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

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, 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

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

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, 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

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: > 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: > 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

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

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

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

#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

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

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

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

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, 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

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 ‘

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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: > 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: > 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

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

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

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

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

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: > 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

#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,

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: > 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

#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

#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

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

> 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

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

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 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 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: > 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

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.

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

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 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: > 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: > 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:

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

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

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

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, 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

#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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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

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

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

@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

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

#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.

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

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

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

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

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

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: > 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

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, > 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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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

#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

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, 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, 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 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

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

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

@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

…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

#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

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

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

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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 😉

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

#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

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