “draws” someone, God enables that person to make a true choice. The sinner’s desire is bent towards sin; God provides just enough power to pull,

Mark, you wrote quoting me and then answered: > “So the $64,000 dollar question is why did God inspire [Ephesians 2:1](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2.1) in the present tense and not the imperfect tense which

Mark, you said: > But from the context of [Eph 2](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2) it is clear that the present particple is not used as a continual state of being, but as an emphatic remark to show us (and yo

Mark you said: > You can give your interpretation of a passage and that is fine, but do not mishandle how the greek can actually function in a given context. To do so is not a good thing to do. I ha

Mark, you said: > Such far, you are failing heavily to read the context and have approached both [Eph 2:1](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2.1), and [Rom 6:11](logos4:///Bible/Ro 6.11) with a preconcieved ideas

Mark you said: > I agree with you that people cannot come to God because they do not love Him. But I guess the difference is because I believe that unregenerate people are unable ([Rom 8:6-7](logos4:

Mark, For [John 6:35-44](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6.35-44), the view I hold regards who the “all that” refers to. Many calvinists identify the “all that” in verses 37 and 39 as “those whom, in his great l

Mark you quoted me and then said: > “We can pray that a person will be brought to the place of repentance, but repentance is something that the person themselves must do. And if the person rejects Go

Mark, you said: > Thanks for the replies. I want comment extensively until you finish dealing with the exegetical issues i have raised in [Eph 2](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2). Well thanks a bunch. That sh

Mark you said: > Regarding your claim that the Cannaanites of the conquest were given a chance to repent. I noticed you quoted Jeremiah. Now Jeremiah was a exilic prophet, who lived, what, some 500-6

Kay and Cheryl, I was never a hard core apologetic Armininan. I believed what i heard in churches, namely, that predestination is based on foreknowledge of our faith. I never had an issue with this,

Mark, Now we see why you write things like: “They want to hold onto God working, but equally hold onto autonomous free will.” and then Cheryl has to explain with: “The classical Arminian positi

Mark, you said: > I have agreed with you that the present indicate can have a linear function. However as I have stated, that is not always the case. The context, adverbs etc determine it’s function

Mark you said: > [Mat 13:44](logos4:///Bible/Mt 13.44) “Again the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he ha

Mark, you said: > Also the present takes a future meaning in some contexts. > > [John 14:3](logos4:///Bible/Jn 14.3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with

Mark, Is there any passage that shows that an unregenerate person cannot hear God at all? [Acts 10:1-4](logos4:///Bible/Ac 10.1-4) shows Cornelius as one who was not yet a believer in Jesus, called “

Mark you said: > Now Cheryl claimed that no such ‘additional grammar’ in [Eph 2](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2) shows that Paul means a past condition. However in verse 2 is a very clear grammatical feature-

Mark you said: > So although this may seem messy to many people with all the technical stuff let me conclude. First the perfect indicate verb can take either past, present or future meaning depending

Mark, You said: > Please don’t slay me for my spelling mistakes ‘tote’ and ‘present indicate’. They are just spelling mistakes, there is not need to go overboard. I think that we can have a lot mo

Mark, Thanks for taking the time to explain your limited experience with Arminianism. This helps a lot to understand why it is difficult for you to get the opposing viewpoint. It is now clear that y

Cheryl, I never said i was a greek scholar…far from it. I would have considered you one though (which is what i said), that is why it worried me that you ignored the many meanings the present indicat

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

Mark you said: > Also justification is only by faith is it not? Now I’m sure you do not believe that all people have faith in Christ, so therefore how can you say that all men are justified. This is

Mark, you copied my statemdent and then responded: > “Let’s have another look at the verse and compare it to what John himself said in the book of 1 John. John is not going to contradict himself.” >

Mark, you quoted me and then replied: > “How is it that those who have never had their sins atoned for are commanded to believe (apply) the atonement? Do you not see a contradiction here?” > > Not at

Mark you said: > Also he did make clear in [Matt 25:31](logos4:///Bible/Mt 25.31)ff that the goats would go to hell but the sheep to eternal glory which was prepared “for you since the creation of th

Mark you quoted me and then said: > “[Ephesians 2:8, 9](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2.8,9) is not talking about faith as a gift because the term is singular and faith is said to be the thing that the gift (s

Mark, you said: > Thankyou for your comments. A few points… you are correct that the verb to be in verse 1 is a present participle- I missed that and I’m glad you corrected me. However this does not

Jessica, You said: > I have not always been a complementarian and have been humbled in the past few years as I have discovered what I believe to be the gracious design that God has for men and wome

Alex #56, I had to stay away from this topic for a bit as it took me back to a very painful time and I just needed space in order to breathe again. You said: > Cheryl, I understand what you’re say

Mark, Sorry about being so slow in answering. I am really stretched thin right now so I can’t be as prompt as I would like. > The issue is whether Adam had a responsibility that Eve did not. Accord

To Grant and Cheryl Here’s what I wrote: ‘I will list several reasons why men who’ve “held the reigns” in today’s churches have turned them into Satan’s paradise. They who believe that it is God th

Historical Progression of Zionism <http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/ZionistState/historical.cfm> 18th century: The German Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn initiates a Jewish secularis

Waneta, If you look closely at the Hebrew in [Genesis 3](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3), there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad. In fact the ‘desire’ Eve has,

Mark, You said: > If you look closely at the Hebrew in [Genesis 3](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3), there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad. Actually I just p

Mark, You said: > Again you have not dealt with any precise exegetical arguments i have raised. Please deal with them. > > I have not talked about hiding sin, only you have. Well, Mark, that appea

Dear Fellows, I would like to state that more than half of these paradoxes you are struggling with could have readily been prevented by reading my website <http://gfwilkinprofwomen.webs.com/>, and

Jeremy said: “These reasons are the creation order and Eve’s deception. These reasons are not cultural or temporal, but eternal. Therefore, his command is eternal. No?” Not necessarily. There ar

Let me start by thanking Cheryl for her willingness to interact with an opposing idea. A few points are necessary to clarify the content of what I said and to point out that the logical demonstration

NN, Thanks for joining in the discussion so that we can work on clarification on this issue and a sense of unity in our love for the Lord Jesus and each other. > A few points are necessary to clari

TL, E-sword has some good Greek tools. You can down load it here <http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html> As far as hegeomai here are some lexical meanings. Unfortunately my blog won’t all foreign c

NN, You said: > To reiterate – we are agreed that Christ (in human form) had authority and that Christ now has authority – in fact All authority (irregardless of its origin). May I rewrite this to

Hi folks, wow, what a lot of good comments! I will be popping in and out as I am able since this is a really busy time for me. NN, you said: > And if you read what I wrote above – the proper use of

NN (214): “If interested for gmail chat ingarandur[AT]gmail[DOT]com – it is so much quicker to figure out where the common ground is for a starting point in the discussion that way, and easier to st

Mark, It is quite like you to ask questions instead of answer them. You may not mean it this way, but it comes across as being evasive. I was going to answer once again when I see pinklight has jus

Ok, finally getting back to this: NN said: “Let us apply the reasoning which you just outlined to a parallel passage of scripture, we’ll pick 1st Peter: [1 Pet 2:13](logos4:///Bible/1Pe 2.13) ~

Cheryl and et al., I pray that Jesus guides each word I am about to write, because it is important for me to miss anything. I do talk to Jesus all the time and today He and I have been going over a l

Kristen, “You are not submitting to “one another” but only to “some others.” That’s right, because I’m not going to submit to the 12 year old youth kid in the same way I would to my pastor. It is il

Oh Mark, I just love it when you comps write like this! I know you are a smart guy, you just have swallowed a bit too much of the comps’ cool aid (isn’t this American saying an interesting way of putt

TL, I think you are right. And it is interesting that the Free Methodists, who broke away from the Methodists over slavery in 1860 (since the Methodist church refused to speak against it) were the fir

I find [1 Peter 5:5](logos4:///Bible/1Pe 5.5) to be compelling. Peter has spent most of his letter telling Christians in a pagan culture how to get along in that culture, including submission to the a

Mark you wrote: “I’m interested to hear how you believe you have answered Grudem’s challenge. Can you explain how [James 4:4-10](logos4:///Bible/Jas 4.4-10) is reciprocal submission with no authority?

Dave (19) Mark and TL Not going to quote all of you in the interest of time. TL keeps saying hupotasso is voluntarily arranging under someone else. Mark has given us the definition from BAGD- “subor

Mark, you said, “I agree submission is something we do. A wife is told to submit to her husband. She has to choose to do it, it cannot be demanded by the husband. God demands it, not the husband. But

Getting back to the issue of whether authority of husbands is a God-given mandate in [Ephesians 5](logos4:///Bible/Eph 5): Understanding the underlying cultural assumptions can be very important in

Mark, You asked regarding Ryan’s comments: > In what way is the husband the source of his wife? What does that mean from the context? Then in what way does that parallel the Church and Christ? The

Craig, I value your questions and I think that others do as well. The difference between you and some others who come here is that you appear to be genuinely interested in seeing both sides and you

Sue, I admire your honestly regarding your bias. I think that is helpful for all to understand, so that when comments are made rejecting the BDAG for example because of bias, one can see that such an

#70 Mark, You said: > However, why do you assume therefore that authority cannot exist? Why is it, that you actually contradict the meaning of this verb? The meaning of the Greek verb does not for

Mark, Can you provide me with another email address so I can get the answers to your personal challenges sent to you. Or should I assume that you don’t care to hear answers on the other subject (out

Jeremiah, there are other ways to explain sin coming through Adam than “federal headship.” Such a concept is never explained in the Bible. [Genesis 3](logos4:///Bible/Ge 3) and [1 Timothy 2](logos4://

The egalitarian’s real issue, I believe, is one of the heart and its unwillingness to take God’s word regarding the woman’s subjection as literal. How do you square the passage in [1 Timothy 2:11-14](

Hey Mark, I am delighted that you are still reading here on my blog. And I am very glad that you found some time to try to point out any weaknesses that you think might be in my argument. It gives me

Hmmm, it appears I have trouble with people disagreeing with me. So far only when talking with you Mark! You gave wise advice to Lydia, that assumptions do not help our discussion. Let me say the foll

Mark, To just use Pinklight as an example, yes, she has asked you why you have an issue with believing that the salvation of the woman might be conditional on her husband. I do not have a problem wi

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 wi

To continue to Mark, > Since this is the case, we ought to be very cautious of people who think they have a flawless exegesis of this passage. History should tell us otherwise. No need to be cautiou

@Mark #43 > I would have thought that an exegesis based on one’s own un supported grammtical interpretation would be a hole to begin with…a major hole. Unsupported? No true at all but seems to be yo

Hi everyone, I have been having a discussion about [1 Tim 2](logos4:///Bible/1Ti 2) with a comp friend. He is in 1st year theological college. He asked his Greek lecturer about some of the things I

Hi everyone, From a different blog I have been involved with recently, there was a question raised over the legitimacy of thinking that Paul had a particular Ephesian woman in mind, from the perspect

#230 Craig, You said: > One of the staff at my church said egals use a “different hermeneutic”. I have often heard comps say it is a “liberal hermeneutic”. I don’t really understand what they mean,

Craig, You said: > Is it > “usurp the authority of an accepted/authorized teacher before you yourself have been authorized” > as Kristen has put forward or to “dominate” as I think you believe.

Hi Kristen, While I was working on my response, you responded to Craig which I did not see. I have only a little time left this morning, so I will answer this one and then have to leave. You said:

Cheryl, I’m sure you will agree that our English grammar construction and ancient Koine Greek grammar construction may not always be the same. I am relying on the scholarship of Phillip Payne, author

Here is what I posted in the last thread, including a link to the essay by Payne about the nature of the word “oude,” which is what engendered this discussion: \*\*\* Cheryl, I’m sure you will agr

A possible interpretation of I Tim 2:15 is that in the first half “she” does refer to Eve, and in the second half “they” refers to all women. My understanding is that people of the OT era were saved b

Craig, Prof Catherine Kroeger has written about the possible sexual meaning of authentein. <http://www.godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm> > But what can the term authentein imply in

Craig, I have some further thoughts about the connection of a sexual *authenein* with Eve. What if there is truth to the ancient understanding of Church Fathers that the “desire” of [Genesis 3:16](lo

Craig, I don’t think your approach is without merit, but at the end of the day, this is still a debate, not a negotiation. Someone has to be right. That is why I wrote my “Show Stoppers” series of bl

> why did Paul speak of it just once, in a private letter to his “deputy,” rather than in a letter to the whole church? And why didn’t he say anything about it to the church at Rome, where women had a

Sorry to dump the truck on everyone, but I thought some of you may be interested that I received an email from Mark (from Sola Panel) today. Elaine specifically asked if I could post it here. Sorry fo

Hi everyone, I sent Kristen’s comments @136-140 (amended as requested) to Mark yesterday. I also sent some comments of my own to Mark, which I have posted below. If you see anything where you feel m

I just got an email from Mark B. I will put material from my email to him in quotation marks, and Mark’s thoughts and reflections in normal font. Sorry again for the length. Hi Craig,   Sorry thi

Hi Kristen, Sorry to hear you are not well. I hope you are feeling better soon. I wasn’t going to post this just yet until we finished more of the subject at hand, but just in case you do get a ch

Just working out some responses to Mark that I can send. Any thoughts are welcome. Mark said > I think egals have reconstructed ‘submit’ to mean something like ‘voluntarily yielding our own desires

Mark said > It still raises the question I asked you earlier in this context. There is a parallel here between husbands and the Lord. If the submission to Christ that the Church offers is without aut

Ok — here is my response to the first of Mark’s points that I said I was going to respond to. His words are in bold, followed by mine. **My point is that both the Jewish (missed by Kristen when she

Here is my response to Mark’s second point. **I think the ‘lay down power’ here is pretty tendentious. Almost any complementarian would say something like all this, but would say that what is going

Ok, getting back to answering Mark. Several of his paragraphs subsequent to the ones I have already addressed are expansions on the same issues. So I’m going to comment only on the ones that are left

Ok, this last section is pretty volatile. I hope it doesn’t make Mark terribly angry– but he was blunt and direct about what he said about the egalitarian position, and I must in honest rebuttal, do t

Craig, 1. Paul’s words “I am not…” is the main key that the prohibition is a local situation since his prohibition is not tied to any law instituted in the OT. Since God’s laws are always clear, alwa

I have read Payne’s book and I think there are some misunderstanding about his arguments he[re. 1](logos4:///Bible/Re 1). Payne says that the present INDICATIVE form of “I am not permitting” is what

Pinklight, I think people often keep and defend traditions that agree with their personal desires, like in this case, for male power and privilege in a world that is shifting from male-dominance to f

#67 Kristen, You said: > Cheryl, I like your view; I really do. I just wish there were some way for me to get around what seems to me to be a real fact about this passage: that the context of this

Craig, You also said: > 4 I know both egals and comps who can see the force of Cheryl’s argument from v15, and yet they still have difficulty accepting that v11,12 are speaking of particular indivi

Cheryl, My apologies – I simply felt that the length & formatting of the discussion made it potentially cumbersome to put here as a comment – but per your request here is the cut and paste. [A Paga

NN, Your main confusion appears to be in your insistence that Christ as a “being” without identifying that He has two natures. > 1) Would you agree that the being called Jesus existed in eternity p

Pinklight (102), “‘They also break the first of the 10 commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Compism is men’s shrine to themselves, and they bow down to the god of husband authority

For those who are interested in my answers. #50 “Patrick” writes: > I agree with most of this, the singular does not necessitate a specific singular woman. I agree the singular needs to be noted, y

An excellent critique of those who misuse the Scriptures to justify male dominance, and to unjustly “keep women in their proper place,” denying their equal status as members of God’s household and as

Thanks, dear folks for adding good thoughts while I was not able to be here! I have been so incredibly busy the last while that something had to give and the blog just couldn’t have my attention. I wi

Hi Cheryl, As I read your post, and the subsequent comments I was disappointed to find that no one mentioned the scripture in Genesis that speaks directly to Father God/Jehovah’s gender/lack there o

Hi allennelson4, You said: I’m saying you can break it down like this, “work for the food that endures to eternal life which I will give to you” That’s connected. It is connected, but it isn’t connect

Benjamin, I will go back to your first post. My question was “Can you show a single Scripture that shows a God-hater is given to Jesus?” You gave [Ephesians 2:1-10](logos4:///Bible/Eph 2.1-10), and th

Continuing on from our conversation on the other thread: https://mmoutreach.org/tg/jesus-draws-all/#comments It seems that you are engaging in circular reasoning. If we can find non-Jewish believers w

Peter, You wrote: The crux of our impasse is that it seems to me that you want to consider that passages that show the role of the Father – as in the case of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart, and insist

Peter, I see that you have replied again while I was finishing my response. I don’t know how much more I can respond tonight and I have a very busy week ahead of me as I let things slide while I was t

From the beginning of our discussion, we both agreed that we enjoy irenic discussion the best. If you look back to the original comments, you will see that you were the first one to “take the gloves”

Peter, Your case as presented is that in [John 6](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6) the term “coming” is a physical coming that means a physical following Jesus so that those people whom Jesus is talking about in

Peter, You presented the context of [John 6:37](logos4:///Bible/Jn 6.37) as the words of Jesus at the end of John. You wrote: Also, in verses 65-67, it is interesting to notice that COMING is juxtapos

Peter, I have walked through your case and find no evidence that the actions of the crowd define the meaning of the words of Jesus to be a physical looking at, a physical following. You wrote: It is m

Hi Cheryl, thanks for responding. Here are answers to your specific questions: //He is not praying for just “these alone” (the disciples) but also for those who believe (present tense) because of thei

Peter, You wrote: If He is still alive when they also begin to follow Him, it seems that He would be caring for them as well. I would just say that they are not the primary subjects in view in the pra

Peter, you said: So, if “driving away” can be said to a physical, earthly rejection of anyone who would try to follow him – with wrong motivation, it takes on a different nuance than does the judgemen

Hi Cheryl. Thanks you so much for your comments. It seems like the crux of our where we disagree distills down to verse 39. In the context of the entire passage, my reading doesn’t cause any strain on

Hi Peter, You wrote: I am not sure if I hit a nerve with you, but the conversation is becoming slightly less than irenic, and I think it is best to leave it before it becomes personal. Thanks for the

Peter, I see that you have not answered yet on my response to point #1. You must still be considering my challenge to think outside the box. I will answer point #2 as it is similar to point #1. We can

Peter, you are a LONG way from home! You wrote: IF you are right about John the Baptist’s status as an unbeliever, then you have a strong case. I appreciate you saying this. If each point I made is va

Peter, you wrote about [John 17:12](logos4:///Bible/Jn 17.12) In this verse, looking at the words of the text, Judas is among the “them” group. Of the members of this group, Judas is the one that was

That is illogical. A person could say a similar statement this way: All the children had ice cream except for little Marcie as Marcie only likes cake. Marcie is one of the children, but is she a part

My last class is finished and it has been a very intense time. Peter, I think that we are going to have to work on the top issues first. The issue we have discussed is about [John 6:37](logos4:///Bibl

Hi everyone, Curious as to whom to believe – egalitarians or complementarists – I begun a research four years ago. I found that despite all the fancy rhetoric and emotional appeals, modern complemen

Cheryl, I listened to the debate earlier today while driving and I was absolutely appalled at Matt’s behavior towards you. In spite of his adamant disagreement with your biblical egalitarianism, such

Hello all. As I said to Cheryl personally, I was not insulted in any way in our ongoing conversation. I was just frustrated and needed to walk away for a while. It was just the male in me. LOL. > So

CLC This is how I’m seeing it now. I do reserve the right to be wrong. I’ve changed my mind a few times after I knew I really knew it all. ;o) We are warned that some will preach another Jesus.