Please welcome Diane Sellner

February 28, 2008 — 228 Comments

**October 2008 addition Note: A public statement regarding Diane Sellner’s role in the public attacks against me is at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/06/public-statement-regarding-matt-slick Although I welcomed Diane Sellner to discuss the issue of women in ministry in a charitable fashion, she has taken secondary doctrinal differences and made it a personal issue by attacking me personally.  She has called me all kinds of abusive names on the CARM discussion boards where she has been given free reign to break every one of the CARM rules as she has taken liberties as the Vice-President of CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).  In addition Diane has also purchased my name on the internet to spread lies and slander against me personally calling me an enemy of the church all of this with the full knowledge of her boss the President of CARM.   (**update as of Dec. 2009 – Diane Sellner has finally released my personal name as she did not renew the purchases of my name as an internet web site. Praise God for all those who were vocal about her abusive attacks against me as a fellow Christian. The public outcry apparently prompted her to finally withdraw from using my own name against me online.**)  The issue is discussed here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/21/women-ministry-sins/ I have since found out that Diane Sellner has done this same thing before to others.  My heart goes out to all those who have been wounded by this type of “apologetics”.  This is not the Way of the Master.  Those who have come in contact with her when she is “ministering” on the CARM discussion boards in this same manner, will understand why I am no longer giving her a warm welcome here on my blog.  I caution people not to respond in kind but to pray for Diane Sellner that God will grant her repentance.  What is impossible with man is possible with God.  The original article below was written in February of 2008.

Breaking news first!!! The radio station that sells air time to Matt Slick’s Faith and Reason radio show has confirmed the dates and times of the public airing of my 4 DVD series “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” This is free air time because of the misrepresentation of my view by Matt Slick. My family radio station in Boise, Idaho has been gracious enough to give me air time to allow my view to be heard without misrepresentation. Here are the air times in Boise Idaho – all are Mountain time. The station is presenting the DVDs on BOTH their AM and FM stations, praise the Lord!

You can listen live to the audio from my 4 DVD set at the following link. The listen button is at the top right hand side and it will allow you to pick the radio station that you want to listen to for the times listed below. The link is http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php Remember the times are Mountain Time and if you are listening at Eastern time you need to add two hours so instead of 12 noon it will be 2 pm and instead of 4 pm it will be 6 pm.

KBXL 94.1 FM

  • Saturday March 8, 2008 at 12 noon – segment one
  • Saturday March 15, 2008 at 12 noon – segment two
  • Saturday March 22, 2008 at 12 noon – segment three
  • Saturday March 29, 2008 at 12 noon – segment four

KSPD 790 AM

  • Saturday March 8, 2008 at 4 pm – segment one
  • Saturday March 15, 2008 at 4 pm – segment two
  • Saturday March 22, 2008 at 4 pm – segment three
  • Saturday March 29, 2008 at 4 pm – segment four

My next post has been delayed because of my work on the Trinity DVD, however I have been advised that Diane Sellner from CARM thinks that she has an answer to 1 Timothy 2:15, regarding who is the “she” and who are the “they” that will disprove my exegesis and also a proof that the animals were not created after Adam, disproving my exegesis that Adam saw some of God’s acts of creation.

I welcome Diane trying to answer me. I have created this post so that it will be a safe place for her to come and share with us her answers. Now I know that some of you have been hurt by Diane’s harsh attitude on CARM, but I ask that you refrain from any unkind or unChristian attitude towards her on this post. While I do not agree with Diane’s public attitude towards others, I do not want her to find this kind of attitude on this post. This is an opportunity for any of you who have been hurt to show her that a Christian attitude is alive and well on this blog. I have given Diane an invitation to post her answers here so that it will be a safe environment for both of us.

Now I know that Diane may not feel safe in the beginning because she is used to only being around strong complementarians who support her strong critical “style”. But this safe environment may be just what Diane needs to get outside the environment that surrounds CARM. Please welcome Diane, remember that I will personally put your posts under moderation if there is any kind of personal attack or unChrist-like behavior.

If you are a Christian, then Jesus lives in you. The true test is not how you treat others when they treat you well, but how you treat others who have been less than kind to you. This is the safe environment that I welcome Diane to. Diane, let’s discuss your “correction” and I challenge you to show me where I am wrong. Then be prepared for a very strong challenge. The world is watching, Diane. You said this on CARM’s discussion board didn’t you? I am ready and willing to “debate” this issue with you in a respectful dialog-kind of way. Diane, jump on in, the water’s fine and there are no “sharks” in this water.

Cheryl

Posts

228 responses to Please welcome Diane Sellner

  1. I welcome you Diane. :)
    I am looking forward to a respectful discussion. We could all learn from eachother when we listen and have respect. Surely every member of the body of Christ, you and me has something to give! So we can all benefit from eachother.

    Many Blessings

  2. Great! I just want to say that you are more than welcome Diane. And I look forward to see your interpretation of scripture. May Christ Jesus bless you richly!

  3. Uh… my calendar shows those radio broadcast dates to be Sundays. Wazzup with that?

  4. Paula,
    Hmmm…you are right. I will fix the dates. I was told Saturday and the dates are the ones given me. I am pretty sure it should be Saturday and I have an email in to clarify the wrong dates. I will fix the dates in advance and if it turns out that it should be Sunday and not Saturday as I was told, I will post that correction. However I think it is just a matter of wrong dates because I was specifically told it would be Saturdays.

  5. Hello Diane….. you don’t know me nor I you, but I welcome you here to say whatever is on your mind. You will be received graciously even if disagreed with.

  6. Diane Sellner from CARM thinks that she has … a proof that the animals were not created after Adam, disproving my exegesis that Adam saw some of God’s acts of creation.

    OK, you lost me…
    How is that a challenge?
    Proof that the animals were not created after Adam:
    Genesis 1:20-28
    “Then God said…” is repeated throughout Genesis 1 and the sequence of creation is listed in chronological order “and it was evening and it was morning the first, second, third… day”. Mankind is last.

  7. Hi Charis,
    I guess you haven’t seen the proof from my DVD series yet. The Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics book by Robert D. Bergen proves that the precise Hebrew grammar in Genesis 2 shows that there were animals also created after Adam – a kind of “second act” of creation. Just as God created mankind in “two acts” with the male created first and then the female created later from his own body, so the grammar from Genesis 2 shows a sequential account of animals and birds created after Adam was created. The Garden of Eden is also created after Adam was created.

    What education did Adam have in seeing the Creator forming the creation? We know for sure that Adam had evough evidence to know that God was the only one who could be God and Adam was not deceived. There is more information on this blog – just check under Genesis. Or better yet see the entire exegesis in context with the Hebrew evidence brought out in my DVD set. I just got another email this morning from a very large Christian organization in the US who specializes in teaching the bible and the reviewer said about my DVD set “I thought it was very thought provoking. You built your case well for each Scripture that deals with the most controversial passages that are used today…There are many facts that you carefully brought to light that I will consider in my continued study of this topic and in my communication with others.”

  8. In general, Christians have been led astray by translations for centuries. Some are better than others, but even the newer ones deliberately change things like “the man was driven out of the garden” to “they were driven out”, “formed” to “had formed”, “authority over her own head” to “a sign of authority over her head”, etc. No major, blatant alterations but subtle ones that have big influence.

  9. Paula,
    Yes you are right in that no translation is perfect but some are better than others. This is why I make a habit of reading with an interlinear translation and looking each word up to understand the nuances that the English may miss with a one Greek word to one English word translation.

    By the way I just heard back from the radio station and the DVDs will be shown on Saturday so the correction I made is now correct. Yeah!

  10. Well everyone apparently Diane Sellner has decided not to join us. This is what she publicly posted regarding not even trying to reason through the issue with me:

    “Here is the way it is, we will pray for you, for you to repent and for God to open your heart and mind…I suggest you take a good hard look at your blog, read it over and over and see if find it is all Christian in behavior….I think this has come to an end to any attempts to reason with you on this forum, but it is not over yet, there will be more LATER…..As for your Trinitarian ideas, may God have mercy on you….I have seen bits and pieces of your opinions and see, it is about causing further division………..”

    It is interesting that Diane Sellner would not venture off of the discussion board that she rules over. I made it as safe as I could here on this blog. Perhaps that was the problem. I made it too safe and she wouldn’t be able to control me here or attack me as a heretic or she would be seen to be unkind and judgmental. Yet I find it very odd that she makes claims that I am the one unwilling to be cross examined. That is simply not true. I have been more than open and I was the one who wanted a third radio dialog with Matt and he is the one who would not engage. I was the one who created a safe place for us to talk and Diane is the one has refused to cooperate.

    I am very sad that Diane Sellner would not come to this safe place. It would have been a great discussion.

    Diane I know you are reading this. You have made it very clear that either you or your “people” regularly visit my site and read the posts and the comments. I ask you to reconsider the offer. When you hide and do not come out unless you can control people by threatening them with removal from the discussion board, you create an environment that is not healthy. A healthy environment is one that has accountability. A healthy environment is not one where gracious dissenters are removed and professionals mockers are encouraged.

    You have said that my view of the Trinity requires that “God have mercy” on me. May I suggest, Diane that the Trinity is a doctrine that elevates Jesus and does not make him less in any way than the Father. There is no such thing as too high an opinion of Jesus or giving him too much glory or too much praise. The truth of the Trinity is not an elevated Father and a Son who will never grow up to be equal in will to his Father. There is only one will in the Trinity not a ruler who takes authority over one who never uses his own will. When you say that my elevation of Jesus to his proper place in the Godhead should make God have mercy on me, you prove that that you are the one who is divisive. Diane, I beg you to repent and turn from this ungodly division.

    When you are willing to talk here, I will be too.

  11. Cheryl, am I just reading this wrong, or has Diane threatened you:

    “I think this has come to an end to any attempts to reason with you on this forum, but it is not over yet, there will be more LATER.”

    I find that very, very troubling. Do you know what she’s claiming there will be more of later?

    If you don’t wish to respond, I understand. I’m simply concerned for you.

  12. Hi Psalmist,
    Thank you so much for your concern! It isn’t anything to worry about. Matt has said that he is going to deal with me and all my arguments on the women’s issue and he will post them on his web site. I am sorry, but I am not holding my breath. I have already seen his arguments because he speaks through Diane and there is nothing there of any value that isn’t easily refuted.

    So writing against my arguments is how they are doing to deal with me later. Also because my DVDs are being premiered on the station that hosts Matt’s own program, they are very mad that I am getting free air time without interruption and without their being able to say what a heretic I am. Diane has hinted that they might just buy some extra air time and try to expose my “false” teaching. I am not holding my breath. In fact it will probably just bring more people around to see what the fuss is all about and it will backfire once again on them by giving more exposure to my DVDs. So I say, go ahead, make my day!

    To be truthful I find it somewhat amusing. Matt hates the fact that I teach with authority and so he has to call me names and say bad things about me on his radio show. But all he has done by misrepresenting me and calling me names is created a way for me to get the message out because of his own actions. So what was meant for evil (for name calling and misrepresentation of a person’s view is certainly evil), God meant for good. What a good God we serve, eh?

    So now Matt appears to be afraid even to mention my name anymore on his radio program. I am now “some people” teach… and Diane is doing the same thing by calling me something like “that person”. I don’t know what they are afraid of. Okay, I do know what they are afraid of. They don’t know what I will do next! I am a persistent person. I didn’t get to be an apologist reaching many people in the cults for Christ because I give up easily. I know that bugs them, but hey, an apologist has to do what she has to do. You know if they just did this debating thing in a Christian way and without all the attacks, it could be fun for all of us and a growing and maturing time and they might actually learn something.

    So thanks for the concern Psalmist! I love you for that!!

  13. You know, this is the second time this week that I’ve read the “argument” that egalitarians (or a specific egalitarian) “can’t be reasoned with.”

    It would be a refreshing change if the people who make such a charge, were to try true reasoning, instead of stringing together various logical fallacies and just plain nasty name-calling and then “giving up” because we keep insisting on the truth. You’re so right, that if people remembered and reflected the Name they bear when they debate, it could be fruitful instead of destructive.

    I am glad you’re OK with the “later” thing and that I was just being hyper-concerned about the comment. Thanks for addressing my concern and for understanding my motivation in asking.

    Oh, and thanks for being you! What a treasure you are!

  14. Psalmist,
    What warm words! Thank you a BIG bunch. I needed that today. I can only be a “heretic” so long before I need a warm fuzzy. :)

  15. Glad to, Cheryl.

    And I know where you’re coming from, at least a little bit. I finally had my fill of being accused of being a “she-wolf” and a “false teacher” today.

    Please, if you do grow weary in doing good, Cheryl, just rest up a bit and come back soon. The body of Christ needs what you alone can offer.

  16. Alot in the last few posts make me feel really good guys, er gals, the concern, love, and care that you have for eachother that showed through them.
    Syber hugs! You both made my night!!!

  17. Cheryl,

    I’m surprised they don’t call you the heretic whore, as Phillip of Spain once referred to Elizabeth the first, in the dim past.

    Maybe Slick is building his own armada of sorts (metaphor) to sail against you, who knows?

    Their’s will be a legacy of tyranny and despotism; yours will be remembered as one of freedom and dignity for all.

  18. What is it with those people? Why are they so obsessed with silencing and defaming fellow believers over “roles” and “order” they themselves made up? What kind of Christians make it the focus of their “ministry” (CBMW for example) to beat half the Body of Christ into submission to the other half? Why are they so terrified of equality?

    Pride. Control. Domination. Preeminence.

    Has anyone told them that these are **not** the fruit of the Spirit??

  19. Do you see a pattern here? Diane will not come here. Kamilla will not come here. These women would do well to remember Romans 8:31, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” If they really do speak God’s truth, and their guiding motive is to share that truth in love, they have nothing to fear from coming here. Funny how when you ask people to become accountable for their words and behavior, they scurry away to their own little kingdoms where they can continue to disrespect others without having to take responsibility for it.

  20. Light,
    The next thing that strikes me as important is the word “kingdom”. When we are working for the King and his Kingdom, we will be submissive to his fellow servants and we will speak with conviction and love. When we are building our own “kingdom” we are defensive and angry at anyone who might challenge our authority and our power. If is our own “kingdom” we are working for there will be a “kingdom” to protect and keep from having others usurping our “rights”. This is what makes these people so cranky and vindictive and they have very little ability to trust any other brother or sister in Christ who does not believe as they do. It threatens their “kingdom”. If I could say a word to them, I would tell them to that they cannot serve in two kingdoms. Either you serve Christ and give up your right to be the boss or you stay miserable defending your own kingdom. I choose to submit to Christ and to his body. I am very, very happy in that position.

  21. Ever notice that those who chide the loudest that egalitarians shouldn’t “demand rights,” are sure not willing to set aside their own “rights” and model submission of any kind?

    Do as they say, not as they do.

  22. Cheryl,

    I’m getting ready to speak at Baylor University in Waco Texas next week on being a Servant-leader. [This is at a banquet honoring the leaders of all student organizations on campus.] I have chosen to begin with 11 Corinthians 10:12 where Paul was defending his apostleship against severe critics. [Not making your position as a teacher or mine or anyones’ synonomous with his by saying this..just gleaning a principle for real leaders which you, I, and those student leaders are to be.]

    It’s interesting to see how Paul says they [his critics] were comparing [measuring KJV] themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves which left him [Paul] woefully lacking in their minds because he didn’t measure up to what they were. Paul simply said they were foolish to do this.

    I’m going to bring out to those student leaders how such comparisons made of each other will generally develop competition or rivalry between people. [Those critics of Paul were demonstrating that quite well.] And, finally, such competition can lead to a conspiracy formed, by which I mean a treacherous plan formulated in secret, to bring down his apostleship. That undermines their genuineness as a leader and reveals them to be fools. Thus, a phony leader, which his critics were, can be spotted, I believe.

    [I’ll finish with a description of a real servant-leader which Jesus was/is.. but is far too long to give as a comment and would hijack your post. :)]

    Now, my point in writing this comment is NOT to accuse your critics of being foolish…I’ll leave that knowledge in better hands than mine…but to thank YOU for being a real teacher as evidenced by the lack of any of the stuff mentioned above being in your writings and ministry. You are a true biblical leader to the Body of Christ if I understand such things at all, and I do wish to..”thank you.”

  23. ^^^^ + one gazillion (internet slang for “amen!”)

    I think rivalry is the word. We are seen as rivals, as threats, as enemies, instead of spiritual siblings trying to make sure we know, comprehend, and obey God’s will in all things.

  24. Pastor Paul,
    I have greatly appreciated and benefited from your writing on servant leadership. You have clearly written about biblical leadership and how it differs from what many see as biblical – an authoritarian “style” of leadership. I am very humbled by your affirmation as it comes from someone I highly respect. Thank you!

    Your points are well taken. There are those who set themselves up as the standard and anyone who does not measure up to that standard is rejected. In the past this has included rejecting those who are not of the “correct” race, those who who do not have the “correct” level of education or the “correct” social status or the “correct” gender. This only brings division and competition and God’s choice and His gifting are set aside in favor of a man-made standard. How God must grieve that the church more often than not does nothing to set things right. The ones who are willing to stand in the gap and be counted even if it means going against the flow are indeed the true leaders that God has gifted to his church.

    Jesus truly is the best example of leadership that we could ever have set before us. He never forced himself on people. A case in point is that Jesus reasoned with Peter when Peter refused to let Jesus wash his feet, and it was reasoning and not force that allowed Peter to receive from Jesus. This is respectful and loving and it is the “Way of the Master”.

  25. Diane just posted this message on CARM’s discussion board. In part it reads:

    “Keep it up Cheryl, eventually it won’t just be Canada where your ministry is removed from the web.”

    Diane’s words are a threat to me personally because I used her full name. Diane has chosen to remain hidden behind the discussion board of CARM and she has refused to come to a public blog where her words will be read by the world. Diane prefers to attack Christians without wanting others knowing what her full name is and she appears to be fearful of accountability. Diane also wishes that we would go away and that won’t happen. Our ministry has not been removed from the web as Diane has suggested. This type of attitude is mind-boggling to say the least. **additional info between the stars is added September 12, 2008. Diane Sellner’s threats against me were made evident in July 2008 as she purchased in July three web names that are my personal name in order to “take me down” in ministry by posting nasty and abusive accusations against me. This information was released to us on August 22, 2008 in Idaho by the boss of her part time ministry job who revealed her plan to try to personally destroy me. We have the revelation given by her boss on audio tape. Her boss and the ministry that she works for are fully aware of what she is doing and are doing nothing to stop the abuse but rather have been supplying her with material to continue the abuse.**

    Diane’s threats are not new. She threatened a lawsuit when she was posting on wikipedia (her threat was toward an atheist site) and they banned her because they do not allow anyone to stay as an editor on wikipedia where there is a threat of a law suit towards anyone. The things that she did on wikipedia are public knowledge still in their archives. I recommend everyone read what has been said about Diane Sellner.

    While I think that CARM has done a lot of good for a lot of people, I believe that both Matt and Diane need to be called to account for their attacks on other Christians especially their egalitarian brothers and sisters in Christ. We are to warn a divisive brother or sister in Christ. Then we are to give our attention to those who follow “The Way of the Master” and ignore those who beat up the sheep.

  26. What an ignorant statement on Diane’s part. Does she not realize that it isn’t your personal views on egalitarianism that Canada hates, but all Christianity? Does she think she’d be immune from persecution if she went there and said something “persuasive”? This is nothing but the taunt of a childish bully. It’s your work on the cults the Canadian guvmint hates; it had nothing at all to do with your teachings on women in the church. And she implicitly included the MacGregors in her taunt as well.

    Luke 12
    42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

    Ripping at the sheep is a serious crime, and they will be held accountable.

  27. Paula,
    I completely agree. Unfortunately it appears that Diane cares little about ministries that hold to the truth of God’s word and fight for the souls of those stuck in the cults if they are egalitarian. She only cares that ministries either agree with CARM regarding their complementarian view or she can wish them gone. This is how she has treated me. This speaks loud and clear for all to see.

  28. Here is part of Matt Slick’s “answer” to 1 Timothy 2:12 being a woman:

    “(6). 1 Tim. 2:11-13 is about a particular wife, not about women in general.
    “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
    12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,
    but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve,”
    (1 Tim. 2:11-13).
    1. This is conjecture. If such a position is offered, it must be supported by Scripture, not by opinion.
    2. If this scenario is so, then it would mean she was not have authority over her husband. So, when she’s in the pulpit teaching the authoritative Word of God, doesn’t it mean that her husband would have to leave so that she’s not teaching them? This would be ridiculous.
    (7). 1 Tim. 2:11-13 is about a particular woman who was teaching error to her husband.
    1. The term “a woman” is used elsewhere in scripture, sometimes of individual women and other times of women in general.
    But, there is a related passage that deals with “a woman” and authority/headship. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:3-6, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.”
    Are we to conclude that “a woman” is only a particular woman who is to keep her head covered? Or is Paul speaking to women generically by referencing “a woman”? Notice that in verse 5 Paul says “every woman who has her head uncovered…” then he speaks about “a woman.” We can see that “a woman” is in reference to every woman. “

    Answer to Matt Slick’s #1: The position has been supported by scripture and not by opinion. The grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15 “she” AND “they” forces us to find a single “she” and plural “they” in the passage to attach this to. The only single “she” that is alive at the time of writing and can do things about her salvation is “a woman” from verse 12. Therefore “a woman” must be a single woman or there is no single “she” AND plural “they” to attach themselves to and the passage then becomes nonsensical.

    Answer to Matt Slick’s #2: This question does not make sense because it assumes that 1) Paul is talking about normal “authority” when Paul didn’t use a normal word for authority and 2) that scripture allows the authority of one person over another in the body of Christ. The fact that Paul was not creating a universal prohibition has been amply refute throughout this blog.

    Answer to Matt Slick’s last point: I agree completely that “a woman” can mean generic woman or it can mean a particular woman. The point is that we need to check from the context to see what it means and not assume that it means generic woman ( or all women). In 1 Timothy 2:15 we have a specific grammar problem that cannot be fixed unless we can see that “she” is not the same as “they” and we have a “she” to refer back to. This is the biblical proof that Paul is referring to a specific woman and Matt Slick has not refuted my exegesis at all by quoting from 1 Cor. 11:3 since I am not saying that everytime “a woman” is found in scripture it is a specific woman. The context is key.

    I find it interesting that since Matt Slick has had my DVDs since 2006 and it is now 2008 that this is the best he can come up with to refute my view. He has not refuted the view at all by showing a place where Paul references generic woman. The question is 1 Timothy 2:15 in reference to 1 Timothy 2:12. That is what Matt needs to answer and what he has failed to do up to this point.

  29. Why would Diane care if you used her name in this blog? She’s posted it up on CARM for the world to see.

    http://www.carm.org/boards/evang_statement.htm

  30. ItsMe,

    Thank you for posting that link! Now just in case it gets taken down, let me quote the link from what has been up for apparently a long time and still up March 3, 2008:

    Last Things

    * Should a disagreement degrade into a full-on debate, it will be moved to the EVAN2 forum where debate is permitted. We advise all parties involved to display the strength of character and pack up their debate and carry it to the appropriate forum. Do not debate on the EVAN forum; debate is permitted only on EVAN2.
    * From time to time, expert advice may be needed to address questions about the Bible, practice, or general theology. Try using CARM as a resource for this. If it does not, then questions would be well answered by Pastor John Stevenson over on our Bible Study Forum.
    * Questions regarding CARM’s position or policy on any issue should be directed towards the Administrator Diane Sellner, who will discuss the issues with Eric Landstrom and Matt Slick.
    * Direct your requests to Diane (elfcarm@yahoo.com) and give her a day or two to respond.
    * Make certain that you include your user name in your request, email Diane at elfcarm@yahoo.com

  31. I’d like to address Slick’s points as well.

    6-1. Slick must meet his own standard here. There is nothing in the order of creation that mentions authority. So in referring to it, how would any reader of that passage in the OT think “Yeah, if I want to prove authority of man over woman, the first place I go is the order of creation”? What we see there is that man is created last. If order means anything, it is that the last is the greatest. If anyone should be chosen over the other, by that example it should be woman over man. So what is it in that Genesis account that Paul is using to make a point?

    The only possible answer is chronology; that’s all there is in the Genesis passage he refers to. The first two chapters of Genesis are a step-by-step description of creation, the laying out of a sequence of events. So for Paul to refer to this passage is for him to make a point about sequence, not authority. And since he connects “I don’t allow a woman to teach or authentein a man” with sequence, there is no precedent for Slick to assign a novel meaning to this rare word. Paul talked about authority elsewhere but used more common words like “exousia” (for example, when saying women have power over their own heads in 1 Cor. 11:10). So it is Slick’s novel meaning for authentein that is conjecture.

    6-2. Since authentein does not mean authority and has something to do with sequence, there is something here that Paul is saying is “out of order”. There are two possible ways to view this:
    That she has begun to teach without first having learned the truth. She is therefore teaching in ignorance and leading “a man” astray, whoever the man may be. Were she leading all the men astray, Paul would surely have treated this false teacher like all the others: “hand them over to Satan”, and restore them if they repent. Why is Paul treating this one differently, especially if he’s addressing all women who are leading all men astray? And why would he only write this universal law to Timothy? He repeated the gospel, our freedom in Christ, many important principles; why not this one?
    That she is teaching the Gnostic myth of man coming from woman in creation. This would most definitely make sense of Paul’s reference to creation order. Such a belief was common in the area, and Paul was writing to Timothy to combat false teachings specifically. She would therefore still be unsaved, hence Paul’s statement that “she will be saved if they…”.

    7-1. Why does Slick insert “a” in 1 Cor. 11:3? It literally reads,

    But I wish you to know that of every andros the head the Christ is, but head of [no article here] woman the aner, and head of Christ, God.

    The phrase “every man” tells us that this is about all men having Christ as their “head”. But note that this statement is contrasted by the next: “but head of…”. This sentence also started with a contrast. Paul first mentioned their faithfulness to what he had previously taught them, and then said “But I want you to know…”. So he is correcting something in this section, drawing a contrast between his “traditions” and theirs. And of course he then covers (pun intended) the issue of head coverings, which he ends with the words, “we have no such custom”. As was Paul’s habit, he likely was using a play on words. He first introduced the word “head” regarding men and women, then discussed “head coverings”. Nice seque from one topic to another.

    So Slick’s whole reason for quoting this passage is based upon an article (“a”) that he inserted into the text. But it is easy to misunderstand the Greek on the basis of the presence or absence of definite articles. The fact is, he can’t insist that such articles negate Cheryl’s argument. Context is much more important. And it is the whole context, down to “she will… if they”, that determines who Paul is talking about. This is very basic exegesis, something Slick should know better.

    I should also note as an aside that I accept the ISV translation for 1 Cor. 11:11-16:

    In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man of woman. For as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But everything comes from God. Decide for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Nature itself teaches you neither that
    it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair nor that hair is a
    woman’s glory
    , for hair is given as a substitute for coverings. But
    if anyone wants to argue about this, we do not have any custom
    like this, nor do any of God’s churches.

    There is also a parallel here in Paul’s use of the word typically translated “or”, that is a strong objection to whatever it follows. The parallel is with 1 Cor. 14:26, where Paul says, “What!? Did the word of God originate with you? What!? Are you the only people it has reached?” after he quotes the part from the Talmud about women remaining silent in the meetings. He uses that same word here: “… pray to God with her head uncovered? WHAT!? Not even nature itself teaches you that long hair dishonors a man, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory!”

  32. OOPS! That should be the ISV, not the ESV!

  33. Paula,
    Lots of great points! I corrected the translation to ISV for ya.

    Regarding the order of creation in 1 Tim. 2:13, you are right in that Paul is making appeal to the order of creation as a reason for his prohibition, but it also goes further than that. Paul ties all of this together so that it comes as a unit.

    So here is the complete connection: Paul ties in the prohibition of “a woman” from teaching or authentein “a man” and this is tied into:
    1) order of creation which is tied into:
    2) the first one created who was not deceived which is tied into:
    3) the second one created who was deceived which is tied into:
    4) that “she” will be saved…if “they”

    The clear picture is that these are not universal facts about men and women. Women’s salvation is not tied into things that all women do or what all women and men do. Not all women are deceived and not all men are not deceived.

    Matt makes things very simplistic but the “simple” contradicts the entire package. You cannot make 1 Timothy 2:12 stand on its own. It is inextricably tied into verses 11-15 and an explanation that doesn’t make sense of it all, isn’t the “simple” sense of the passage.

  34. Thanks, Cheryl.

    Yes, the order is likely referring to both the problem of Gnosticism and also the importance of being an eyewitness to God’s creative power.

  35. Hi Cheryl,

    Some advice, I’d stay away from CARM. That place is a spiritual graveyard and Diane is the grim reaper. Some can cheat spirtual death over there but many have succumbed.

    You’ve been vindicated now. What Matt Slick intended for evil by misrepresenting and maligning you God intended it for good. God found a way for your voice to be heard and now March 8-29 people will really know where you stand.

    So, as bad as your experiences with Slick n’ Sellner have been,… God has blessed you in the end. And that’s Divine closure. This is just an awesome witness how God always cares for those who loyally serve Him. And this should be a good lesson for Slick n’ Sellner that God always vindicates His people.

    God Bless you and I can’t wait to hear your DVD’s on the radio!

    ItsMe

  36. ItsMe,
    Thanks a bunch for your concern. I think I get what you mean and why you are concerned. Since Diane has come to the conclusion that the grammar in 1 Timothy 2:15 that the Holy Spirit inspired appears to be is in error, (although she claims that the Greek grammar rules have changed since the original Greek was written) there is really no further need to dialog scripturally on CARM. I will have a thing or two to say about Diane’s charge against me but other than that the truth lovers over there will have to go elsewhere to get the truth.

  37. Now for some of Diane’s reasoning that was given to me as the “proof” that my exegesis on 1 Timothy 2 is wrong. Diane was arguing that the “she” and the “they” from 1 Timothy 2:15 were the same and that it was proper grammar to call “a woman” (singular) as “they” (plural). Diane gave this verse to me as proof:

    Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    Here she said, see there is “a woman” who is called “they”. This one is so obvious. Let me see if I can find the first person who can pick out why “a woman” is not called “they” in the verse Diane quoted.

  38. Ha ha, well we men get of easily :)

  39. “A man” and “a woman” are clearly “they”, not all men and women. It is a hypothetical situation involving one man and one woman. Otherwise Diane has to take this to mean only group adultery is wrong!

    Which, if we take this ridiculous conclusion back to the NT, means women are only forbidden to teach men if they do it as a group!

    Woa, could we have some fun with that.

  40. Paula,
    You get the prize. I guess that is because you are the early bird this morning before anyone else is awake!

    What Diane was trying to do is show me from scripture that “a woman” singular can be called “they” plural and this is not possible. “A woman” as generic woman is always referred to as “she” not “they”. So we could say if “a woman” wants to marry, “she” will makes sure she knows how to cook. This is a generic statement and singular goes with singular. Greek, Hebrew, English they are all the same. You don’t say if “a woman” wants to marry “they” will make make sure… You would say it this way – if “women” want to marry, “they” will make sure….

    So in 1 Timothy 2:15 when Paul says “She will be saved…if they…” we can know for sure that “she” is not the exact same as “they”. Paul did not make a grammar mistake. Make said that “she” and “they” needed to do something to make sure that “she” would be saved. More on this later.

  41. While a lot of Matt Slick’s writing on the cults and aberrant movements has been very helpful and has been a great service to the body of Christ, unfortunately his discussion board has been a source of personal attacks against those who do not believe as Matt and Diane do regarding the issue of women in ministry. This is unfortunate because it would have been an opportunity for Matt and his vice-president Diane to express grace, love and acceptance. It isn’t our agreements that show Jesus in us to the world. Even the world loves those who are in agreement with them and who are exactly the same as they are. It is in our disagreements that we have an opportunity to show our unity in Christ.

    I have invited Diane Sellner here to discuss the differences on the issue of women in ministry. CARM has made a stand on this secondary issue that is divisive by treating our differences not as an opportunity for real dialog, but as an opportunity for name-calling, abusive language and charges that this is an issue that impacts the gospel and thus an issue that should separate brethren.

    Diane said that she didn’t want to post here because I “moderated” the comments. The only time I have moderated the comments on this blog is was when a first time poster had posted abusive words and another poster who had been warned to stop attacking others had refused to do so. I put a note in the places that I had to edit out attacks telling why I was editing unlike Diane who has been known to edit people’s posts without comment about what she has done or why. I also have made it known that when I have invited a complementarian here to dialog, that I do not want them to be attacked. I want the issue to be the focus, not an attack on the person. I think that is fair and it provides a safe place to hear the opposing side while remaining united in our common faith in Jesus.

    Diane did not think this was “fair” and this is what she posted over at CARM:

    You said it, you posted it that it was “moderated”…I don’t post on websites that edit and “moderate” my words, but even if I did, would not post on your blog, not after your behaviors with the radio station since it speaks volumes of what you are about……

    You dear lady, have forced us to respond to your gossip here, something you have been doing for months in attacking our person. Part of what we are required to do is defend ourselves should there be any further legal pursuits by any persons, is to defend ourselves publically when we have been slandered or libeled by anyone. I am defending myself publically on this forum and will continue as long as you attack the person…..

    I will continue to do so.

    Normally, you would have been removed from our website for violation of our rules NUMEROUS times, but because of your accusations of people being afraid of you, unable to refute you, we have permitted you to stay in attacking our persons elsewhere, that is an actual violation of our rules AND attacking and commenting on our persons here or there. You have been doing so since Oct. on and off. You demand apologies when there is no cause since you were the person falsely accusing the other, came here accusing Matt and CARM of editing your words on podcasts (a lie), misrepresenting you, then attacking the moderators and administrators of CARM on your blog, violation of our rules and expect us then NOT to defend ourselves? Wrong, you attacked first on the radio station, you have continued to attack, insult, gossip and use ad hominem either here or on your blog and yes, we are entitled by law to defend ourselves against your gossip and that is exactly what we are doing..If you ar! e not going to follow the rules, then we are forced to defend ourselves here…..

    So I suggest that you either remove our names and your personal attacks against our moderation and admins from your trashy gossip column website blog, or expect that I will absolutely defend my person here each and every time you attack. We have handled the “real world” for many years here, have you? We have had death threats, absolute libel and joking about violence on our persons, attacks on our family members and yes, we will defend ourselves……

    Is this called “gossip?” No, we are defending ourselves on this forum, and will continue to do so. False teachers do not scare us, we expect it and will do what we have to do as Christians to defend our rights to speak freely and respond to those falsely accusing us…….

  42. This is my answer to Diane and what will be my last post on CARM:

    Quote Diane:
    You said it, you posted it that it was “moderated”

    Cheryl: Yes, you are right, I did say that I would moderate anyone out that would say any bad words about you. I said it was a safe place.

    Quote Diane:
    “since you were the person falsely accusing the other, came here accusing Matt and CARM of editing your words on podcasts (a lie), “

    Cheryl: I didn’t say that Matt edited my words. I thought his accusation was edited out (which would have been a good thing) but it wasn’t. I apologized for that and was happy to do so because that is what mature people do when they are wrong.

    Quote Diane:
    “Wrong, you attacked first on the radio station,”

    Cheryl: Really? Then it would be a good exercise to hear these terrible “attacks”. I have the audio posted on my blog. Anyone can find the audio files and listen for themselves and then judge whether you are telling the truth that I “attacked first on the radio station”. If you edit this out, you are hiding the evidence and you are guilty of covering up what you know to be true. Are you really honest, Diane? Or are you still running in fear, hiding and covering up anything that does not make you and Matt look good? People need to see the evidence of what you claim is an “attack”. Should be an eye-opener.

    So here you are, once again attacking my character and I challenge any one of your followers to listen to the audio files and see for themselves. It is also interesting that you appear to be implying that Matt is very tender and easily hurt by someone merely expressing a view different than his so that he could complain so often that he was “attacked” by soft words. It is amazing to hear the audios to see what it is that hurts Matt’s feelings so easily so that he goes away feeling attacked and that he must attack back. Quite amazing!

    Quote Diane:
    “we are entitled by law to defend ourselves against your gossip and that is exactly what we are doing.”

    Cheryl: Really? Then come on over to my blog and I will give you equal time to express your view if you feel that you have been so “harassed” by some imaginary “attack”. It is only fair isn’t it? That is what the radio station thought because they have a good sense of what is fair. I also offer for you to come and share your views on my blog.

    Quote Diane:
    “So I suggest that you either remove our names and your personal attacks against our moderation and admins from your trashy gossip column website blog, or expect that I will absolutely defend my person here each and every time you attack.”

    Cheryl: So are you really getting “attacked” the same way that Matt was “attacked” on his radio program? Fascinating reasoning.

    Quote Diane:
    We have handled the “real world” for many years here, have you? We have had death threats, absolute libel and joking about violence on our persons, attacks on our family members and yes, we will defend ourselves……

    Cheryl: Here is a little free wisdom. If you refrained from calling people “witches” and “liars” when they are just sharing their opinion and you refrained from calling people all other kinds of “lovely uplifting names”, perhaps you wouldn’t have so many people who apparently dislike you so much. That might have been a head’s up a few years ago for most people.

    Quote Diane:
    Is this called “gossip?” No, we are defending ourselves on this forum, and will continue to do so. False teachers do not scare us, we expect it and will do what we have to do as Christians to defend our rights to speak freely and respond to those falsely accusing us…….

    Cheryl: You are running scared, my friend, and you have been running scared for many years. It is such a shame when Christian brothers and sisters who don’t agree with you on these secondary issues are set up as ones that you need to “defend your rights” against. You are a “right fighter” instead of a “truth” fighter and it shows. The fact that you cannot even bring yourself to come to a blog that has been moderated to protect you from anyone who would say a word against you, shows how much fear there is. Where there is fear, there is no peace and you will have to keep fighting for your “rights” again and again against imaginary enemies and you will not find peace this way.

    It is time to let Jesus call you to account for the bitterness that is eating you up. Everyone is your enemy in your mind and everyone is out to get you. But if you hold the mirror up you will see that the real enemy is not out “there”. You are fighting everyone else to get what you think you deserve as your “right” but in this way you are following the one who is the hard master. It is not the true master who has the light burden.

    I will not be back here to post because it is unfruitful. You have posted that you are accepting that the grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15 is faulty and in error. When you come this far there is not much hope for dialog in this very unhealthy board that has you convinced that it is time to attribute error to the Holy Spirit rather than admit that you don’t have an answer. What a shame, Diane. I didn’t think you would go down that road.

    I will leave the invitation open for you to meet with me and dialog on my blog and I will still offer to make sure that no one will post any harsh comments to you. It may be one of the only safe places you can find outside this board.

    Take care and God bless,
    Cheryl Schatz

  43. She’d make a great politician. Or propaganda writer.

    Notice the repeating of “legal”. Doesn’t that speak volumes?

    CARM is notorious for doing exactly what Diane is whining about. They are known for hate, for slander/libel, for lies, for censorship, for division, for threats, for gossip, for attack…

    Whether their motive is fear or just plain hatred, their actions and words have shown to all the world what kind of people they are. I only hope that people will not see this brand of “Christianity” and think it has any relationship to Jesus or the Bible. Psalm 44: 13-14 says,

    You have made us a reproach to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us. You have made us a byword among the nations; the peoples shake their heads at us.

    While originally written as an appeal to God to restore Israel, I think it speaks also to how our own people make Christianity the most hated religion on earth. I’ve seen atheists reject Christianity because of the likes of CARM, and because of patriarchy. I shudder to think what God will say to the carmites on Judgment Day.

  44. For those of you who want to hear what terrible “attack” that I have been accused of that Diane says started the battle with Matt Slick, you will probably be fascinated to hear the evidence for yourself. Here is the post where you will find the audio for the first dialog with Matt Slick on his radio program Faith and Reason:

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/19/debate-audio-between-matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz/

    Here is a link to the post where you will find the second audio program with Matt Slick:

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/

    How anyone with a godly conscience could even consider that I started an “attack” on Matt Slick from these two radio conversations with Matt is beyond me. As far as I was concerned I was more than irenic and even went overboard to affirm that I was not coming on the program to attack him personally. I came on Matt’s radio show to discuss issues of our differences on the women’s issue because Matt had originally asked me on the program over a year before when he first watched my DVDs. I had declined Matt’s invitation at that time telling him that he was too abusive to those who disagreed with him, but he promised me that he would be very kind and would treat me fairly. So these two radio appearances started it all, and CARM has been attacking me personally since that time. It is now time to bring these attacks to an end by calling for accountability.

    If they would like to discuss things further, then I am here and I am not going anywhere. I am a reasonable person and I am willing to discuss publicly. I do ask that they do not do any name calling here as is Diane’s habit on CARM. I want this to be a place of respectful dialog.

    I hope this gives you all a little clue of the attacks that have come my way since September of 2007 when I took Matt up on his offer for a “friendly” dialog. It is a good thing that God has allowed me to keep my soft heart but he has given me a tough skin to take the abuse in order to defend my sisters in Christ who have been called into God’s service. If I get an arrow in the butt for helping just one sister in Christ find freedom to serve Christ as he has called her, then it has all been worth it!

  45. I am wondering why Diane finds the thought of being moderated so offensive when she herself is quite heavy handed with the moderation. And yet you, Cheryl, have proven again and again how restrained you are in moderating, not censoring ideas but requiring only that people speak with respect. Diane, I suggest you remove the plank from your eye.

  46. I got an email showing that Diane responded to my challenge on 1 Timothy 2:15.

    —Quote from Cheryl—
    1 Timothy 2:15 refutes you quite simply. If “she” is Eve then how can the tense be future? She will be delivered…
    —End Quote—

    Diane: …Here is how, the words concerning “trangression” “23 tn Grk *“has come to be in transgression”* (with an emphasis on the continuing consequences of that fall).”
    Because of Eve’s transgression there is a continuing judgement. It is future, continuing.
    Secondly, Eve’s deliverance as all of the OT was looking FORWARD to the cross, and looking forward to her being saved. Her childbearing was future, it was not her act of childbearing but her representing all women and the future deliverance through childbearing if maintaining in their roles as “wife” mothers…”

    Cheryl: I will post my response to Diane in my next comment. Diane gave several comments that I will post in separate comments so that each comment can be dealt with separately.

  47. I consider it an honor to respond to Diane in this forum.

    While I explained that 1 Timothy 2:15 was future tense and therefore couldn’t be about Eve, Diane is disputing this. She quotes from the NET bible notes that says that verse 14 “has come to be in transgression” (with an emphasis on the continuing consequence of the fall) shows that there is a “continuing judgment”.

    Diane is reading something into the account that is not there. While there is a continuing consequence of the fall, there is not an “continuing judgment” for Eve personally. Eve is dead and if there was a time of “continuing judgment” that is over for her personally.

    Verse 15 has two parts that are very important. First of all it says “she will be saved…” This is future tense but it is not by itself. The text also says “IF”. What is her salvation dependent upon? It says “she will be saved (future) by THE childbearing (noun) IF (condition) “they” continue in faith and love and sanctity and self-control. While I have gone through this verse in depth in my DVD, the emphasis I want to make in this post is that “she” is PART of “they” in this verse and it is “they” that must DO something. “They” must “continue”…. The exact wording shows that the “she” must be alive at the time of Paul’s writing because Paul makes it clear that “she” is a part of the “they” (not that “she” is equal to “they” but that “she” is within the inclusion of “they”) and “they” are to continue in the direction that has been started so that “she” will be saved. This is impossible to apply to Eve since Eve is dead, her salvation cannot be affected by what she does or what others do for her. Eve’s ability to be saved is long gone. The “she” that Paul references in verse 15 can only be linked back to the only singular feminine in the passage who was alive. This is “a woman” that Paul forbids from teaching and who Paul had commanded that she “a woman” learn.

    While Diane’s assertion that Eve is intended in verse 15 because the Old Testament saints were looking forward to the cross, this is faulty for two reasons. The first reason is that if this is what was meant it should say that “she has been saved in THE childbearing” because the cross is in the past at the time of Paul’s writing not in the future. Secondly the salvation is clearly tied to the actions that follow and this is impossible in Eve’s case since she is dead.

    There are more comments from Diane that will follow as I present her defense and present my case against her “evidence” later as I have time. I am out most of the day today. It appears that I will no longer be getting emails updating me on the action on CARM since I do not intend to go back there, so if any of you want to let me know if there is anything to refute on CARM, if any of you are still watching the boards, you can email me personally and I will post the arguments and the answers here.

  48. Lame.

    So somehow only Eve fell into a continual state of transgression that would not be taken away until the very distant future. Only Eve. And “there is a continuing judgment” that is strictly her fault. That’s not in my Bible; mine lays all the blame on Adam. This same Paul wrote quite a lot about that in Romans.

    And I guess only Eve therefore had to look forward to the cross. Only Eve. But there’s also a tiny problem with Diane’s emphasis on the future: IT WAS STILL FUTURE IN PAUL’S DAY! He did NOT say “Eve was saved when Jesus was born”, but that IN THE FUTURE (still presuming Diane’s interpretation) Eve will be saved, but ONLY IF all Christian women will be “maintaining in their roles as “wife” mothers…”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

    What kind of salvation is this?? That Eve can’t be saved until all future Christian women play their proper “roles”?? Eve can’t be saved unless they do this??

    That’s some of the poorest, most nonsensical interpretation I’ve ever seen.

  49. This is part two of Diane’s response. I will respond to this and post the other parts of her post later. In the meantime those who want to comment on this part, go ahead.

    —Quote from Cheryl—
    Sorry, but John MacArthur already beat you to that one and he has quite ably proved that the “she” cannot be Eve since Eve is dead and cannot do anything about her salvation
    —End Quote—

    Diane:…John MacArthur is a great teacher, but not the only Greek expert, we take a consensus of the scholars on this difficult passage, not just one person. First of all, we do not form doctrine based on a single verse, and it is not the explanation that forbids the woman to teach in authority over a man. The only issue involved is understanding the “why” she may not teach but it does not change the direct order of Paul that women are not to teach in authority over men in the church. While you seem to spend all of your time trying to explain the “why” you lose track of the fact, Paul does not have to give a reason and that is why that section is misunderstood by many. What is the cultural context, etc. The fact, “I do not permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man” is what we are required to obey, the reason, “creation order”.. But it is not necessary for God to explain a reason, and that is the debate. However, none of the scholars agree to your interpretation in con!
    sensus.

    One other comment, I am posting Diane’s comments exactly as she posted them on CARM (other than I added my name and hers on the quotes so that it is clear who the quote is from). I have not edited Diane’s words nor have I corrected any wrong key strokes so she cannot accuse me of doing any editing on her post.

  50. Greg Anderson March 4, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Cheryl and Paula,

    I love that straight edge and compass you two use! No iffy, and complicated sophistries designed to obfuscate, and no dependence on words (Greek) which can morph and change meaning over time. Just straight forward reasoning and construction with the data that’s there.

  51. Tanx Greg. :-) I’m finding the reasonable and logical approach to scripture to be a strong anchor, no matter what the topic. It seems that all false teachings have Pharisi-ism in common: complication, legalism, and favoring the letter over the spirit. To illustrate:

    The only issue involved is understanding the “why” she may not teach but it does not change the direct order of Paul that women are not to teach in authority over men in the church. While you seem to spend all of your time trying to explain the “why” you lose track of the fact, Paul does not have to give a reason and that is why that section is misunderstood by many. What is the cultural context, etc. The fact, “I do not permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man” is what we are required to obey, the reason, “creation order”.. But it is not necessary for God to explain a reason, and that is the debate. However, none of the scholars agree to your interpretation in con!
    sensus.

    First, let me brush off her baseless claim that “none of the scholars agree” with Cheryl. That’s patently false.

    But the error in Diane’s point is in what is typically called “the plain reading of scripture”, which I call “the lazy and ignorant reading of scripture”. We aren’t demanding that Paul explain his reasons before we obey them; we take every scriptural command very seriously, explained or not. Instead, we are disputing the claim that Paul is in fact ordering all women of all time and all cultures to shut up, even forbidding them to teach correct doctrine. Cheryl is asking “why” for the purpose of using the totality of Paul’s writings to determine what he means here. In other words, she’s not asking “why”, but “whether”.

    Paul wrote passionately (see Galatians) against legalism, especially the old Law being forced upon the church. He told us in Romans in no uncertain terms that Adam is blamed for bringing sin into the world; Eve is never associated with the need for a future Savior, but the seed of that Savior. All Paul ever says about her is that she was deceived; the Hebrew word in Genesis indicates “beguiled” or we’d say today, “hypnotized”– while Adam stood by and watched.

    So Diane is burning a straw man. We accept whatever Paul says. We don’t accept her interpretation of Paul’s words. It is Diane who denies the importance of “she will… if they” and glosses over it. She may see checking context as an attempt to confuse, but we view her “plain reading” as the mark of what the Proverbs call a “simpleton”: one who does not wish to dig deep and know the truth. We can only know what Paul said if we check all layers of context, and that means thinking, checking Paul’s other writings, the totality of scripture, the culture, etc.

    Perhaps those who think checking grammar and context are a violation of “plain reading” should not set themselves up as teachers. I have no problem with checking the meaning of the original words, but with people who misunderstand those meanings and make entire theologies out of them. If Diane is going to use grammar in her argument, then she has to let Cheryl use it in hers.

  52. Friends, I am running into ‘Diane’s’ and ‘Matt’s’ all over
    Christendom. It is getting ugly out there over this issue. To even bring in the word ‘legal’ over this communicates volumes to me. Has Diane never read 1 Corin?

    I can only put it down to sin and the last days. I cannot remember this being an issue as a kid at all. Even in the most conservative SBC churches where I grew up. I saw women teaching all the time to whoever wanted to study. We did not have female pastors but I saw female deacons, bible teachers, women speaking from the pulpit, etc. It was just not a big deal.

    What a victory for the enemy when he can use christians twisting scripture to shut up over half of all christians from witnessing and proclaiming the Gospel to a lost world because they may be ‘outside’ their ‘role’.

    I praise God my mom did not think twice about witnessing to Muslim men who were attending university. She never shied away from inviting the male Mormon ‘missionaries’ into our home to show them in scripture the true Jesus Christ. I could give you tons of examples.

    I would like to ask Diane something. If you were sitting on a park bench reading scripture and a man came up and asked you to explain to him what you were reading because he wanted to know about Jesus Christ…would you? Or would that be ‘teaching’ a man?

  53. Cheryl, something occurred to me as I looked at the Greek of 1 Tim. 2:13-15a. It literally reads,

    For Adam first was formed then Eve and Adam was not deceived but the woman having been deceived in transgression has become but she will be saved…

    Remembering that the original autographs were written in capitals without any punctuation or verse numbering can make a huge difference in our understanding.

    Upon studying this, I think the first part of 15 goes with 14, that is,

    For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived. But this woman, having been deceived, has fallen into transgression, but she will be saved…

    Do you see that? Paul does NOT say “EVE, having been deceived…”, he says “THE WOMAN”. I think he’s talking about “a woman” now. It would make no sense for Paul to say “Adam and the woman” instead of “Adam and Eve”. This ties directly into the “she” following.

  54. Check out that link to the CARM board – its been changed to
    Diane S!!
    I find it very sad to see their credibility drain away solely due to their own actions.
    My own opinion on women preachers is that it matters not what the bible says, the words in the bible are but a small fraction of the truth of God. We were given an extraordinary brain so that we can use it to seek out the truth and to know what is right and what is wrong. We all have different gifts from God and God does not differentiate between men and women. If anyone has the gift of being able to communicate the love of God to others then they should use that gift and no-one has the right to stand in their way.
    I find too many people who insist that the bible is totally correct when it suits them and make up some excuse when it doesn’t. We can all think of examples where the bible appears to condone things that would be unthinkable in this day and age. The world, and we in it, move on, we progress and God gave us the tools to do it.

  55. Hi Elizabeth,

    The problem is not with the Bible, but with poor exegesis. People are taught to treat the Bible like its frozen in time or a list of rules, but in fact it is “living and active”. They are not taught to examine it as they would any other ancient literature, to find out what it meant when it was written, and only then to try and apply it to today.

    Yes, God gave us brains, but we are lazy and far too trusting of “experts” who are as human and biased as the rest of us. While denominational differences have at least served the purpose of providing a sort of “check and balance” to keep bias to a minimum, there is a universal bias that has until about the last century remained hidden and unchallenged: misogyny.

    The solution is to get this last bias out of Bible translation, out of the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, out of the cloistered committees that produce “official” manuscripts. There has been known and blatant bias even in those places. For example, for 50 years the female name Junia was changed to a made-up male name Junias. There was not one shred of textual backing for this male form until well after the NT was completed. Early church leaders held that this was not only a female name but that she was an outstanding apostle (Chrysostom). But the “gender bender” remained, until at last it was quietly removed, without any of the required explanatory notes. We need to keep a sharp eye on such officials.

    But in the vast majority of the Bible we have high confidence of its accuracy. The task, then, is primarily to understand the semantic range of the original-language words, and then use context to determine which is the most likely meaning in each instance. But context is more than just grammar and dictionary meanings; it includes topic, writer, recipient, society, historical setting, and culture. It also includes the entire Bible, and presumes that God would neither contradict himself nor intend to deceive.

    The typical debates that rage among Christians are largely due to ignorance of these important principles. But above all, they are born and fed by the same attitude as the Pharisees, who “would strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”; i.e., they’d forget that the “spirit of the law” is greater than “the letter”. But this doesn’t mean we can ignore the letter, but that we must above all not ignore the spirit.

    And if we properly grasp the overall message of the Bible, it is the message of redemption, of setting free, of lifting burdens and restoring the right relationship with God. This most important principle is missed by those who rage against freedom, as if God plays favorites and judges people by their body parts. Hating a race is bad enough, but to hate half of all humanity is surely an attribute of Satan, not God. While I’m sure those who would imprison all women insist this isn’t born of hatred, there is simply no other explanation for it. To put half the human race under the other half strictly on the basis of the flesh is not a Christian virtue but blind prejudice. And to attribute such an evil thing to the heart of God is the worst kind of insult.

    Without the written Word we would know nothing at all about God; we’d be groping in the dark like all the other religions. We’d know nothing about the risen Jesus, about the foundations of our faith. We’d have nothing but opinions and feelings, which are not reliable beacons of truth. We need it; we just need to learn how to read it.

  56. Elizabeth,
    It doesn’t surprise me about the name was changed because of the attention brought to light on this little insignificant blog. What one can’t wipe away is how long the name has been publicly available on the internet because the cached pages that the world wide web holds in its memory forever cannot be removed. Check out the permanent record at http://web.archive.org/web/20070609070306/www.carm.org/boards/evang_statement.htm

    Those who refuse to be held accountable for their words often want to hide behind anonymity. I don’t do that because I am not one filled with that kind of fear.

  57. #54 Paula,
    You have a very thought-provoking point. 1 Timothy 2:13 imentions that Eve was created second and Paul identifies her by name but in verse 14 Eve is not mentioned by name although Adam is. Why is this? We know for sure that verse 15 is not talking about Eve since Eve is dead and the grammar of verse 15 excludes a dead person. Verse 13 & verse 14 are tied together with the word “but”. It absolutely makes sense that Paul is identifying the one who is fully deceived as the woman that he has stopped from teaching and of course we all get the picture that Eve was the original one who was “fully deceived”.

    This actually makes a lot of sense regarding the grammar. How is the result of Eve’s deception continuing? Since sin came into the world through Adam, we cannot say that our sin is the result of Eve’s deception can we? We can’t because scripture is clear that the blame for sin rests on Adam’s shoulders alone. So how are the effects of Eve’s deception continuing? They aren’t because she is dead. The effects of deception would continue if Paul’s reference is not to Eve, but to the woman he is stopped from teaching. I always looked at verse 13 as a reference to Eve with a secondary application to the deceived woman, but your insight makes me see that it is far more accurate to attribute the consequence of the deception as continuing to be a primary reference to this particular woman with Eve as a secondary application.

    Paula, this has been an “iron sharpening iron” moment. I think I have been given one more nail in the coffin to bury the old false tradition that Paul was referring to Eve as a representative of “generic woman”. Thank you!!! You have shared with me one of your “talents”.

    Mat 25:16 “Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.

  58. Paula #52,
    You said:

    Cheryl is asking “why” for the purpose of using the totality of Paul’s writings to determine what he means here. In other words, she’s not asking “why”, but “whether”.

    This is exactly right and very well stated I might add. My asking of “why” is not questioning of God’s authority or Paul’s authority. It is a questioning of whether we understand Paul right. My reasoning is that taking the verses at face value without considering the context contradicts Paul’s own practice in the churches. It also contradicts the practice of scripture which never had a policy or law that forbid women from teaching men. Lastly it contradicts the freedom of body ministry by segregating the body into male and female. Some would have us think that the body of Christ has two different “walks”. Some see the left leg of the body walking in authority with a “manly” swagger while the right leg walks two steps back with a demur “feminine” tippy-toe. That is unnatural. I do not see Paul dividing the body of Christ into women’s work and men’s work. He just calls them fellow workers in Christ and assumes that they will work along side him.

    You also said:

    “So Diane is burning a straw man. We accept whatever Paul says. We don’t accept her interpretation of Paul’s words.”

    Yes, absolutely. That is the point. When people identify us as being in rebellion against Paul, we need to point out that we love Paul and the conflict is not with Paul but the interpretation that causes Paul to contradict himself.

    You also said:

    “It is Diane who denies the importance of “she will… if they” and glosses over it.”

    This was the point that I was trying to drive home. Diane along with many others cannot make sense of 1 Timothy 2:15 without disregarding part of the verse. So while she says that egalitarians are disregarding scripture, she is the one who forces a false harmonization on the text. I understand that she is not the only one who does this. Even the NET bible says: “she will be delivered…if she” thus abrogating the difference set up in the Greek text between the singular and the plural. This is a harmonization of the text. Can we just harmonize the text because we cannot understand the point of BOTH singular and plural? I believe that many have harmonized the text obliterating the connection between Paul’s stated outcome (verse 15) of the problem (verses 12-14) which itself follows Paul’s solution (verse 11). When we do that the question of the salvation of “she” in verse 15 makes no sense in the passage. Why would women’s salvation be in question when it has never been in question in the entire bible?

    So we have two things that are never a part of scripture that are a part of this passage if we take the complementarian interpretation. We have women forbidden to teach men which was never forbidden before and we have the questioning of women’s salvation which was never questioned before. It is time we drop this faulty reasoning and stop harmonizing verse 15. We need to know who the “she” is and who are the “they” in order to fulfill our mandate to rightly divide the word of truth. In this instance rightly dividing the word of truth takes hard work and keeping our noses into scripture and never, ever forgetting that the interpretation must line up with multiple layers. It must line up with the passage, Paul’s other writings and the entire bible. When these layers line up, we can be confident that we have found the truth of the meaning of the passage.

  59. Lin #53,
    You said:
    “Friends, I am running into ‘Diane’s’ and ‘Matt’s’ all over
    Christendom. It is getting ugly out there over this issue. To even bring in the word ‘legal’ over this communicates volumes to me. Has Diane never read 1 Corin?”

    I am certain that she has read it, but I am also certain that she doesn’t think it applies to her. She has made it clear that she has a position to protect and she has Matt to protect and she will use worldly ways to accomplish her purpose.

  60. Elizabeth #55,
    Paula has answered very well in #56 and I don’t have too much more to add except my own experience and my frustration.

    When I started looking at the women’s issue years ago to “make sure of all things and to hold fast to what is good”, I came across those who believed in women’s freedom to use her gifts in the body of Christ and they proved their point not through scripture but through the reasoning of what is moral and right. Now I am a big proponent of what is moral and right and what feels wrong is usually wrong, although not always. My frustration came in wanting to be sure what God wanted but not to rely on what feels right. After all, I reasoned, that if God said something then I need to obey it no matter how much I feel called into ministry. If it is wrong, then it is wrong apart from my feelings. As an apologist I have been trained to set my feelings aside as a test of truth. It isn’t that feelings aren’t important but that they are a rubber ruler. If we measure the truth of something by how we feel about it, our rubber ruler may not be accurate. Maybe we have been stretching that ruler out a bit because we really want something to be right.

    So I set out to find out what God’s word meant without disregarding any of the hard passages of scripture. I could not say that women were allowed to serve in the bible and just let that guide my calling. I had to know if there were restrictions and if so what they are. So I did something that has not been done in quite the same way before. I focused on the hard passages of scripture and I went through each passage focusing on the complete context, I focused on every single word in the passages not ignoring any of the inspired words, and I paid attention to every piece of grammar believing that God was great enough and sovereign enough to have inspired these passages without error to say exactly what he meant to say. I am the only one that I am aware of who has made a point of stubbornly sticking to the exact text exactly as it was written. They appears to be many who are coming after me who are doing the same thing and for that I am so grateful. So while many others couldn’t make heads or tails out of 1 Timothy 2:15, the verse makes complete sense to me from start to finish because it completes verse 12 and is not an appendage added to the text to confuse us.

    So while I agree that we can and should question about what doesn’t appear right to our rational minds, we need to avoid making our rational minds the be-all and end-all for the test of truth. The “rubber ruler” is far exceeded in its ability to test truth by the pure and unadulterated sharp edge of the Word of God. This ultimate test of truth (the word of God) is never “off” nor does it stretch and adjust to our societies ever-changing standard of morals.

    There is no doubt that there are some notorious “hard passages of scripture” that take everything we have to work out an understanding that does not contradiction other clear passages of scripture. What is best in these situations is to set aside a “novel” word that has no correlation with the rest of scripture. Take the clear passages first and work backwards towards the “hard passages”. Paul’s “novel” word that puts a restriction on all godly women forbidding them from teaching the truth of God’s word to men would then be a “law” that was never even hinted at in scripture in the old testament and this should cause us put up a red flag concerning the “plain” reading of one isolated verse alerting us to the fact that this one verse may not be so “plain” after all.

  61. What Diane needs to realize is that her world is much smaller than she thinks. While she can control people and what they say on her boards, much as she would like she cannot control what people say when not on her boards. The only effective way to control what others say about you is to behave in a manner that inspires admiration. Even then people will speak ill of you if they are so inclined. But when you behave poorly, as Diane has done toward those who disagree with her, your reputation will follow you.

    In my opinion, she would do better for her reputation if she came over to this blog and managed to discuss things in a civil manner. Doing that would likely inspire much more respect than what she is doing now trying to control people.

  62. Regarding my quote of Diane in #50,

    Diane said:

    “..John MacArthur is a great teacher, but not the only Greek expert, we take a consensus of the scholars on this difficult passage, not just one person. First of all, we do not form doctrine based on a single verse,”

    But this is exactly what Diane is doing. She is forming doctrine on one verse. If this is not so, then she should explain which other verse in the bible says that women are not allowed to teach men. So while Diane is saying something truthful (that we should not form doctrine based on a single verse) she is not following this in practice.

    Diane also said:

    “The fact, “I do not permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man” is what we are required to obey, the reason, “creation order”.. But it is not necessary for God to explain a reason, and that is the debate. However, none of the scholars agree to your interpretation in con!
    sensus.”

    The one point that Diane has completely missed is that creation order is tied to deception and this refers back to the prohibition. So we cannot just say “creation order” period. We must finish what Paul ties together. Paul says that “creation order” is inextricably tied into the fact that it was the first one created who was not deceived and the one who was not created first was deceived. Unless we can figure out what creation order has to do with deception, we have completely missed Paul’s point.

  63. tiro3,
    You said:

    “In my opinion, she would do better for her reputation if she came over to this blog and managed to discuss things in a civil manner. Doing that would likely inspire much more respect than what she is doing now trying to control people.”

    Amen! I agree with you completely.

  64. I am still working through putting up Diane’s comments originally posted on CARM’s feminism discussion board. I think I will continue to put her points up one by one and instead of commenting first myself, I will let you have a chance to post your thoughts before I record mine. There are still more points of Diane’s to come tomorrow. So here is Diane’s next point:

    —Quote Cheryl:—
    Also the note about a “simple” shift from generic singular to generic plural is “simply” not true. It isn’t simple and neither is it a shift. It is both she AND they not FROM she TO they.Wrong again, but at least you are trying.
    —End Quote—

    Diane: No one is “trying” here Cheryl, once again you pat yourself on the back and make a comment about “trying” that is completely condescending, arrogant and without fact. This is why people do not bother to respond to you any further and have you removed from the radio show, or do not “refute” you. When you ARE refuted by the experts and you have been, just as En has refuted you here, you completely ignore it, and make a rude comment that they are “trying” or they “misrepresented you”. There is no way in proper grammar that the “they” is referring to any man three sentences up, the idea is absurd. It is the Greek commentaries, the translators and scholars that put the note, you claim is wrong, as do all other commentaries use the same note. YOU are wrong, and you are not the Greek expert here. There is no “trying,”

  65. Cheryl and Paula,

    Both of you have the critical faculty of Euclid in his book “Elements”
    (circa 300 BC). You both start with axioms (God’s word as inerrant in its original autographs, not translations) and go from there with a sort of metaphorical unmarked straightedge and compass.

    It’s got to infuriate those of lesser ability who must resort to setting strawmen aflame, and writing paragraph after paragraph of Kantian drivel that leads nowhere and proves nothing.

    These same sorts hated Hypatia of Alexandria too, and in March of 415 AD they murdered her.

  66. Didn’t CBMW already admit to the possibility of Paul speaking about just 1 singular, particular woman in the passage rather than all women?

  67. Cheryl, thank you. But of course you know Who gives insight! It’s one of those “I read that a hundred times before and never saw it” things, but in this case it only happened by looking straight at the Greek. Even then, most Greek texts add punctuation, which even a first year student knows is not part of the inspired text.

    Greg, excellent point about axioms, because it’s the real heart of this issue. Here, we hold as a “given” that the Bible is the supreme authority and above reproach; CARM and CBMW begin with the premise that God favors males. They would surely murder us if they could.

    And another good point about complexity and philosophy as the hallmark of patriarchal thinking. False teaching is almost always overly complicated, and in this case, closely resembles the Pharisaical practice of making long lists of rules for other people (women).

    Diane: No one is “trying” here Cheryl, once again you pat yourself on the back and make a comment about “trying” that is completely condescending, arrogant and without fact. This is why people do not bother to respond to you any further and have you removed from the radio show, or do not “refute” you. When you ARE refuted by the experts and you have been, just as En has refuted you here, you completely ignore it, and make a rude comment that they are “trying” or they “misrepresented you”.

    Pot, meet kettle. CBMW is notorious for screaming “misrepresentation” any time they are quoted, and CARM is no exception. Here Diane presumes to know Cheryl’s motivation and assign conceit to her, while completely ignoring that particular plank in her own eye. Another common tactic is claiming victory repeatedly in order to convince people it happened; i.e. “you have already been refuted”. No “experts” have done any such thing, let alone the amateurs at CARM. Those people consider the likes of Grudem to be “experts” even though he’s been called out on numerous basic Greek blunders and very dubious and novel interpretations. And if Cheryl is rude, then I’m the Queen of England.

    There is no way in proper grammar that the “they” is referring to any man three sentences up, the idea is absurd. It is the Greek commentaries, the translators and scholars that put the note, you claim is wrong, as do all other commentaries use the same note. YOU are wrong, and you are not the Greek expert here. There is no “trying,”

    Does Diane consider herself “the Greek expert”, or knowledgeable in Greek grammar, that she can authoritatively state that “they” was apparently a mistake by Paul? What does she think it refers to then? What’s absurd is to just ignore inspired words and try to bury them. And, comically, she does what she says you shouldn’t: rely on extra-Biblical sources. She appeals to (biased) commentaries and (biased) translators, which if she did any reading outside of CARM, she would know has been proved to be the case. I’ve mentioned Junia before in this regard, and there is also Eph. 5:21-22 (inserted a second “submit” verb) and 1 Cor. 11:10 (added “a sign of”).

    She should read Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women, if for no other reason than to study her enemy. It would shock her to know that long before the 1960s (according to Grudem!), bias in translation was exposed by Katharine Bushnell as she examined the Chinese translation while a medical missionary. She set out to check the English translations then and found it there as well. Her careful research is the foundation for many scholars today, such as Linda Belleville and Rebecca Groothuis. The scholars of Bushnell’s day couldn’t refute her and simply chose to ignore her, as they do to this day.

    All I’m seeing from Diane to this point is assertions and appeals to everyone and everything but the inspired Bible. Since her own experts have been caught with their grammatical pants down, appealing to them isn’t any kind of refutation.

  68. I should clarify what I meant by “according to Grudem”. He attributes “feminism” to the 60s, as if it never existed before. But he is apparently woefully ignorant of history, as the “women’s suffrage” movement not only long preceded the 60s but was largely instigated by Christians.

  69. “When I started looking at the women’s issue years ago to make sure of all things and to hold fast to what is good, I came across those who believed in women’s freedom to use her gifts in the body of Christ and they proved their point not through scripture but through the reasoning of what is moral and right. Now I am a big proponent of what is moral and right and what feels wrong is usually wrong, although not always. My frustration came in wanting to be sure what God wanted but not to rely on what is right. After all, I reasoned, that if God said something then I need to obey it no matter how much I feel called into ministry. If it is wrong, then it is wrong part from my feelings.”

    Cheryl, This is ONE of the reasons I kept coming back to your teaching. I have seen too many debate this from feelings and what they think it should be without a exegesis. You did not do that at all and that impressed me. Ironically, I cannot same the same thing about extreme comps. They start with the premise that women are subordinate and interpret all scripture from there. That is why they always refer to Deborah as ‘non-normative’. (I always chuckle at that…what is ‘normal’ in the OT?)

    I told you before in another thread that I had been conditioned to believe that anyone who does not agree with the comp view is a liberal. I kept looking for your liberal theology. I kept looking for the things they warn us about…that eventually those who hold the comp view will want to ordain homosexuals, too. Or they are focused on Liberation Theology or social justice instead of the Gospel.

    After quite a while, I have yet to find it in your teaching or materials. As a matter of fact, I find the opposite with your teaching.

    In my opinion, these two things give you great credibility as a teacher.

  70. Sorry about all the mistakes in my last comment. I was on the fly and should have proof read it. I hope it makes sense. :o)

  71. Lin,
    Thank you for your kind words and your affirmation! You are right in that I am not a liberal at all and while I affirm our rational mind and I want to encourage people to use their minds to think these issues through, our minds cannot be the base that we measure truth by. Unfortunately this makes me not very popular with liberal theologians. I have had several who were very interested in my DVD set because they are strong egalitarians themselves, but when they saw that I argued from a strong scriptural foundation and affirmed the complete inspiration of scripture even regarding the words and grammar that the Holy Spirit chose to inspire, these men who hold to a strong liberal mindset that does not affirm scripture as I do, have chosen not to have anything to do with me. Well, that is just fine because getting a recommendation from someone who does not respect the bible as I do might not be considered a good thing anyway.

    Paula:
    Thanks for sticking up for me. The Queen of England comment cracked me up!

  72. If anyone is interested, I have been invited by Chris Arnzen of “Iron Sharpens Iron” radio show in Long Island, New York, to debate Dr. Lawrence Carrino on the women’s issue. This debate will be at least a few weeks away and it sounds like it will be a good debate. Dr. Carrino is apparently very irenic so shouldn’t be another Matt Slick type. I will certainly have to get my notes together and change from a teaching style to a sharp debater. The important thing will be to get my points across in a succinct way and to show the fallacies of the complementarian view. If anyone is wanting to listen to Dr. Carrino’s style of debate you can go to http://sharpens.blogspot.com. Dr. Carrino is presently doing a week long-debate on the subject of Calvinism, debating on the affirmative side.

  73. “Didn’t CBMW already admit to the possibility of Paul speaking about just 1 singular, particular woman in the passage rather than all women?”

    If you have the exact quote and link to the article for that , I would appreciate seeing it. Thanks….

  74. Who is Dr. Carrino? Does he have a website?

  75. tiro 3,
    Regarding CBMW, their admitting that “a woman” could be a single woman is not in their literature. It was in their correspondence to me even before they viewed my DVDs. However even though they admitted that this could be a particular woman, I was told that I would be under obligation to have to prove that this is what Paul meant since this has not been the accepted meaning. I think I have done this quite well with the grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15 and with Paula pointing to the grammar of verse 14 as an additional proof, I think we have a solid case.

    Dr. Carrino’s web site is http://www.omega.stirsite.com/page/page/3991913.htm I have been listening to his audio debate on Calvinism and he certainly is respectful, kind and Christ-like in debating someone who does not agree with his views. That is going to make our discussion much easier and I won’t be warding off personal attacks.

  76. Paula regardless of Junia being male or female, how can it be proven that she was an apostle?

    “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” (Rom 16:7)

    Many interprets the Greek in such a way that they was well known to the apostles rather than outstanding among them.

    In His grace,
    your brother in Christ,
    Martin

  77. The same way anyone could be “proven” to be an apostle. The issue here is that, first of all, “Junias” is completely without attestation; this male form of the name did not exist in the first century. Second, there is only doubt about this verse because of the female name. But here are links to some good material about Junia:

    Book
    website

    Contextually, while Paul commends many people, not many are associated with apostles. It seems the natural way to understand Paul’s meaning to assume these are apostles. But the links I referenced do a much better job of backing that up. If I have time I’ll try and post some more links.

  78. “Well, that is just fine because getting a recommendation from someone who does not respect the bible as I do might not be considered a good thing anyway.”

    I totally agree. It would have been a huge turn off to me. But, I do want to say that I don’t pay too much attention to endorsements from respected celebrity ministers anymore. Having been in a position to see a few of the bizarre deals made for endorsements of Christian books and literature, I pretty much ignore them now.

    The only endorsement worth having is that of the Holy Spirit.

  79. Regarding the quote from Diane in #65:

    “No one is “trying” here Cheryl, once again you pat yourself on the back and make a comment about “trying” that is completely condescending, arrogant and without fact. This is why people do not bother to respond to you any further and have you removed from the radio show, or do not “refute” you.”

    I fail to see why Diane and Matt are so sensitive. Diane is highly offended that I commended her with the word “trying”. She attributes a bad motive without being able to see my heart. Diane states that I was taken off of Matt’s radio show not because he couldn’t answer me and he got frustrated, because I was “condescending and arrogant”. The “proof” is that I use such “bad” words on the discussion board like “trying”. This pettiness speaks very poorly of their ability to engage in mature discussion.

    Diane also states that it is rude to state that I have been misrepresented. I have never found that definition for rudeness in any dictionary.

    It is also easy for Diane to state that I have been refuted when I have shown the “refutation” has been refuted. Again more of the appeal to a false win instead of actually dealing with the text.

    More of Diane’s position to come soon.

  80. Okay, this is the last from Diane’s post:

    —Quote from Cheryl—
    you HAVE been refuted based on the grammar,
    —End Quote—

    Diane: there is no possibility that *”they” is referring to a husband and wife *mentioned up two-three sentences, as they note says, the “she” is simply changed to a plural, a “she” does not become a “he,” it would be improper grammar since the last “they” spoken of are women, Adam and Eve. Next “she” referring to Eve does not mean Eve would have to do anything in the future, since her childbearing, representing all women was done in the past.
    And your comment it is not a shift to plural, is your opinion without proof, you are a person with NO Greek expertise, no Greek training, no education formal or otherwise in Greek and we are suppose to believe that YOU are right and the commentaries are wrong as you refuse to believe the Greek grammar rules posted here?

    You have already been refuted Cheryl, it is improper grammar for a writer to refer to a “she” when the person is not the last “she” mentioned in the sentence. Why don’t you ask someone that teaches grammar, I did. There is no way a writer, unless YOU are accusing him of using improper grammar, would skip over the last person named to refer to someone else as she and mislead those he is writing to purposely *in talking about one woman Eve but using “she” to mean someone else not identified.* I don’t care what John M. says, he is one with a different opinion of that verse, already challenged and reasons enclosed, other Greek experts tell us it is referring to Eve, but ONLY in the sense of her representing *”all women”* which is why many translators use the word “women” rather then the she….. The possibility of it being EVE is not “she” in her alone but Adam mentioned and Eve in representing all women. There is no possibility that the “they” is referring to the man, saved th!
    rough childbearing. There is absolutely a possibility of it referring to Eve since she was saved looking FORWARD to the cross, so again, prove your case, you have not…Verse 15 is about verse 13-14 as all agree with interpretation, it is to lesson the those verses of explanation just stated. All of the possible explanations for the verses are listed below and the reasons each have been studied and disregarded. The consensus on the verse, whether she means Eve or not, it is still referring to all women “Eve/She” represented……..

    23 tn Grk *“has come to be in transgression”* (with an emphasis on the continuing consequences of that fall).

    24 tn Or “But she will be *preserved through childbearing,” or *“But she will be saved in *spite of childbearing.” *This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: *Verse 15 is intended to *lessen the impact of vv. 13-14.** There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: *Meaning and Significance,” *TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73).

    (1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is *entirely unlikely *for it lays a condition on Christian women that* goes beyond grace*, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10).

    (2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be *kept safe *when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high infant mortality rate).

    (3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be *saved through the childbirth* – that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15). This view sees the *singular “she” as referring first to Eve *and then *to all women* *(note the change from singular to plural in this verse). *Further, it works well in the context.

    However, there are several problems with it: [a] The future tense (?????????, swqhshtai) is unnatural if referring to the *protevangelium* or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth; [b] that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation* of both women and men;* [c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is *overly subtle*; and [d] the term ?????????? (teknogonia) refers to the *process of childbirth* rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah *(the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view.* There are three other views that have greater plausibility:

    (4) *This may be a somewhat veiled reference to the curse of Gen 3:16 in order to clarify that though the woman led the man into transgression *(v. 14b), she will be saved spiritually despite this physical reminder of her sin. The phrase is literally “through childbearing,” but this does not necessarily denote means or instrument here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance (probably with a concessive force): “with, though accompanied by” (cf. BDAG 224 s.v. ??? A.3.c; Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14).

    (5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but *through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood”* (Moo, 71). In this view ?????????? is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role.

    (6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which *“saved” means “delivered” *and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the *role reversal *that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the *woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man,* though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the *outworking* of redemption).

    25 tn There is a shift to the plural here (Grk “if they continue”),* but it still refers to the woman in a simple shift from generic singular to generic plural.*”..Bible.org

    It would seem that 6 is making the most sense, to she and they referring to Eve and all women as noted the generic switch, and that “expression” now lost would make the most sense to studying the problems in Ephesus where the goddess Artemis worship was to help the woman through “childbearing” and gnostic errors to women leaders……..Makes it even more interesting that Paul would mention the woman’s being saved without any foolishness related to Artemis protection during childbearing mixed with the gnostic heresies that women could lead men as the “resurrection already happening in their heresy”……..Also *extremely *interesting :) that one of the names in history used for Artemis the pagan goddess was *”Soteria”….*meaning salvation…and Paul mentioning the woman simply fulfulling her role as wife and mother, that she had no need to fear an Artemis cult superstition about being “saved” in childbearing, would complete the historical interpretation as to why “saved” me!
    ntioned for the women in childbearing and that lost “expression” obviously related to the cult of Artemis in Ephesus………

  81. While you were posting that, Cheryl, I was typing away, and — what a ‘coincidence’ — it pretty well covers what you relayed from Diane. (Some is a repetition of what has already been covered, but that can be a good thing.) I’m giving a minimal overview of all of 1 Tim. 2, with emphasis on the passage of interest.

    1 Timothy chpts 1-6

    1

    Stop false teachers, don’t listen to nonsense, don’t waste time on quarrels that go nowhere.

    Some have turned aside to babbling and want to be teachers but they are unqualified.

    Here is your assignment, Timothy: do what you were anointed to do. Keep the faith.

    2

    Because of all the falsehood, first of all tell the people to pray, but pray properly: men without stained hands, rage or lack of conviction; women with good works and modesty.

    That woman must sit down and learn without disruption, but she is neither allowed to teach nor to cause harm to that man, but to be respectfully quiet.* For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived. But this woman, having been deceived, has fallen into transgression. But she will be saved through the childbearing**, if they both live in faith and love and holiness with discretion.

    3

    Instructions about elders and deacons

    4

    Back to the topic of false teachings.

    5 – 6

    How to treat various people in the assembly; social order; more “pep talk” for Timothy

    * There is an excellent discussion of authenteo at This Link. Excerpt:

    In classical Greek authentein occurs as a word for murder (eight times, two of which are post-NT) or the taking of action with violence. Wilshire concludes that “. . . the preponderant number of citations from this compilation have to do with self willed violence, criminal action, or murder or with the person who does these actions.”

    This interpretation would parallel, as Wilshire points out, the prohibition against “anger” (orges) and “quarrelling” (diaslogismon) (2:8), “terms with strong violent connotations.” Thus the term is in contrast to “leading a quiet and peaceable life” (2:2), and learning in calmness (2:12). Interpreters have objected that it could not possibly have such a violent meaning in the context of 1 Timothy 2. Wilshire proposes, however, that the interpretation problem has stemmed from trying to translate the word literally. Instead, he says, it may have the force of hyperbole and thus be similar to James 4:1: “What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you?”

    While I strongly disagree with the writer’s contention that Eve “became responsible for–became the cause of–Adam’s transgression”, I concur that “the word authentein speaks of an action resulting in someone being harmed.”

    It is the presence of the word authentein that tells us that Paul’s concern is not that a hierarchy of husband-over-wife be preserved by wives not teaching them regardless of the content of their doctrine. Rather, it is precisely the content of the teaching that is at issue. Certainly wife-to-husband is not the only line by which the false teaching was being transmitted, but, the use of this word in the context of the Eve-to-Adam example, as I will show below, demonstrates that wife-to-husband was one of the ways false doctrine was being taught.

    I further conclude that authentein does not refer to ordinary authority and, therefore, does not prohibit women from holding an office in the church where she either shares or exercises authority.

    (v. 12) gyne, feminine, singular, “woman” or “wife”; andros, masculine, singular, genitive, “man” or “husband.”

    It is possible that andros is generic, “men,” but most likely it is singular, “a man.” Hence, it is very possible that this means husband, that is, “her husband,” and consequently that gyne means “wife.” This view, which was held by Luther, has had a number of defenders through the centuries…

    The closing reference to childbirth in verse 15 is the strongest indicator that family concerns are in view. To insist that the passage has public worship as its concern all the way through leaves this verse without any logical tie to the previous discussion. Thus the presence of verse 15, while posing in itself a number of thorny exegetical issues, creates a familial context for the overall passage which may begin with the discussion of the prayer life of men and women and the sins that would hinder their prayers, that is, disputing and immodesty.

    ** It’s quite possible that since Paul is addressing a particular married couple, that one of the things the woman is teaching is the pagan fear of death in childbirth. Perhaps she is pregnant and worried. Could it be that Paul, after telling Timothy to make her stop teaching pagan ideas that are leading her husband astray, then shows his compassion by giving assurance through faith? That is, it makes sense that he would be only referring to the woman’s impending childbirth. Note that Paul is not guaranteeing safety in childbirth for all women for all time, but to a particular woman in a particular situation.

    It could of course refer to The Childbearing, that is, the birth of the Savior, and we can make some sense of that in the passage. But it seems strained; why only relate this salvation to the woman, and why in such strange and indirect terminology? The interpretation of The Childbearing grew mostly out of the assumption that this passage is addressed to all women. But without that assumption, it makes less sense as a possible explanation for why Paul refers to childbearing here.

  82. OOPS– that should be “overview of 1 Timothy”, not just ch. 2.

  83. #83 Paula,
    I fixed the overview for you. It was just that small edit.

  84. Also, another reason I’m leaning away from the “the childbearing” as meaning “the birth of Christ”, is because it isn’t his birth that saved us, but his death and resurrection. To my knowledge, Paul always referred to salvation in terms of the cross, the shed blood, the risen Lord, and never his birth. The birth was significant in its miraculous cause, but this was for the purpose of fulfilling a sign, not salvation itself. At the same time, this view is another reason to abandon Eve as “she”.

    Another note: the literal Greek of 2:15 is that she “will be being saved”. Again, a very strange way to speak of salvation.

  85. Paula,
    I don’t see “the childbearing” as the birth of Christ, but the entrance of Christ into the world through the woman – thus the fulfillment of the promise of the woman’s seed. So it is the Messiah that saves her a fulfilled promise that was made to the very first deceived woman.

  86. Referring back to Diane’s comments from #81:

    “Diane: there is no possibility that *”they” is referring to a husband and wife *mentioned up two-three sentences, as they note says,”

    Diane states this as a fact, but it is not a fact. The fact is that verse 15 is future tense “she will be saved” and the “they” have actions that they need to do so Adam and Eve although they are the closest “they” to verse 15 cannot be the couple verse 15 refers to. That is unless we refuse to consider the grammar, then I guess we can make it anything we want to make it and adjust the bible as we see fit. I prefer to take the Bible for what it says and so we can trace “they” back to verse 12 where we have two people. Now we have a “she” and a “they” that are alive at the time of Paul’s writing that will be able to do something about her salvation.

    While there are those who choose to disregard the grammar seeing it in error, this causes great problem in the text and in the context because then verse 15 is not connected in the passage from 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Verse 15 then becomes a sore thumb that doesn’t make sense regarding why Paul was inspired to place it in the passage. However if we see the prohibition as a situation in the Ephesian church regarding a woman who was thoroughly deceived and influencing her husband with her error (and him doing nothing about it), we can understand why Paul was concerned about her salvation, why Paul said that she was supposed to learn and why he stopped her from teaching her husband her error. It all fits and this exegesis uses the inspired “she” and “they” without disregarding the inspiration of the text.

  87. Cheryl said in # 58

    We know for sure that verse 15 is not talking about Eve since Eve is dead and the grammar of verse 15 excludes a dead person. …

    This actually makes a lot of sense regarding the grammar. How is the result of Eve’s deception continuing? Since sin came into the world through Adam, we cannot say that our sin is the result of Eve’s deception can we? We can’t because scripture is clear that the blame for sin rests on Adam’s shoulders alone. So how are the effects of Eve’s deception continuing?

    I think the “she” in 1 Timothy 2:15 refers to “Eve” as representative of “everywoman” who is living under the consequences of Eve’s action spoken by God in Genesis 3:16. And the “saved” is not Christian salvation but restoration. It can’t be salvation through Jesus because it is conditional upon the actions of whoever “they” are. “IF THEY continue in ….”
    Some of the meanings of saved are – made well, healed, restored
    She shall be saved (made well, healed, restored- future) if they continue in fidelity, holiness, love

    Paul’s use of “Eve” as representative of in not unique to 1 Timothy. He says “For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity[a] that is in Christ.” 2 Cor 11:2-3

    Katharine Bushnell writes

    it seems God’s design that the “new woman” in Christ Jesus, shall no more “turn away,” as did Eve, to her husband, but remaining loyal to God alone, and true to her destiny as the mother of that Seed,- both the literal, Jesus, and the mystical Christ, the Church, – shall lead man about,- out of the wilderness of the inefficiency of egotism into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For, who shall specially conquer Satan, if not the sex to whom God gave the honor from the beginning of being in eternal enmity against Satan, in the promise, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman?” But woman must be truly meek to fulfill this her promised destiny

    Though this is written about another passage, I find it consistent with and supportive of a similar perspective on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a promise of HOPE and RESTORATION.

  88. Charis,
    There are problems with the view that you stated. You would have to see it in the DVD to see all the problems that I document. I don’t have time to do it right now. The audio version will be played on the Boise radio station so you may want to tune in and hear the audio.

  89. If the passage is referring to ‘a woman’ being saved through ‘childbearing’ (bearing children) that would be a ‘work’.

    Paul is prescribing a work for someone to be saved?

    Can we stop with the legalism? It is ridiculous. I had a man tell me that ‘saved’ only meant protection for the women (as in she is rescued from the sin of usurping her role) as she should be in her role for childbearing instead of teaching men.

    If we go with that interpretation then Mary Magdalene was not ‘saved’ as she was not in her prescribed role.

  90. Diane posted on CARM:
    It has come to our attention that Cheryl Schatz is answering Matt’s paper on her blog. Matt would like to answer her paper addressed to his writing, since it is a copyright issue, would the egals ask Cheryl to give us permission in email, or on this forum for Matt to address her paper answering Matt. Thank you. Please send the email to elfcarm@yahoo.com from Cheryl Schatz, permission to use paper and permission for Matt to write a response on CARM website.

    With the disrespectful way they have treated you on their forum I would suggest that you recommend they come here and give you a chance to show your hospitality. Their is also the consideration that this is a ploy to be able to publish the whole thing on CARM’s website. And I don’t think that is a good idea with the way they treat and speak of those who disagree.

    However, I am pleased to see that Matt is finally going to get around to responding. I know he’s very busy and really doesn’t care much for the discussion of this, so it is gracious of him to do so.

    Perhaps, there is another option.

  91. Lin, you’re jumping to conclusions because of a misunderstanding. Let me clarify:

    I’m not saying that at all; I never said “saved” in that context meant spiritual salvation. That would only apply if the passage refers to The Childbearing, and even then it assumes that the “if they” part refers to the couple hearing the gospel. In no way have I ever believed or stated that salvation is by anything but faith alone in Christ alone. I can understand the confusion since I have presented two possible interpretations, but salvation by works was never a part of either.

    What I am saying is that if “the childbearing” refers only to this one woman who has the pagan fear of it, that Paul is giving assurance of **safety**, not salvation. I tried to bring this out more clearly later on in relaying that the Greek literally says “be being saved”, which makes no sense if spiritual salvation were in view, since that is a single event and not a process.

    Once again, to remove all doubt, salvation is only by faith alone in Christ alone.

  92. Thank you for posting Diane’s request on this blog.

    Since Matt has already misrepresented my view on his radio show, it is of utmost importance to me that he does not do this in writing also. In the original copyright I made this provision for its use and Diane and Matt already know about this because the article was posted on CARM’s discussion board with the same copyright notice:

    *Copyright 2007 by Cheryl Schatz. Permission is granted to use this article to post on a web site or on a blog site as long as it is kept in its original full form without editing and that credit is given to myself and a link back to this blog site http://www.strivetoenter.com/wim. For any other use, please contact me at [use contact button above to contact me for my email address].

    The article in its entirety is also posted here: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/30/the-rest-of-the-story-1-timothy-211-15-and-matt-slick/

    So I very much welcome Matt to refute my views but he must not misrepresent me. My views must be presented in the article in full so that my full view is in context and without editing in the article as the copyright provision demands. I think this is fair and it is right and after all the gossip on CARM’s discussion board, I would hope that all lovers of truth would consider my holding this position as standing by my integrity.

    Matt may also come here to post his refutation. I welcome him to do so! In fact I have been calling for his refutation since he received a copy of WIM in 2006. If Matt has the truth and is able to refute me, then I welcome that. I can create a blog post for Matt if he would like, and I would gladly give him the same protection from anyone attacking the man. His interpretation on the other hand is welcome to be refuted and challenged, but we do not attack the person as he has.

    Another notice to Diane and Matt of CARM:
    Since I am very well aware that you have a TROLL who visits here and copies what is said to give to you, I am very well aware that you will be reading this. Therefore I advise you that CARM must be very careful not to misrepresent my views. You may not state that I do not believe in “federal headship” in anyway implying that I do not believe that Adam alone was responsible for bringing sin into the world and that we receive our inherited sin through Adam alone. I very much believe in original sin and that through Adam we all die. I believe very strongly that we inherit sin through Adam alone. I do not, however, believe that God created a position for Adam as the authority or boss over all of humanity and it is because of this “position” that we inherit sin through Adam. Also I will be in contact with the SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) regarding Bergen’s book on the documented evidence in that book that the garden of Eden and the animals were created after Adam’s creation. If you publicly state in writing or otherwise as “En” has claimed that I have misrepresented Bergen’s book, you will be called to account if you have not gone to the source to prove that the book does not state the facts as I have quoted them. It is your obligation to prove your case through careful attention to the facts and documented evidence. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but you are not welcome to lie and misrepresent the truth. This is not God’s way and he has a way of bringing to light what is done in the darkness.

    So while Diane has requested that I email her with my permission, I will not be doing that. There is no need for me to contact her or Matt and since they both have my email address and know full well how to contact me, trying to contact me through the egalitarians who post on Matt’s discussion board seems childish to me. The notice of the copyright provision is already on CARM’s discussion board and since I have already given permission to copy the article if one follows those provisions, I see nothing else that I have to do to allow Matt a respectful and honest evaluation of my views.

    So Matt and Diane, I welcome you here should you choose. I think it is a good thing to show up yourselves instead of sending others on your behalf because showing up would be a sign of bravery and of honesty. If these are character qualities that you value as I do, I welcome you to be brave and speak for yourselves on this forum. We will treat you fairly and with respect even if that is not the way that we have been treated on your forum. This is the “way of the master”.

  93. “Lin, you’re jumping to conclusions because of a misunderstanding. Let me clarify:”

    Sorry Paula, I was not referring to what you wrote before. I was referring to what I have seen taught out there. I just had a discussion with an M. Div who really believes Paul is saying she will be saved through the bearing of children because that is her ‘role’.

    When Charis wrote this:

    “And the “saved” is not Christian salvation but restoration. It can’t be salvation through Jesus because it is conditional upon the actions of whoever “they” are. “IF THEY continue in ….”

    …it made me think of the same thing…because it STILL leads to a ‘work’ when you logic it out and we know that cannot be right.

  94. Oh, okay, no problem Lin. :-)

    But you’re right about the view that salvation for women is somehow different than for men is very unbiblical. As one of my commentaries put it when discussing the “salvation by childbirth” view, “This would be salvation by works, and works of a most unusual nature!”

  95. Hopefully Slick has learned his lesson about misrepresenting you. The last time he did you got free radio airtime. If he does it again, you never know, you might get your own television show lol.

  96. Paula, very interesting about the fear of delivering a child, it seems to fit my notion that this passage is not about salvation from eternal damnation in Hell.

    “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (KJV)

    Now why should her salvation from the wrath of God be dependent on her husband (if they continue …)?

    In His wonderful grace,
    Martin

  97. I look at it as simply that only the woman can have the child. 😉

    I.E., if the couple both behave, she will come safely through childbirth. But yes, as you point out, this precludes the “saved” from referring to spiritual salvation, or it would have said “they will be saved if they”.

  98. Diane sent me a copyright infringement notice for copying her words from Matt’s discussion board. This is fair market use for critique and to respond to attacks on my person. Fair use:

    “The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

    If you would like to pursue this further, Diane may I remind you that I am prepared to show the public attack documented one by one that you will have to answer to. May I also suggest that if you even think of using one word that I have written on the CARM discussion board except for the copyrighted piece that I have given you permission to use provided you use it in full, you will not have a leg to stand on, and in addition you will have to answer for your ungodly attacks against not only a sister in Christ but many other brothers and sisters in Christ! If you want to go public with this keep it up. CARM will not come out looking very clean because of the mode of attack that has been common place. Just remember that if you continue this attack, then what happens next will be a can of worms that you yourself will have opened. Fearful people hide behind closed discussion boards. There are ways to make these boards open to public scrutiny and it will be because you insist on going further. Go ahead and make my day.

  99. Cheryl, It is getting really ugly out there. I am seeing it in other places, too. And it is all because of power and control and a false teaching on authority which they think absolves them as Christians for these actions. But, it really comes down to money. It always does. There are too many people making their primary income in ministry and that can be dangerous if they have built up a following.

    Matt has built up a business and a following promoting certain beliefs. Debating you in a civil manner could only mean they may have to realign what they have promoted and that could prove embarrassing. It could also affect business. That is the reason for closed door forums and controlling the mic when you were on his show.

    This is the second time they have resorted to veiled ‘legal’ threats. It is all they have. And that makes it very sad. If it were the Word they were standing upon, they would be civil and discuss it with you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

  100. I’m just sitting here shaking my head. Mature people know what’s been going on and would just try to settle it like adults. They would also agree that if CARM has any sense it will not pursue this course of action. I can’t fathom how they think they have been squeaky-clean but you have not.

    Still, it wouldn’t surprise me if they had a Slick lawyer (pun intended).

    What do they have to gain anyway? They know they have a gazillion atheists that would laugh till the cows come home to see CARM get legally threatening with another Christian just because she quotes the Bible to them! What a wonderful witness they’re displaying.

  101. Lin,
    This is the basics of the hierarchical system. It is control, authority and power. It is the way of the world. While Diane and Matt can control the kingdom they have set up on their own discussion board, they cannot control outside that board. It is fear that causes people to act this way. This is what I have said all along. I told Diane that she is fearful to come here and dialog in a respectful manner and come to a place where she will be held accountable for her words. Whenever we stand up for truth and refuse to be bullied, we will stand strong for Jesus. There is no fear in truth.

  102. Paula,
    You are absolutely right in that mature people do not act this way. This is why I have made the audio tapes available of my the radio debate with Matt Slick. I have been accused of attacking Matt and this supposedly attack has resulted in all of this vicious behavior coming my way. If there are complementarians out there who have been supportive of Matt Slick and CARM, this is the time for you to check out the facts. Listen to the audio files that I have linked to in this post. Test and see for yourself. This gentle response to Matt is what has caused all of this bitterness towards me. Now ask yourself this question, will you support this kind of behavior or will you call Matt and Diane to account for their unChrist-like behavior? If you say nothing, they will think that they can get away with treating others the same way. Apologetics is a wonderful ministry when it is done with genuine love and respect, but apologetics that rips at the sheep not only will offend unbelievers by driving away those who would come to Christ but it also causes damage to the body of Christ by hurting our precious brethren. Enough is enough. It is time to take a stand against those who are divisive. Will you also take a stand with me?

  103. We is all a-standin’.

    And so help me, I’ve got new lyrics for that old song “Jack and Diane” rolling around in my head. But I promise not to make them public.

    Just thought a little levity would be appropriate. 😉

  104. Hi folks,
    There are some very important things that we must not gloss over.
    1. “The childbearing” has the definite article and it is a noun and not a verb, therefore we must not see this in our English mindset and try to look on the word as an action but something or someone. The “seed” of the woman in Genesis 3 is also a noun. If we take “childbearing” and replace it with “the seed of the woman” does the passage make sense? Let’s see:

    But she (the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through “the seed of the woman” if they….

    Does this make sense? If “the childbearing” is “the seed of the woman”, then the salvation comes through the promised Messiah who came through the woman.

    2. Paul’s use of the Greek word for “save” (sozo) is 100% used in his epistles for spiritual salvation. We must let Paul interpret Paul not what we think he should have said, but what he did say. Let’s let Paul’s own consistent usage of the word guide us in this passage not how others may have used the word. Let’s see if we can make this make sense:

    But she (the deceived Ephesian woman) will have spiritual salvation through “the childbearing” (the seed of the woman) if they continue….

    Starting to make a little more sense? Let’s go on to the next point to see if we can finish this.

    3. The emphasis is on deception in 1 Timothy 2:14 and what follows in verse 15 must also be tied into the fact of deception because the two verses are tied together by the word “but” (Greek “de”)

    So in verse 14 we have full and complete deception. Can a completely deceived person have salvation? No they cannot. A completely deceived person must come out of the deception before they can have faith in Christ. How will they come out of this deception? It will be through learning the truth (verse 11). The deceived woman must submit in order to learn. Someone who refuses to submit to learn will not learn anything. Paul makes it clear that the man must be a part of the solution. He has let her lead him into error and now it is time to see that she gets the truth so that together they can put the deception behind her (she apparently is the only one who is fully deceived just as Eve was the only one who was deceived). What will she need in order for her eyes to be opened so that she can have faith in the true Jesus Christ and not stay in her deception? Paul tells us that they must:

    “continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control”

    Once she starts to learn the truth she must continue in the true faith with love for God with holiness and self-control in order to stay away from false doctrine. It is then that she will be saved.

    The works listed then are not works for salvation but works to get her out of the deception. Believe me this takes work!! The really neat part is that what the enemy has meant for harm and evil, God turns around for good.

    Who was the first one deceived? It was Eve. Yet what Satan meant to destroy mankind, God turned around and took the one whom Satan deceived and through her God brought the one who would destroy Satan. The “seed of the woman” is our salvation! The “seed of the woman” will be the salvation of the deceived woman because he will bring her to the truth and bring her out of error.

    Does any of this make sense? If not, it is very important that you work through the verse itself. Do not get rid of the noun “the childbearing” and be tempted to make it a verb. Do not disregard “saved” and make it something to do with women giving birth. Paul is not concerned about physical safety. Why would he be? The issue of sin coming into the garden was not about physical safety, it was about spiritually sinning against God.

    Think long and hard. There are many who have harmonized this passage by disregarding one or more of the inspired words. Trust me that it can be “rightly divided” without having to do that. We do not need to do a harmonization that ignores part of the text or makes Paul use his common words in a completely different way than his habit. Remember one other thing. “The childbearing” as a noun as Paul was inspired to write in 1 Timothy 2:15 is nowhere used this way in all of the scripture. It is unique and it is special. “The seed of the woman” is also unique and special. Together they support each other because our precious Messiah is indeed the one born of a virgin – “the seed of a woman”.

  105. Paula,
    I guess I have to get out more. I don’t know an old “Jack and Diane” song. Or perhaps this old brain ain’t working so great any more 😉

  106. #97 ItsMe
    Well it depends. Some people are fools who never learn and others smarten up after time. Time will tell :)

  107. It’s probably a good thing you don’t know that song. I wouldn’t want to get you into more trouble. 😉

    Re. #106, another possibility is Paul’s habit of using a play on words. That is, as with the word “head” regarding head coverings, there could be a primary and secondary meaning here, and Paul’s choice of words could be his way of tying the two together. So he could be referring both to salvation through The Childbearing (a unique expression for Paul) and also to the physical childbearing she may be fearing.

    On the other hand, we see in 1 Tim. 4:16 the same Greek word for “save”: “Give heed to yourself and to the teaching, continue in them, for in so doing you shall be saving both yourself and those that hear you.” Here we see what would appear to be salvation by doing, said to Timothy who was assuredly already saved. Yet Paul said “will be saving” as a result of “continuing in the teaching”. Either this verse supports the view that salvation can be lost, and must be maintained by our works, or sozo is not 100% used of spiritual salvation.

    Just something to consider.

  108. By the way, I just found that the post that came through the contact page on my blog regarding the demand about copyright did not come directly from Diane herself but from one of her sock puppets. The post is therefore meaningless. What else is new?

  109. Hey Paula,

    “So he could be referring both to salvation through The Childbearing (a unique expression for Paul) and also to the physical childbearing she may be fearing.”

    While I could go along with this if “childbearing” was a verb, it would not fit with physical childbearing because this is definitely an action.

    1 Timothy 4:16 is not talking about physical saving but spiritually saving from error which is part and parcel of salvation. One can argue on whether one can lose their salvation or not but that is not the question about sozo. It is whether it is spiritual salvation or saved from drowning, etc. It definitely is spiritual salvation in 1 Tim. 4:16. Even CBMW admits that Paul always uses sozo in a spiritual sense through all of his epistles so if the opposition admits that, I don’t have a problem with it accepting it either.

    So now back to “childbearing”. Do you have any other way to make “childbearing” a noun other than “the seed of the woman”? I’d be interested to know because I have not found any other way to see it as a noun. Also we need to remember it isn’t just a thing. It is a particular noun because it has the definite article with it. Lots to think about eh?

  110. Oops, I meant to say that the email came from one of Diane’s “meat puppets”. There is a definite difference between “meat puppet” and a “sock puppet”. I learned about this when I did some research on Diane Sellner on Wikipedia.

  111. What Diane does really well, is to threaten in order to try to control things that are out of her control. And this blog is definitely out of her control :)

  112. One other thing, even with Diane’s or rather her “meat puppet’s” demand regarding copyright, she is still welcome here to present her point of view. If she has the truth, no matter how bad her tactics are, I am still a lover of truth. I am still the one who is not afraid to dialog even though both Matt and Diane has backed down. In my eyes, truth is truth and it will stand the test.

  113. Oops, I meant to say that the email came from one of Diane’s “meat puppets”.

    I dunno, Cheryl, I think you had it right the first time. :-)

    While I could go along with this if “childbearing” was a verb, it would not fit with physical childbearing because this is definitely an action.

    No, I’m using it as a noun in both cases. If he is at least on one level referring to the physical, he’s saying “She’ll be kept safe through the childbearing [she is fearing]…” But this is another one of those rare terms, so we need to find out if this noun form is used elsewhere and what it’s semantic range is.

  114. Paula,
    Okay, some kind of string-puppet anyway 😉

    Is there a particular place that you get “fear” from or are you meaning that women were fearful of “death”? I just don’t see a woman’s fear in the text. I see Paul’s assurance only, and I don’t see him contradicting fear or a woman’s words about what might happen. I think this would be reading into the text. Also what would this fear of giving birth (which still appears to be a verb to me?) have to do with stopping a woman from teaching only a man? I think there are so many complications in this passage that if we go in one direction, it appears to distance itself from the rest of the text. Also if we do see this as one woman, why would Paul promise a saving from fear of childbearing for only one woman? And how is this connected to self-control, love, faith and purity? If it is attached to deception and coming out of deception it makes sense. But it doesn’t appear to make sense if it is about fear of giving birth. God certainly has not kept every woman safe during the time of child bearing and nowhere else in scripture is fear of birth mentioned. It just doesn’t seem to fit.

    I do appreciate you trying to come up with something else. Oh my goodness, I hope I haven’t offended you. I appreciate iron that sharpens iron and when I say “trying” I do not ever mean it in a bad way although Diane was highly offended.

  115. It’s important to know all the possibilities, because critics will surely use them at some time or another.

    What I’m referring to regarding fear of childbirth is part of the view that the woman is teaching the Gnostic creation fable. Prayers for safety in childbirth would be part and parcel of her teaching. “The childbirth”, being a noun, would then refer to her own pregnancy and no one else’s. Granted we aren’t given specifics (if this view is correct) but that’s not unusual. Some scholars have described the NT epistles as listening to only one half of a telephone conversation. This is part of the problem with bringing culture into this topic as part of the context; critics simply dismiss it and insist that only what is in the text can contribute to its meaning.

    So there are several possible ways to view this passage, but none are without problems. Even so, I think we agree that Paul’s intent is not to silence all women for all time from teaching correct doctrine to men. The part about “the childbearing” is notoriously difficult, even for seasoned experts, so we should not expect to come up with an air-tight solution. It’s primary importance is in its bearing on identifying a particular woman.

    Maybe tomorrow I will try to make some kind of comparison chart of the various views.

  116. meat puppet, sock puppet. What on earth are you talking about. LOL
    :)

  117. Tiro 3,
    This should help. Suppose a person was nasty on a discussion board and got banned because of their unruly ways. There are ways that they can continue to “talk” on the board by pretending to be someone else.

    A “sock puppet” is a second email address or ID used by a person to attempt to make out as if they are a completely different individual. This is used to circumvent the ban.

    A “meat puppet” is someone who allows themselves to be used by another person to present a message that does not originate with them so that they become a mouthpiece for another person who doesn’t want to appear on their own ID or use their own email address.

    So a “sock puppet” involves only one person using multiple identifies claiming to be different people. A “meat puppet” is another person (person “B”) who is willing to allow their ID or email address to be used to present the ideas of person “A”. In the situation of a ban, this would be done to continue to present the ideas of the banned person “A” but with an established ID that belongs to another person. Clear as mud?

  118. I get it. Think I read on Wickipedia that someone was using their husband as a “meat puppet”. Now that you’ve made the distinction.

    Interesting that a woman can proclaim herself a submissive wife and her husband as her leader and authority, and then be using her husband’s email account as a “meat puppet” because she doesn’t want to accept the leadership’s rules in a website. How does that compute. ??

    :)

  119. I think you should know that Diane has just posted a warning that your ministry publishes private emails on this forum and says that anyone emailing you will have their emails posted.

    Is this just pie in the sky stuff, or does she have some real reason for saying that?

  120. When Charis wrote this:

    “And the “saved” is not Christian salvation but restoration. It can’t be salvation through Jesus because it is conditional upon the actions of whoever “they” are. “IF THEY continue in ….”

    …it made me think of the same thing…because it STILL leads to a ‘work’ when you logic it out and we know that cannot be right.

    I don’t take “the childbearing” to be anyone having a physical baby at all! I believe that Paul is referring to the formation of Christ within- a sanctification process which is painful, like labor- similar to his teaching in Gal 4:19:
    “I labor in birth until Christ be formed in you“

    My take is posted more thoroughlyhere

  121. Exegetist,
    Diane is trying to create fear in those who might want to contact me. What she has said is a lie. The only email that I posted on my site is an email sent to me refusing my offer to dialog in public. This was from Kamilla and I emailed her first before I posted telling her that I would let those on this blog know about her decision.

    Diane’s way of doing things is to spread lies and claim them to be truths so that she can control people. This is showing her fear. If she wasn’t afraid of people contacting me, she would not post such a fear tactic. Just another proof that Diane is running scared. If she had the truth, what would she fear from people contacting me? The fear tactics go on and on and on…

    But Jesus would not have us fear others. When we are doing what is right there is no need to fear. Diane’s fear is irrational and she is trying hard to make others just as fearful as she is. But if Diane is a true Christian then she needs to know that God has not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 2:7

  122. It’s quite hilarious she is making a stink out of you posting one of her emails when she was caught a couple of years ago reading people’s private messages. One of her own moderators caught her and told her that if she didn’t confess and apologize that he would tell. Of course he was banned right then and there. Then he went to various message boards warning people that she was snooping in people’s private PM’s without their knowledge. And Slick n’ Sellner always maintained that PRIVATE PM’s were just that, PRIVATE. They lied.

    Then of course, Slick n’ Sellner concocted this story that CARM had come under attack and that’s why they were reading people’s private messages. And of course anyone that expressed feelings of betrayel and embarrassment that their personal mail was invaded was banned on the spot. And nobody was ever allowed to talk about it.

    One day sadly, she’ll have to account for her betrayels, lies and reign of terror on Christ’s brothers and sisters on CARM.

  123. Hi ItsMe,
    Actually I didn’t post one of Diane’s emails. On comment #100 I made a comment about an email but I didn’t post it. The quote in the comment is the fair use notice not something that she sent me. I made a public comment because it was a threat that I wasn’t going to pay attention to and since it affected the blog, I posted my own thoughts and comments. For Diane to say that I posted a private email is just over the top. I am wondering if perhaps she is working too hard and needs some R & R because it appears she is becoming unglued. That is not a healthy thing and she should get some rest.

    Secondly Diane didn’t email me, the comment came from one of her “meat puppets” posing as Diane and again I didn’t post the email. If someone could please copy the post that Diane put up on the discussion board and send it to me privately, that would be very helpful so I have it for my records. I am sure it will come in handy perhaps some time in the future.

  124. ItsMe,

    Crosswalk forums had a similar problem. But their response was to just post a note in an innocuous place that anyone’s PM can be read by the moderators, so not to PM anything they wouldn’t want the owners to read. Only if someone stumbled across it did anyone know it was happening. But it’s not as easy as it seems. They cannot read them all nor do they store them all, way to much space needed. Instead there is some kind of delayed erasing in which only the last hours PM’s are put in a hold. So, they can keep a watch if they have someone in particular they want to spy on. And I can tell you that they did in fact do so for people they didn’t like.

    I suspect that with the larger forums it may be a given that they do that. Hope not, but I’d rather err on the cautious side.

  125. Diane posted a distortion on CARM saying that I posted a private email from her. Not only did she not send me a private email, what I was sent by a person posing as Diane and posting on my comment form on my blog was never quoted by me. I only posted the fair use law and my own comments about the threat that she made to me about my public blog.. Now the curious thing is that Diane lives in New Jersey and the supposedly “private email” that was sent to me came from Pennsylvania. Isn’t that interesting how Diane has another “meat puppet” this time in Pennsylvania.

    What is going on Diane? Your unfair and unkind public statements against me will stand as a witness. So Diane would you like me to post the “email” that was sent on your behalf so that everyone can see what you really said? Let me know. I certainly can do that if you so desire. Here is Diane’s post on Matt’s public discussion board of CARM:

    Posters be warned, do not email
    the WIM ministries. If you email a private request or question, the owners of the website permit “Cheryl” to post on her blog your requests and she answers your private email requests on the public blog. I sent a private email asking that my post copyrighted be removed from their blog since they were copying all my post, not just brief quotes which are legally permitted and I could not answer or correct her misrepresenting my posts out of context of the discussion here as she infringed on our privacy and copyright…… The point is, I did ask in private not publically, till after my request was ignored and posted on her blog then I posted the request here. The point is now she is denying posting the requests sent in private email.

    Then when I suggested to others here not to email anything private since she will post it, or respond publically she then calls me a liar. There is something very, seriously wrong with that feminist group and that lady is not to be trusted. Be WARNED, they will attack your person, threaten that you had better not post their words here while she is posting our post there and then post answers to your privarte emails on their blog. Please do not trust the feminist ministry at all and do not send a private email unless you want it to be addressed and answered on a public blog…Email private sent to ministry, this sheposted on her blog rather then a private email response and now denies that she answered or addressed a private email publicaly. Here are her very own words, post 100 and she says we are lying, she does not share private emails..HUH….She answered it ON her blog and while the post is sitting right there she denies writing it publically…She ask we not continue an attack, IT was SENT in an email with a simple request to remove my written posts from her blog and she says WE are attacking…HELLO… Dispicable…..

    Ok, now that we are going to be accused, time to post Cheryl’s own words. Here is her publically posting an answer to a private email. She claims in her response, SHE can post our words on her blog, well that must go both ways then. Here is her response that she denies exist to her PUBLIC blog as written in a private email request.

    Quote:
    on 06 Mar 2008 at 5:15 pm100Cheryl
    Diane sent me a copyright infringement notice for copying her words from Matt’s discussion board. This is fair market use for critique and to respond to attacks on my person. Fair use:

    “The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

    If you would like to pursue this further, Diane may I remind you that I am prepared to show the public attack documented one by one that you will have to answer to. May I also suggest that if you even think of using one word that I have written on the CARM discussion board except for the copyrighted piece that I have given you permission to use provided you use it in full, you will not have a leg to stand on, and in addition you will have to answer for your ungodly attacks against not only a sister in Christ but many other brothers and sisters in Christ! If you want to go public with this keep it up. CARM will not come out looking very clean because of the mode of attack that has been common place. Just remember that if you continue this attack, then what happens next will be a can of worms that you yourself will have opened. Fearful people hide behind closed discussion boards. There are ways to make these boards open to public scrutiny and it will be because you insist on going further. Go ahead and make my day.

  126. And Diane,
    No matter how much you lie and make things up to try to instill your fear in others, you are still welcome here if you would like to dialog about the women’s issue. We would be interested in hearing your refutation of my DVDs and if there is a correction you can bring, it will be listened to with interest. You won’t be treated here as you treat others on the CARM board. If you can handle being treated with respect, I welcome you to show up yourself. Let’s hear what you have to say. Truth can stand the test. Only error runs and hides.

  127. Okay, time to get back to “normal” and ignore Diane.

    Charis,
    That is an interesting take and one certainly worth considering. I think it has problematic areas. You said:

    I don’t take “the childbearing” to be anyone having a physical baby at all! I believe that Paul is referring to the formation of Christ within- a sanctification process which is painful, like labor- similar to his teaching in Gal 4:19:
    “I labor in birth until Christ be formed in you“

    If this is what Paul meant, then he would be saying:

    But she will be saved through the sanctification process if they continue in faith, love and holiness and self-control.

    But do you see that salvation is not dependent on the sanctification process? Our salvation comes from our faith alone not our sanctification. Also notice in Galatians 4:19 that Paul was the one in labor, not the ones who were being sanctified. I think your idea is thoughtful but where do others come into your own personal sanctification? Paul said “if they continue in….” Does my sanctification depend on someone else? I don’t think so. Neither does my salvation depend on someone else. Do you know what does depend on someone else? It is a person’s coming out from deception.

    This is something that I frequently asked the ex-JW’s who gathered at the support group. I asked them if they were deceived how would they know. The answer was that if a person is deceived they cannot know of themselves. If they do know, then they are no longer deceived.

    The woman that was stopped from teaching was thoroughly deceived (verse 14) and it was her salvation that was in question. But if she cannot be saved until she comes out from her deception, how is she going to come out of that deception? She will need help because of herself she cannot see her deception. This is why she must learn the truth and submit to learning and then having someone walk alongside her in keeping her in the truth and away from deception. Once she has left the deception behind, then she can come to Christ in exactly the same way that all of us come.

    Does this make sense?

  128. Does anyone know how long ago the forum went public again so that one doesn’t have to log in order to see all the threads?

  129. 1 Timothy 4:16 is not talking about physical saving but spiritually saving from error which is part and parcel of salvation.

    So if I understand you right, you make a distinction between “spiritual saving” as relates to eternal salvation, and “spiritual saving” as it relates to backsliding (a big issue with James too). Yet which it means has to come from context, and the context of the false-teaching woman is unclear; it is the point we’re discussing.

    In addition, for the whole NT sozo is frequently used of physical safety (Mt. 8:25 and 14:30 for example). But what about Paul? Is there a reason we cannot allow him to use sozo for anything but the spiritual, especially when the other NT writers used it also for physical safety? We can only say Paul **always** uses it concerning salvation of the soul if we check every context, and if context is not decisive, we cannot claim this 100%.

    In other words, it seems circular to say that Paul always uses a word in one way all the time and then use that axiom to decide the unclear cases.

  130. No I don’t make a distinction, I just didn’t want the conversation to get distracted onto whether a person could lose their salvation or not. The real question is whether Paul intended to have a unique meaning for sozo that isn’t in any of his other passages of scripture. No other passage of Paul talks about sozo used as a saving from something physical.

    By the way, I really like the way you argue with respect. These are important things to discuss and respect is something that is highly important.

    So how do we see Paul in 1 Timothy 2:15? I think that if we can determine what “childbearing” means it will determine what “saved” means. If we say that Paul is concerned about women’s physical safety during childbirth we wonder what childbirth has to do with the price of rice in China? Paul has been talking about the importance of learning for “a woman” whom he stops from teaching. Paul speaks about deception and about how the first one created was not deceived. How would fear of bearing children logically work itself out into the passage? I just don’t see the relevance especially since Paul connects the verses together by using connecting words.

    So we ask ourselves what has “childbearing” (noun) have to do with the deception of Eve and the “not deceived” of Adam? Well if “childbearing” (noun) means the seed of the woman, then it has everything to do with the fact that one was deceived and the other was not. In 1 Timothy 1:13 Paul says that he was shown mercy because he acted ignorantly in unbelief. Then in chapter 2 the childbearing comes through the one who was deceived. What has childbearing to do with deception? If the “childbearing” (noun) is the person of the Messiah as the seed of the woman, then Paul is confident that the Messiah who came as the seed of the first deceived woman, will bring mercy to this deceived woman in Ephesus. This interpretation ties in the ignorance, unbelief and mercy from 1 Timothy 1:13 with the one who came and brought mercy to the the very first one who sinned through ignorance, unbelief and deception. What is the common bond here? Mercy. God’s mercy brought through the vehicle of the one deceived. Eve’s deception, not willful sin, brought the opportunity for God to bring mercy to all of us and through her, her own seed, the Messiah, would destroy the one who deceived and destroyed her. Satan didn’t win in the end. He only brought about an opportunity for God to show mercy to the rest of us and the example of one very deceived woman in Ephesus has Paul’s confidence in God that God will once again be the victor in the enemies goal to deceive and destroy one more time. She will be saved through the seed of the very first deceived woman, if they work together to get her educated in the truth, back on track to a course of love for God, turned away from sin and to holiness and encouraged to have self-control to stay away from the lies and the deception of what she had believed to be true. This is how one very deceived woman will be saved.

  131. Yes, respectful dialog really can happen!

    Let me first clarify a point I don’t seem to have gotten across: I’m not saying Paul is guaranteeing safety in childbirth for all women, but only for this one (if this view is correct; it’s not necessarily my personal view).

    An important key is the tense of sozo: it is parsed as future passive indicative 3rd person singular. (Which, being interpreted means, ‘she shall be being saved”.) It is a process, not a single event, happening to an individual woman. And the process is identified as “the childbirth”. So the question is, what exactly is this process, and in what manner will it “save” this woman?

    I think it’s safe to say that Paul never portrays salvation of the soul as a process, but as an event that happens in a moment of time. Growth is then the “process”, the “outworking”. If we take the view from 1 Tim. 4:16 that it could possibly refer to backsliding, then this could mean the woman here has done the same, and needs to sit and learn in order to facilitate the “process” of spiritual growth.

    Well, I hate to go in the middle of a thought, but real life is knocking on the door. We have a major winter storm arriving, and I have to run some errands, and pick up the kids from school early today. Back later.

  132. OOPS, forgot an ending “italic” tag, sorry.

  133. But she will be saved through the sanctification process if they continue in faith, love and holiness and self-control.

    But do you see that salvation is not dependent on the sanctification process? Our salvation comes from our faith alone not our sanctification. Also notice in Galatians 4:19 that Paul was the one in labor, not the ones who were being sanctified. I think your idea is thoughtful but where do others come into your own personal sanctification? Paul said “if they continue in….” Does my sanctification depend on someone else? I don’t think so. Neither does my salvation depend on someone else. Do you know what does depend on someone else? It is a person’s coming out from deception.

    I looked up sozo and it is used here:
    Act 27:31 Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.

    I don’t take the “saved” in 1 Tim 2:15 as CHRISTIAN salvation because it is dependent upon the actions of “they”.

    As for your observation about Paul in Galations travailing in labor on behalf of others, my personal experience of Christian marriage has involved a great deal of travail on behalf of my husband, and that might be precisely what the passage is saying.

    Here is a quote from my thoughts on the passage :

    In Christian marriage as God intends, wouldn’t a wife be respected as a “co-heir”, valued and appreciated as “bone of my bone” and “help MEET”… as Adam must have felt toward Eve prior to the Fall ?

    “I labor in birth until Christ be formed in you“- Paul to the Galatians
    I had assumed that “the childbirth” in 1 Tim 2:15- ““she shall be saved through the child-bearing” (YLT) referred to Christ being formed in herself and the “restoration” is of garden intimacy with the LORD. But Paul speaks of himself laboring in birth on behalf of another! Suppose the passage refers to her travail/pain in a difficult marriage until Christ is formed in her husband? … whereupon they can experience garden of Eden intimacy with each other?

  134. Paula,
    You said:

    I think it’s safe to say that Paul never portrays salvation of the soul as a process, but as an event that happens in a moment of time. Growth is then the “process”, the “outworking”.

    This is my point about coming to faith in Christ by coming out of deception. I spent 16 years leading a support group for ex-JW’s helping them to not only come to faith in Christ, but to come out of the mindset that they had taken as baggage when they left the Watchtower. Coming out of the cults is indeed a process. There is a special mindset there that causes them to see the same verses that I see but see them with their cult “eye glasses” in place. I believe that this is what deception does. It colors our vision so that we cannot see the truth even if it is there staring us in the face.

    So while Paul can see this person as coming to faith in Christ, it is indeed a process because of the deception that she is in. It rarely happens in one day. It seems like the shutters lift piece by piece until they are free to see clearly. Everything in this passage shouts out to me deception and God’s mercy to come out of that deception. It shouts out to me from the use of the term that would refer to the seed of the very first deceived woman to the process of coming out of that deception to the fact that the woman cannot come out on her own because one needs help to see that one has been deceived, thus the emphasize on “they” not just “she” although it is only the “she” that is questioned regarding salvation. Note that Paul does not say “they” will be saved…if “they”. The emphasis on the salvation is fully and only on one individual but the fact that one must be there to help her, is another thing that shouts “she has been deceived and needs help!” to me.

  135. Charis,
    You said:

    I looked up sozo and it is used here:
    Act 27:31 Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.

    I don’t take the “saved” in 1 Tim 2:15 as CHRISTIAN salvation because it is dependent upon the actions of “they”.

    In this instance, yes, the “saved” means physical salvation. Acts is an account of the early history of the church. However when Paul is teaching, he only uses sozo in a sense of spiritual salvation, not physical saving from something.

    You also said:

    “In Christian marriage as God intends, wouldn’t a wife be respected as a “co-heir”, valued and appreciated as “bone of my bone” and “help MEET”… as Adam must have felt toward Eve prior to the Fall ?

    “I labor in birth until Christ be formed in you“- Paul to the Galatians
    I had assumed that “the childbirth” in 1 Tim 2:15- ““she shall be saved through the child-bearing” (YLT) referred to Christ being formed in herself and the “restoration” is of garden intimacy with the LORD. But Paul speaks of himself laboring in birth on behalf of another! Suppose the passage refers to her travail/pain in a difficult marriage until Christ is formed in her husband? … whereupon they can experience garden of Eden intimacy with each other?”

    There is great value in your words and much for us to work on regarding intimacy in marriage and not only being joint-heirs with Christ but acting as joint-heirs.

    However we need to ask ourselves whether Paul is referring to intimacy in marriage in 1 Timothy 2:15? We do see the two of them need to work together as “they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control”. However is the working together needed because she has been deceived or is it because they need to work to be one in a united bond?

    I think we can properly rule out that this is one place where marriage unity is meant. There are several reasons. First because Paul emphasizes deception as a reason for the prohibition. If Paul’s was writing to encourage her intimacy in marriage, he would encourage her to teach her husband, not forbid it. Secondly sanctification is not something that anyone can do for another. Hierarchists often seem to be convinced that the husband’s responsibility is to sanctify his wife. The teaching is that the husband is to bring her along spiritually because he will be responsible for he before God. But this simply is not true. Each person is responsible for God as an individual and nowhere does the scripture say that the husband will give an account of his wife before God. She is responsible to mature in her faith and her sanctification process is between her and God.

    So while I completely agree with you about the marriage union and that sanctification is something that we can greatly long for in our mate because sometimes it is his/her lack of sanctification that often stops complete marital intimacy, there is no way that we can bring sanctification to another person. I think this is why Paul was so anxious. In the Galatians 4:20, Paul goes on to say:

    Would that I were with you now and could coax you vocally, for I am fearful and perplexed about you!

    Paul’s concern is not that he was the one responsible for sanctification, but that the Galatians were allowing themselves to be influenced by those who wanted to bring them back into bondage. The NET bible notes say about verse 19:

    The relative clauses in English do not pick up the emotional force of Paul’s language here (note “tone of voice” in Gal_4:20, indicating that he is passionately concerned for them);

    Paul’s concern was to reason with the Galatians in order to stop their progress back into legalism. But Paul could not work on the inside of them with the sanctification process. This is solely between God and the individual.

    So back to 1 Timothy 2:15, is Paul now saying that the husband is responsible for the sanctification of the wife and that is why he must be there in the process and he will represent her to God? No, that is a foreign concept in the bible. I think we do well to see that this passage is focused on the problem of deception, and how that hinders one’s progress to saving faith.

    Charis, I think your concept of unity in marriage is healthy and worthy of support, however I think we will find other scriptures that will support the concept while this passage supports the fact that coming out of deception takes work and great effort and it takes one to come alongside another in order to bring the person to a saving faith in Christ. I know this to be a fact since this has been my lifelong work. I know how hard it is for a person to come out of deception, but once the deception is gone and the person has a solid faith in Christ, the process of sanctification starts in their life and will continue until the day that they die.

    Does this help at little?

  136. Yes, Thank you.

    Let me see if I can express what is still bothering me (and I have seen other posts on CARM which reflect the same concern) I still am not getting how it can be dependent on “they” if you understand it as salvation? You said about Paul’s use of “I travail in labor until Christ be formed in you” in Gal 4:19 :

    “Paul could not work on the inside of them with the sanctification process. This is solely between God and the individual.”

    but to my ears your interpretation seems to make her christian salvation dependent upon “THEY” because the promise to her is conditional upon the actions of they: “she shall be saved… IF THEY….”

    You think the “they” are the husband and wife, right? What if he bails and doesn’t want to come alongside her and support her in her learning? Then she is LOST because “they” did not fulfill the condition “if they continue in….”? You pointed out yourself that sanctification is “solely between God and the individual”. Though I understand that people who are deeply deceived need discipleship and teaching to dig out from under that, nevertheless, I believe salvation (the salvation of anyone) is solely between God and the individual, and not dependent upon any group of “they”.

  137. Charis,
    While I have seen people (in the cults) come to faith in Christ without someone helping them, i.e. from God’s sovereign grace alone, it is not common. Most of the time people are too warped in their thinking to get outside the mindset of the error. I spent a few years discipling a couple of ladies who were former two by twos (a cult that started overseas and spread here through the work of people going by twos to the door), and she had to set aside the bible for a few years before she met me because all she could see from the bible was the old mindset. I helped her by giving her questions that she had never thought of before and this was a big step for her in getting back into the bible.

    So while the final point of one’s salvation is only between you and God, there is a special place that we can have in the process of getting a person to that place because when we preach to those in the cults they cannot hear us until they have the deception broken in their lives.

    This means that the salvation process is different in those who are deceived. A “normal” person can hear the gospel and respond to the preaching and be saved. But a deceived person cannot respond because their deception stands between them and the hearing of the gospel. Their eyes are blind and their ears are deaf to the gospel. So these then are “special” ones who need people to help them get past the false doctrine which has wrapped around their heart. I have seen this so many times. I have seen a person come into my bible studies with a cold attitude towards me and the bible. Later they will tell me that they have seen me as the devil or his agent. But when I start sharing the truth of God’s word in a way that is outside the fortified front doors. I call it the back door approach. This is how the process starts.

    So while many people can hear the gospel and respond right away, it is almost impossible for a person who has been deceived regarding the bible to hear the gospel and respond right away. For them the salvation experience becomes a process not an immediate event. While we cannot share in the event as it happens in the end, because only Jesus saves, we can participate in the process. The fact that a process is prescribed in 1 Timothy 2:15 shows that this is just another proof that this woman has been deceived. Deception is such a wicked thing. It deadens a person to the truth.

    So what we have is a three-fold process:

    1. The process of identifying and dealing with the error.

    2. The actual time that the person realizes their need for the Savior and turns from their sin and accepts the sacrifice that Jesus paid on their behalf.

    3. Sanctification.

    People trained in understanding deception are very needed to help a person to get free. Think about it this way – imagine a person in your mind who is has a snake wrapped around their body squeezing the life and the breath out of them. Does it do any good to give them a mask filled with oxygen to help them breath? No. It doesn’t do any good until you get the snake off and then put the mask on. People who have been deceived have a snake wrapped around them. How can they get air? They need help to get the snake off and then once you have given them air, then and only then will they be able to breath. So for a person who has a snake wrapped around them, there is a process for their “physical” salvation. They need help in doing something that they cannot do. This is a process and is complete when the snake is gone. Then they become “normal” just like the rest of us and they can now respond to the gospel.

    Now what else would be needed to help this new “Christian” who is freed from the snake? We need to teach them and help them not go back to the snake pit. This is exactly what Paul was facing with the Galatians. They had been freed from their sin and they had accepted the gospel. But people were intent on bringing them back into bondage and Paul was extremely beside himself trying to get them from going back into the snake pit.

    Now last question that you had was if she would be lost if her husband bailed out? I would say that she would not come out of her deception without help. If her husband bailed and no one else could help her, she would probably be stuck in her deception because if we take verse 14 as speaking about this woman (and I am now convinced that it is primarily about this woman) then as a fully and completely deceived woman she could not see the error without help or some other kind of miraculous act of God. Is this fair? No it isn’t. But then this is what deception is all about and why we apologists try so hard to refute error. Doctrinal error kills. Those who have been saved from this error are like a man who has been pulled from the fire by another brother. I absolutely hate the fact that there are wonderful people in the cults who are going to hell with a bible in their hands.

  138. If Paul’s was writing to encourage her intimacy in marriage, he would encourage her to teach her husband, not forbid it.

    Maybe that really would work in some marriages (where the man respected females and his wife) but with porn use at epidemic proportion among professing Christians, and whole branches of the church captive to a doctrine which reinforces the notion that females are are more easily decieved and not worthy of being heard,,, I don’t think mine is the only marriage where that is not a realistic expectation.

    1Tim 2:11-12 Let the woman (gune) learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman (gune) to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man (aner), but to be in silence.

    The reason God says it is not because a woman/wife is inferior, deceived, can’t teach. It is for her own protection!!! As you know, in greek there are not separate words for “husband” and “man” nor for “wife” and “woman”. A husband will simply not listen nor hear a wife who is finger wagging didactic nor attempting to forcefully exercise authority over him. It is counterproductive for a wife to deal with a husband in a manner which comes across as “parental”. It won’t “fix him”. To the contrary; he will- at least- dig in his heels if he doesn’t get downright abusive. God knows that!

    The instructions of the passage reflect God’s loving and protective heart for HIS daughters and apply today- living and active sharper than any double edged sword. The passage offers HOPE and Restoration.

  139. Yes, if conditional salvation rings true, then the “IF THEY” bit only makes sense to me, if it is referring to women and not a couple. Also even then, why should this be applied only to women. Salvation I believe is equal to both men and women.

  140. Cross posted with you Cheryl. I did read your snake analogy and it gives me food for thought… Thanks :)

  141. Charis,
    I have some more to post later when I get back. Thanks for saying that what I said gave you food for thought. I worked hard for that!

    Martin,
    It isn’t conditional salvation, it is a condition of removal of the deception so that she can be saved. Now we can ask ourselves, why is it that theologians have always taken this verse to mean “women” when the plural “women” is not even in the passage? How could this possibly be a universal word for all women? Is Eve’s deception universal for all women? Of course not! But there is a “she” that can be linked to Eve because of the deception that she is in.

    When we think that this is a universal word having all women with a condition for being saved, we can see how wrong that is. So what does Paul really mean? It goes right back to what I started with. Who is the “she” and who are the “they”? Unless we can be sure of that we cannot make sense of the passage. We also need to know who the “childbearing” is and how he fits in with salvation.
    Gotta run,
    Cheryl

  142. “A husband will simply not listen nor hear a wife who is finger wagging didactic nor attempting to forcefully exercise authority over him. It is counterproductive for a wife to deal with a husband in a manner which comes across as “parental”. It won’t “fix him”. To the contrary; he will- at least- dig in his heels if he doesn’t get downright abusive. God knows that!”

    I don’t think this has anything to do with the verse at all. From what we can see, the husband was listening to false teaching from his wife. If he was not listening to her then why the verse at all? She was ‘murdering’ or ‘killing’ him with this false doctrine. He seemed to be going along with it. It does not tell us she was finger wagging and being parental. It tells us she was killing him with false teaching.

    Because she is teaching false doctrine, I can’t see this as for her own physical ‘protection’ but for her salvation. She is deceived out of ignorance and teaching it to her husband who is listening.

  143. Cheryl and all,

    I’m working on what I hope is a detailed, coherent, and accurate study of 1 Tim. 2 (as opposed to the earlier very sketchy version I posted). I’ll put it up somewhere when I’m done, but it’ll be too long to put here in comments. This passage is very tough and requires meticulous care, and I don’t want to rush. I hope to have it up tomorrow.

  144. Okay kids, here’s my lame analysis of 1 Tim. 2:

    http://theology.fether.net/_private/1Tim2.html

    Yeah, it was a slow Friday night.

  145. I like it, Paula.

  146. “And in spite of all this, she is saved.”

    Paula, that was something. You did a lot of work on that. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around her being ‘saved’ in spite of the false teaching out of deception. Do you believe Paul can ‘know’ if she is saved at that time or if she is going to be saved?

    Would the childbearing metaphor work with it being a noun?

  147. Paula,
    I want to commend you on your work! You have come a long way even butting heads with me a time or two! And it was you who helped me see something in verse 14 that I had missed. However I think you are not quite there yet and here is why. In verse 15 Paul says “she will be saved…if” Paul didn’t say she is saved now and she will have to go through some trials. How would we know that she is saved now since she is thoroughly and completely deceived? And where are the trials? The things that Paul says after the “if” are not trials. They are conditions. If they are conditions for salvation, then apparently we can assume that she doesn’t have salvation yet.

    The last problem area that you have is that you still make childbearing out to be a verb not a noun. There are some details that you need to work out, but I think you can get there by filling in the holes in your argument.

    Let’s start with the first hole regarding “childbearing”. You make childbearing to be a process yet it is important that it is a noun. You said that this is about the woman “being raised” or her spiritual growth (Christ in her) but in order for us to get this meaning, we would need to restructure the sentence to make the word a verb instead of a noun.

    May I suggest something for you to work on? Concentrate on and do some work on the importance of the virgin birth and the promise to Eve of the coming Messiah through her. You said that the birth of Christ was “strictly a sign, a fulfillment of prophecy”. May I suggest that the virgin birth was more than just a sign and more than just a fulfillment of prophecy? The virgin birth (or THE seed bearing as the Messiah through the woman) was such a necessity that without the Messiah coming through the woman, there would be no Kinsman Redeemer. May I also suggest that if there was a myth that taught that the woman came first and the man came second resulting in a teaching that both were created individually by God thus denying that the woman was from the man’s body, this myth would destroy the doctrine of the Kinsman Redeemer. Go to my post on Adam as head of the family and walk through the process to see how important it is that Jesus came through the woman and that the man was not to be involved in the conception of the Messiah. See also how I draw together the importance of having the woman created from the body of the man. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

    Lastly take the definite noun “THE seed” of the woman and see if there is anyway that it will link with the definite noun “THE childbearing”. If the two are one in the same, then the salvation spoken of is none other than salvation through the PERSON of the Messiah, the one born of the woman.

    Now we need to ask ourselves why did Paul bring up Eve and why did he bring up “THE childbearing” (noun)? How is Eve’s deception linked to “THE childbearing” or “THE seed”? Is it possible that THE seed of the woman (noun) counteracts the deception of Satan? Is it possible that THE childbearing – THE Messiah was planned by God to be brought through the one that Satan deceived so that through the one deceived, ultimately the deceiver will be destroyed? Does this sound like something that God in his providence can and would do? Satan opened a can of worms by deceiving the woman because it would ultimately destroy Satan himself. Through Satan’s deception, Jesus was brought into the world through the seed of the woman, bypassing the seed of man, the one who had sinned deliberately and with knowledge. Why was it necessary to bypass the seed of man?

    Meditate on these things and God will reveal it to you. It isn’t about the trials of life. No, it is all about deception and Satan’s wanting to destroy. It is about removing the blinders so that the one who was deceived will have the light of the Messiah shone upon her so that she can see! It is all about dealing with deception and coming out the other end a child of God.

    Keep up the good work and let me know if God opens your eyes to something that you did not quite see clearly before.

  148. Thanks Charis :-)

    Cheryl,

    I’m sure my wording could be clearer, so let me try some more on the “will be saved”.

    In the examples of other scriptures that have the same form “will be being saved”, we see that it conveys the meaning “will be preserved throughout”. It does not say that salvation is obtained by a process, but that it is preserved during it, not lost. If we ignore the “be being” and just have “will be saved” we come to an erroneous conclusion, that the “moment” of initial salvation has not yet happened.

    What do you understand “will be being saved” to mean?

    I’m not sure why you think I’m using “the childbearing” as a verb. In calling it a “trial” I’m saying it’s a thing, a noun. It is not some action she takes (verb) but a thing that she submits to.

    And the childbearing is not needed because she is saved, but because she needs to grow spiritually and get rid of false ideas. We cannot ignore “be being saved through the childbearing” and change it to “be saved by means of the childbearing”. The “trial” is this process of spiritual growth. Perhaps trial is not the best word, but process.

    I’m well familiar with the importance of the virgin birth of Jesus, but I disagree that it was more than a sign. Scripture never says it had anything to do with “inherited sin nature”, a concept that is not only absent from mention anywhere in the Bible, but that is expressly refuted by scriptures like Ezekiel 18. I’ve studied Romans intently and do not see inherited sin nature there either. (see my article Can Sin Be Inherited?) Jesus was without sin, not because he alone didn’t inherit it, but because he committed no rebellion against God.

    Yes, there was a myth of woman coming first. The Gnostic creation myth is found in the book On The Origin of the World. But it does not say both were created individually, but that man came from woman.

    The “seed” of the woman is not a childbearing but a Child, a Person. Where does Paul mention “the seed of the woman” here? I don’t see the word “seed”, and we can’t make it mean “the childbearing” without some kind of scriptural basis. Surely he would simply have stated “But she will be saved by the Seed of the Woman if they…” Of course Jesus came to destroy Satan and bring truth in place of falsehood, but is that part of this context? I don’t see it there.

    So I think your objections to my study are largely due to misunderstanding my points, which is something I will update if what I said here helps. Since I don’t want to distract your blog into a long debate on “inherited sin”, I am concentrating mainly on this passage and what it actually says in Greek.

  149. Lin,

    You asked, “I am having a hard time wrapping my head around her being ’saved’ in spite of the false teaching out of deception. Do you believe Paul can ‘know’ if she is saved at that time or if she is going to be saved?”

    Of course none of us, not even Paul, can know who is saved unless they demonstrate knowledge and acceptance of the gospel. But the issue of false teachers is difficult because we must always base salvation on what a person believes about Jesus, and nothing else. Otherwise we get into the whole “Lordship Salvation” thing, which basically demands external “fruit” or “works” for salvation. (That’s another major can of worms I don’t want to clog this blog with.)

    In this passage, we aren’t told of the woman’s view of the gospel. But since Paul tells her to sit down and learn, can we not assume she is part of the church and thus saved? Would he tell an unbeliever to sit down and learn, and to “continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety”? How could she “continue” something she hadn’t started?

    We’d also have to say that all false teachers are lost, and I’m not prepared to make such a judgment. Each person has to be judged on what they do with Jesus, neither adding nor subtracting from salvation by faith alone. Yet, incredibly, we see such people teaching jaw-dropping heresy all the time. Granted many of them today deny the gospel, and for that reason they are lost. But it is a human trait to go through life believing very contradictory things. It makes no sense, but people have a way of defying reason. 😉

    “Would the childbearing metaphor work with it being a noun?”

    Yes.

  150. Paula very fine analysis you made.
    The “if” part really point out to me something with works and this rules out salvation from the Wrath of God (especially when it involves the works of her husband too), and the “continue” bit seems to indicate she and her husband is already saved.

    I tend to think of her being saved from deception.

    In Jesus,
    Martin

  151. Thanks Mart… hope it doesn’t raise more questions than it answers!

    ::hides from Cheryl::

  152. Greg Anderson March 8, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Paula #’s 150 & 151

    Excellent forensic analysis regarding a personal letter by Paul to his protege in Ephesus. Cheryl too, the points you both raise are well-reasoned and cogent, but there’s still a difference between a cogent argument and a sound conclusion that necessarily follows from a given set of data.

    Here’s what I mean by this:

    a) We may never know fully, in the way of exact particulars, what Paul had in mind regarding his admonishments to the young Timothy, and you both give viable conjectures.

    b) We do know however, that the over-arching context of the letter is the problem of false teaching at Ephesus, and as the WIM dvd’s have admirably shown, there is no law anywhere in the OT that silences women.

    c) Textual criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with inerrancy, but has everything to do with what we make of a personal letter written in capital letters all run together with no punctuation. The rub comes with hermeneutic, not with the inspiration of Holy Writ.

    In conclusion, to say that Paul is universally prohibiting Godly women from preaching and teaching the Good News in his Timothy letter, is at odds with Acts 15:28-29, and we have a contradiction.

    It implies that Jesus’ work at Golgotha was not complete (at least for women anyway), and that the old Levitical ordinances (earthly priest-hierarchy) were not done away with, but had only morphed into the structures we see in the remainder of the Timothy letters.

  153. Thanks, Greg, for the kind words and reminder of the big picture. I only wish that everyone on both sides of the “woman question” (as Bushnell put it) would be content with this big picture and not press the issue to the point where half the Body of Christ is bound and silenced.

    While there is much to be gained by microscopic study, I would probably not pursue it except for the fact that enemies of women’s gifting will use such things as a weapon for beating women over the head. So “prepare for war” we must.

    It’s just like the wars over creation/evolution. If it were not for the fact that we are all forced to learn evo, having it preached in the media, the schools, every facet of life, and for the fact that qualified scientists lose their jobs and reputations if they express doubt in evo, most people wouldn’t care. But because injustice is caused by alleged “science” (really philosophy), we creationists are forced to go to that microscopic level to defend ourselves and those who have risked their careers over this. It can also affect a person’s faith, and that’s important.

    Likewise, I’ve seen women reject Christianity because of misogyny. I’ve seen report after report of women whose husbands justified beating them (physically or verbally) because of the teachings of male supremacism. For those reasons we must beat them at their own game.

    To paraphrase a line from the movie “Ben Hur”, “Until we are free of the teachings of male supremacy, we must keep our swords sharp and our intentions true.”

  154. Greg Anderson March 8, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    AMEN PAULA! We sorely need women like you and Cheryl; women with Damascus blades (metaphor) who can strike through inferior steel and still sever a silk scarf drifting downward by its own weight.

  155. Just A Berean March 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    Can anyone tell me where I can find a copy of the Transline Bible without having to pay $700 for it?

    thanks….

  156. Tanx again Greg :-)

    JAB, try Froogle.

  157. Bookfinder says Alibris has one for (gasp) $560.05! What is going on? Did some school require it after the print run was over?

  158. To all my blog readers here and especially to those who have come over from the CARM discussion boards, I would like you to pay careful attention to what I have to say. Something very different is going to happen here than what has been happening on the CARM discussion boards specifically the feminism board. There has been much bitter attacks on that board against brothers and sisters in Christ and I would like you to pay attention to how Christians can passionately disagree in a respectful manner.

    I haven’t been on my blog for most of today because of some personal time away, but I will be back probably on Sunday. Now I would like you to all know that I very strongly disagree with Paula (post #150) regarding the issue of inherited sin and the material at the link that she gave. However when I have time to come back to my blog, I will not be attacking my sister in Christ, but passionately disagreeing and providing my reasons for my disagreement.

    While I have been accused of not believing in the “Federal Headship of Adam”, I have publicly stated that what I don’t believe is that God gave Adam some kind of authority over humanity before sin entered the world. I do accept the biblical teaching that Adam brought sin into the world and through Adam all die. I am taking the time to state this publicly because I do not want anyone to get the false impression and take it back to CARM that I agree with Paula that there is no inherited sin nature. Paula and I will likely be embroiled in passionate disagreement, but we can do so with love as Christian sisters and with respectful dialog. This is indeed the “way of the master”.

  159. Hey Cheryl,

    Just to clarify, I do believe sin entered the world because of Adam, and that all die because of Adam. The thing we disagree about is whether Adam brought an inheritable spiritual death or only inheritable physical death.

    The “big picture” here is that we agree with what the Bible states; we just disagree on interpretation. (sound familiar?)

    And above all, we agree that everyone needs a Savior and that only Jesus qualifies. Thus salvation from eternal separation from God is only obtained by (c)comprehending the gospel (that Jesus is God in the flesh who died for the whole world and rose again), (b) believing the gospel as true, and (a) accepting it personally as a conviction. These are the essentials of the faith, which can never be disagreed on.

    What that means on this issue is that we will end up at the same spot, regardless of how we get there. For this reason, I want you to know that it isn’t necessary to get involved in this at all, or at least until you’re not so busy. I’d hate to cause delay of that Trinity DVD.

  160. Hi Paula,
    This has sort of pushed me towards finally working on finishing my post on circumcision. If I can get it done today, that will present the case in text and pictures and I had already planned on doing that. Starting tomorrow I have to get back to the Trinity DVD script but if I can get the my post done today, then I think we are still okay.

    Just to clarify your understanding of inherited sin, you believe that we all inherit a mortal body destined to die because of Adam’s sin, but you do not believe that we inherit his rebellion so that you believe we are not born in sin with a sin nature? Would that be a fair way to state it?

  161. Yes.

    Basically, (don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read my article), since Adam had no human father and thus did not inherit a “sin nature”, then what made him sin? And if he could sin without a sin nature, then why is it required for us? And why don’t the children of saved fathers inherit their righteousness as well?

    But again, this is neither the time nor the place (at least not this thread). No hurry.

  162. Yes, I did read your article. It is true that Adam was born without a sin nature, however he was born with the ability to choose to obey God or sin by refusing to obey. We know for sure that Adam was not deceived. Hosea 6:7 shows that Adam acted treacherously against God by breaking the covenant when he disobeyed God’s command. Why did Adam do that? We are not given any other insight into his mindset. Adam knew the truth and he was not deceived, yet he said nothing and he let his wife be deceived. Why did he do that? I don’t know. What we do know is that angels and mankind were created without sin but both were given free choice. Both can sin without an inherited sin nature, it just takes a much stronger decision to rebel.

    The doctrine of inherited sin does touch on other doctrines too such as the virgin birth. The question I want you to think about and then answer, is why was the virgin birth necessary? Or is it necessary at all? Could the Messiah have been born to a human mother and a human father? Is the virgin birth about as necessary as Jesus walking on water? Is it just a “miracle” but not any more necessary than any other miracle? And if it was necessary, then why was it necessary that Jesus did not have a human father?

  163. The doctrine of inherited sin does touch on other doctrines too such as the virgin birth. The question I want you to think about and then answer, is why was the virgin birth necessary? Or is it necessary at all? Could the Messiah have been born to a human mother and a human father? Is the virgin birth about as necessary as Jesus walking on water? Is it just a “miracle” but not any more necessary than any other miracle? And if it was necessary, then why was it necessary that Jesus did not have a human father?

    Beat ya to it: article from about 6 mos. ago

    So the reason the Messiah had to be born of only the woman’s seed and not a man’s is because God predicted this in Genesis and called it a “sign” in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus’ walking on water was a miracle, not a prediction or a sign. (“sign” can mean “miracle”, but typically adds the element of validating a promise)

  164. Paula,
    I haven’t had time to look at that article yet, but perhaps you could answer this question even if it is in the article. What did God predict this one sign that Jesus would be born from a virgin? Could he have predicted some other sign or is it absolutely necessary that Jesus did not have a human father?

  165. I assume you mean “why”, not “what”, right?

    Think about the “sign” of circumcision: Does it prevent evil? Have all uncircumcised Jewish males been holy and without sin? If circumcision did this, then why couldn’t Joseph have been allowed to be the father? The only clear thing the Bible says about circumcision is that it is a sign, but of what?

    Genesis 17:11
    You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

    And what was that covenant about?

    Genesis 15:18
    On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land…
    (repeated in 17:2-8 also)

    Romans 4:11
    And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

    So the sign of circumcision is for sealing God’s promise to Abraham to be “the father of nations” in spite of his old age and Sarah’s barrenness. The purity of the eventual Messiah is not mentioned at all in connection with this sign or covenant. It would be only one of the ways in which Jesus could prove his qualification for being the Messiah, since he had to be a Jew.

    Could God have chosen some other sign to seal this covenant with Abraham? Certainly, because it makes no mention of any relationship to “the seed of the woman”. The real question is, would the sign, whatever it is, have to be something that only applied to males in Abraham’s line?

    The Bible doesn’t say. It never tells us why this sign of God’s promise of many descendants would only be placed on males, so any theory is conjecture.

  166. Another question: Why was Jesus circumcised? (Luke 2:21-39) And why did Jewish men have to make sacrifices?

  167. Paula,
    I think the next post that I do (hopefully will be done today) will answer all of your questions. However the question I was asking you was not about circumsion but about the virgin birth of Jesus.

    Was it necessary that Jesus did not have a human father? Or could the sign of the virgin birth of the Messiah have been something else like walking on water so that Jesus could have rightfully been born with a natural mother and a natural father?

    There are many who do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. They don’t see it as necessary nor do they see it as any more important than denying that Jesus walked on water. Other than prophecy do you believe that the virgin birth of Jesus is necessary? If so why or why not?

  168. “I will not be attacking my sister in Christ, but passionately disagreeing and providing my reasons for my disagreement.”

    This is one reason I like to come here. I can learn in a civil environment. I can look at all the information, be a Berean and give my own understanding without being beat up over it. It makes me delve deeper into scripture. I think it is so wonderful to have access to smart people who want to ‘discuss and debate’ as Christians.

    Cheryl, I have always related Gen 3 about the ‘seed’ to the virgin birth. Like a prophecy.

  169. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Sometimes I look behind the question at a more basic one and forget to tie it in.

    Since scripture rules out circumcision as affecting the prophecy of the Messiah, then we are left only with the virgin birth as a Messianic sign. Why a virgin birth? We have no explicit word in the scriptures. But according to Genesis, we have an observation: that Eve’s sin was different than Adam’s. So this sign could symbolize that difference. Can we deduce anything else? I can’t think of any scriptural support for any other possibilities.

    Could God have chosen some other sign than a virgin birth? I can’t see why not. The purpose of any sign is to confirm a prediction, so whatever God wanted to choose as a sign would serve that purpose.

    If we say that this sign means more than just the difference between the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve, that is, that it refers not just to their sins but the sins of all men and women, then we have validated the theory that all women must share in Eve’s gullibility. So this sign of the virgin birth is restricted to representing the sins of Adam and Eve alone, and any sign God could choose would suffice.

    But there is a very important reason besides the sign that Jesus could not have a human father: our Savior had to be God. No one but God could qualify to take away our sins. He came to reconcile us to God, and in order to reconcile both God and man, he had to be both. And since men are physically incapable of giving birth, the human part had to be female. It’s as simple as that.

    Bottom line: God can choose whatever he wants for a sign. But the Messiah had to be both God and human, and males cannot give birth. That’s what scripture tells me. It makes no connection with circumcision, and no connection between our sinless Savior and an alleged sin nature that only males have.

  170. Lin,
    Yes, that is what I see too in Genesis 3 – the seed of the woman is the virgin birth. The promise is never given to the man as it is his seed yet the Messiah must be a descendant of Adam.

    This is also why I also love this community of people on this blog. All my life I have wanted to have people to walk together with me into the depth of the scriptures yet so many Christians that I have met are only interested in simple milk of the word (they are content to remain spiritual babes) that I have not felt much companionship with them for the longing in my heart for the meat of the word of God. This means that those who are here who are students of the word, who love and appreciate the real solid meat of the word, even if we disagree on issues on interpretation, are very precious brothers and sisters to me.

    When we get to the “meat” level of scripture there is bound to be differences. This is not an opportunity to bash one another or treat each other disrespectfully or with disdain. It is an opportunity to spur one another to growth. There are things that I have an understanding of that if I am patient and walk in love, I may influence others to the place where their eyes are opened. I too am a willing learner. When my eyes are opened to a truth that I hadn’t seen in scripture as was the case of 1 Timothy 2:14 an insight that Paula shared with us, I am thrilled with learning more. This is a place where we can “trade” our understanding so that our gain more insight into scripture.

    Mat 25:15 “To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
    Mat 25:16 “Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.

    Respectful dialog and passionate contending for a proper understanding of scripture is nothing to be afraid of. It is called body ministry and it is alive and well when we lay aside our prejudice against our brothers or sisters in Christ and stop name-calling and instead work for reconciliation and unity in the faith. Some think that we must give up doctrine to get unity. That is simply not true.

  171. All true, Cheryl. I’ve learned from you as well, especially in the passage of 1 Tim. 2. And of course we all learn from those who do basic research in the original languages. As the saying goes, we see what we do because we have stood on the shoulders of giants.

    I’ve often said that truth has no fear of examination. If a person is unwilling to discuss their beliefs openly, then that person cannot learn. Other obstacles to learning and growing include pride, hatred, apathy, and spiritual immaturity.

  172. Paula,
    One other clarification that I didn’t get from your post – could Jesus have had a human father? I understand that you mean that Jesus got his humanity from Mary, but was it impossible for him to get his humanity from BOTH a human mother and a human father? Jesus was God not just because God was his Father but because as the pre-incarnate Word, he was God before he came to earth. He did not give up his Deity to become human.

    So would there have been a problem at all in your understanding for Jesus to have had a human father?

  173. Not knowing the scientific details of how a hypostatic union works, I have no idea. 😉

    For that matter, God could have formed Jesus’ body as fully human without any human parents at all. But God doesn’t work that way. So since only God knows what’s possible, all we have for certain is the sign: he had to be “the seed of the woman” because God said so.

  174. Paula,
    That helps. Thanks! I will seek to prove that God could not have created Jesus without human parents because of the way that he set up the requirements for the Kinsman Redeemer and our salvation through him. I will also seek to prove that circumcision is a sign that points to Jesus and that circumcision in no way elevates the male and sets the female below the male.

    I just have been so distracted today with several long conversations, one a dear friend of mine calling long distance. I will work like crazy to get my post up tonight and if not then I would really like to finish it before going back to the Trinity DVD work. If not tonight than hopefully by tomorrow.

  175. Paula you said God could have formed Jesus’ body without any human parents, and ofcourse he could have but then what would be his link or blood tie to us?

    For both Paula and Cheryl:

    Wasn’t Jesus’ humanity suppose to go back to Adam because he is the last Adam? I mean how can he redeem us if he has no human tie to Adam, since we are all of Adam?

  176. pinklight,
    There could be no second Adam if there had not been a first Adam. And since sin was brought into the world through Adam, the Kinsman Redeemer must be a “kinsman” of Adam’s but without the inheritance of sin. If God had created Jesus from the dirt as he created the first Adam, there would be absolutely no physical connection, no “kinsman” tie to Adam. For those who haven’t read my article about how Jesus could come from Adam but without Adam’s sin, I would encourage you to read my post on “Adam as head of the Family”.

  177. When I said he could make a fully human body without parents, I intended to convey that this body would be fully human in every way, such that he would still qualify as a kinsman-redeemer and sharing in our humanity. As for the last Adam, I take that to refer to his reversal of Adam’s sin primarily. And I agree that circumcision in no way elevates the male.

  178. Paula,
    In your paper you stated:

    “To answer the concern about original sin, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), preventing any sin nature being transmitted…”

    Here is Luke 1:35:

    Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

    The emphasis in this verse is the Sonship. The “overshadowing” is the Holy Spirit making the egg of Mary’s to be fully human without adding the remaining number of chromosomes that are needed from a human father. The passage does not say that the Holy Spirit makes Jesus holy but that it is the power of God that would produce the child. If Jesus was holy only because he was God then he would not be like the first Adam. Jesus had to be made in every way like the first Adam so that he could truly be our Kinsman Redeemer. Jesus could not be the perfect lamb of God is he had any kind of inherited sin. The question we will be dealing with is what does circumcision have to do with the first and last Adam?

    The real question that we must deal with if one rejects inherited sin, is why it was absolutely essential for Jesus to have no father. Why was the seed of the man not allowed to be part of Jesus lineage? Jesus was the “son of Adam” but not from Adam’s seed. Jesus’ step father would tie the lineage back to Adam from Adam’s seed. Joseph then could not be the human Father of Jesus because Joseph’s lineage goes back to Adam after Adam sinned. Jesus birth through the seed of a woman, ties the lineage back to Adam but not through Adam’s seed. It takes Jesus lineage back through Eve who was created from Adam’s body before sin tainted Adam.

    If we reject inherited sin, we then have no reason to reject a human father and we would have to state that God could just as well have used both the seed of the man and the seed of the woman to bring Jesus into the world. If we reject inherited sin we have no foundation for the absolute necessity of a virgin birth.

    I will present much more in my next post title including all the scriptures that point out God’s plan and purpose that allowed Jesus to fully fulfill the law of God on our behalf.

  179. The emphasis in this verse is the Sonship…

    No problem here.

    If Jesus was holy only because he was God then he would not be like the first Adam. Jesus had to be made in every way like the first Adam so that he could truly be our Kinsman Redeemer.

    In order for your statement to be true, Adam had to have been holy as well. To be holy means to be separate (see This Link). There was nothing for Adam to be “separate” from before the Fall, and he is never described as holy.

    In Luke 1:35 the holiness of the child is simply stated as a fact. The verse clearly states that the overshadowing is the cause of the child being called “Son of God”; the reason for the child being holy is not given.

    To be our kinsman-redeemer, Jesus only had to be human and a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The only reason he would have to be like Adam (innocent) is to qualify as the last Adam.

    Jesus could not be the perfect lamb of God is he had any kind of inherited sin. The question we will be dealing with is what does circumcision have to do with the first and last Adam?

    He couldn’t be the perfect lamb of God with any sin at all. But such a thing as inherited sin remains to be proved. As for circumcision, I’ve shown scripture that relates it only to the covenant of many descendants God made with Abraham.

    The real question that we must deal with if one rejects inherited sin, is why it was absolutely essential for Jesus to have no father. Why was the seed of the man not allowed to be part of Jesus lineage?

    I already went over that.

    Jesus was the “son of Adam” but not from Adam’s seed.

    Did Mary not have Adam’s seed? Yes, she did. The DNA in her seed certainly contained DNA from both her parents. So even without a human father, Jesus’ humanity came through Mary and thus through Adam after the Fall. So I disagree with your assertion here. And I know of no scripture that would support it.

    It takes Jesus lineage back through Eve who was created from Adam’s body before sin tainted Adam.

    Every woman after Eve was a sinner, and got her seed from both Adam and Eve after the Fall. The only way your statement could be true is if the seed of Mary was supernaturally implanted directly from pre-fall Eve.

    If we reject inherited sin we have no foundation for the absolute necessity of a virgin birth.

    We do have scriptural reason for the necessity of the virgin birth: a sign. Why God chose it is not stated, and never, ever, does scripture even imply such a thing as “inherited sin nature”. Please show me this concept in scripture.

    You seem to be presuming that God had no choice but to require the Messiah to come through the seed of the woman, because you presuppose “inherited sin nature” is the reason. But scripture only calls it a sign.

    The “inherited sin nature” theory declares that only male seed contains Adam’s allegedly genetic sin trait. Where does scripture tell us this? And did not both Adam and Eve sin without first having a “sin nature”? What made them sin? Was it not free will combined with temptation? Does scripture tell us Eve’s seed was miraculously preserved before she sinned– as if God planned for her to sin? That would be the only way to preserve her seed before it was tainted with sin. And if sin can be genetically inherited, then what of the children of saved parents? Do they inherit both natures? Neither? Only one?

    The “inherited sin nature” theory raises many more questions than it answers.

  180. Cheryl, Simple Theist made a suggestion I thought I’d pass on to you.

    We were discussing the interpretation of the “a woman” in 1 Tim. 2 and ST was thinking that was a totally unique idea. I told him that it wasn’t that Christian Scholars had put that thought forth some years ago. I sent him to the CBE website to look around. And when he didn’t find any offhand, he suggested that perhaps it would help if you quoted other scholars that thought that also.

    When I get a chance, or maybe someone else not embroiled with other research, perhaps I could track down some scholars that I remember had put forth that possibility also. I think it’s a good idea to quote multiple other scholars who support your thesis. It kind of ties you all together into a harder foundation to knock down.

    Just a thought.

  181. Exegetist,
    What goes before seeing “a woman” as a specific woman is seeing the prohibition as being a specific problem involving specific people in Ephesus. This is a very common understanding and one can find it widely held by scholars. I have a huge basket of material that I could go through, but just do not have the time right now.

    There are two widely accepted interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:12 regarding women teaching men. The first is the patriarchal interpretation that says that Paul is restricting all women from every generation from being able to teach men. The second sees the restriction as a local problem with a local prohibition for a time. Those who have not yet seen the problem to be one specific woman in verse 12 still struggle with verse 15 to make sense of the verse. The problem is that we have approached the verse with prejudice because women have been restricted from using their gifts for the common good for many centuries. It takes one to think outside the box in order to unravel verse 15. Those who see the restriction as a universal restriction have multiple problems to overcome and these problems have yet to be successfully answered. That is a huge problem for complementarians.

    So what I would start with ST is the more widely held view that Paul’s restriction does not match up with a universal law and has been quite widely challenged as such for at least the last 100 years. This you will find a great deal of evidence for.

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/scholarshipofpatriarchy.pdf

    The next thing would be to challenge the “unique” view. How many scholars would make the view correct? If there were two scholars would that be acceptable? The fact is that a thousand scholars would not make it correct if it fails the bible test of truth. How many people stood up with Luther when he nailed the 95 theses on the church door at Wittenburg? Does the fact that he was alone make his reform illegal? Or do we judge by the 95 challenges to the Roman Catholic church by scripture alone and not by numbers?

    So while there are many people who have publicly written that Paul was speaking about specific people involved in false teaching in Ephesus, one may not find someone who has taught exactly as I have relying on verse 15 as proof. Verse 15 has largely been ignored instead of facing it head on in understanding the prohibition. However there are more and more people becoming aware of the relation of verse 15 to verses 11 & 12 and they are affirming that the specific grammar of verse 15 supports a “one woman” interpretation. If this is not the truth, then it should be easy to refute it. If it is the truth, then we need to consider it by its truth and faithfulness to scripture, not by numbers. It is the only interpretation that I have come across that has no holes in the argument.

    http://unrelatedramblings.blogspot.com/2008/02/single-woman-in-1-timothy-2.html

    See Pastor Jon Zens regarding the singular “she” and plural “they” in 1 Timothy 2:15 and the fact that there is no second witness to make 1 Timothy 2:12 a universal command. He also brings out that verse 12 is not in the imperative (meaning it is not a command). Rather the imperative is in verse 11 (let her learn).
    http://www.searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm

    Gordon Fee would be another one who says that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal command and the list would go on and on. Pretty much every one on the CBE list says that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal command and that the wording of the passage negates a universal law.

    Is that a bit of a help?

  182. I just read an article on 1 Tim 2 by Pastor Jon Zens tonight before reading your last post Cherly and it was pretty good! I felt to mention him, but you beat me to it!

  183. Paula,
    Holy means to be without sin. It means perfection and blameless. The angels are Holy even though they are not God. Adam is not called holy, but he was created perfect and without sin. Jesus too needed to be perfect and without sin as a human as Adam was.

    You said:

    To be our kinsman-redeemer, Jesus only had to be human and a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The only reason he would have to be like Adam (innocent) is to qualify as the last Adam.

    That isn’t true. Jesus had to be the kinsman Redeemer past Abraham because he must pay for the sin and the effects of sin back to the original sinner. Abraham was not the original sinner.

    He couldn’t be the perfect lamb of God with any sin at all. But such a thing as inherited sin remains to be proved. As for circumcision, I’ve shown scripture that relates it only to the covenant of many descendants God made with Abraham.

    I am not yet done my article, but let me provide one verse for now:

    Rom 5:19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

    The bible says it was through one man’s sin that made many sinners. How did one man’s sin make many sinners except through Adam’s bringing sin into the world and we inherit that sin nature through Adam?

    Circumcision was a sign of the cutting off of sin as the foreskin is the biblical sign of sin. It was a very powerful sign that sin was passed from Father to son. More to come in my article.

    As far as the seed of the man that couldn’t allow Jesus to have a father, I do not see that you dealt with that. Maybe I have just been too busy to see something and missed it. It appears to me that you believe that Jesus only needed one human to make him human and since a man couldn’t have a baby, the default position was to the mother. But this doesn’t deal with the question of why scripture makes it mandatory that Jesus could not have a human father. You did seem to agree that he could have had a human father or he could have been created from the dirt without any blood lineage at all back to Adam. So do you have any answer to why Jesus had to be virgin born? Could not God have prophesied something else? What was so important about not having a father?

    Did Mary not have Adam’s seed? Yes, she did. The DNA in her seed certainly contained DNA from both her parents. So even without a human father, Jesus’ humanity came through Mary and thus through Adam after the Fall. So I disagree with your assertion here. And I know of no scripture that would support it.

    Women have the spiritual symbol of sin with the “foreskin” of their heart, but they do not have the physical symbol of sin. The seed of Eve did not pass on rebellion because Eve did not sin in rebellion. It is only through the seed of Adam that rebellion is passed on. The scripture is clear that only through Adam that sin came in to the world. The scripture is also clear that the Messiah would come only through the seed of the woman.

    Every woman after Eve was a sinner, and got her seed from both Adam and Eve after the Fall. The only way your statement could be true is if the seed of Mary was supernaturally implanted directly from pre-fall Eve.

    This is not so. The bible says that sin came through one man only. Eve did not pass sin on to her offspring. We all have the sin nature because we all have a human father, but the females never are said to have the physical symbol of sin. The physical symbol of sin is the foreskin and the cutting off of this physical sign of sin is how males must enter the Abrahamic covenant. Females are allowed in without restriction.

    We do have scriptural reason for the necessity of the virgin birth: a sign. Why God chose it is not stated, and never, ever, does scripture even imply such a thing as “inherited sin nature”. Please show me this concept in scripture.

    You seem to be presuming that God had no choice but to require the Messiah to come through the seed of the woman, because you presuppose “inherited sin nature” is the reason. But scripture only calls it a sign.

    God has made it very clear that only the man has the physical sign of sin. God only promised the woman that the Messiah would come through her seed. The “sign” of the virgin birth is not a visible sign because it cannot be seen.

    There are two kinds of sin in scripture. One is personal sin where the child will not share in the guilt of the parent and where the soul that sins shall die. But there is also a sin that is there from birth that is a result of our humanity. Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Romans 5:19. We were made sinners from birth and we were made sinners by the sin of the one man.

    The “inherited sin nature” theory declares that only male seed contains Adam’s allegedly genetic sin trait. Where does scripture tell us this?

    The scripture tells us that the physical symbol for sin is the foreskin. While all of us have our own spiritual foreskin of our heart, only the males have the physical symbol of sin and it is interesting to note that God has specifically chosen to pick the piece of skin attached to where the male seed passes through. There is no corresponding physical sign of sin for a female child.

    And did not both Adam and Eve sin without first having a “sin nature”?

    They were created perfect as the angels were but both angels and mankind were given a choice to obey or not. The woman sinned because she was deceived. The man sinned out of his own freewill choice and by sinning in this way God said that he dealt treacherously with God. The bible does not tell us his motive for doing that, but a sinless man is certainly capable of sin just as the Holy angels were capable of sin.

    What made them sin? Was it not free will combined with temptation?

    For Eve it was deception. For Adam it was his act of rebellion.

    Does scripture tell us Eve’s seed was miraculously preserved before she sinned– as if God planned for her to sin?

    Eve’s seed was not tainted with rebellion as Adam’s seed was. Eve was also not kicked out of the garden of Eden. Only Adam was driven out. Eve went with him not because she was kicked out by God but because she desired her husband and because he was now taking a position of rule over her (Gen. 3:16).

    That would be the only way to preserve her seed before it was tainted with sin.

    Her seed was never tainted with rebellion. Eve fell into sin by deception not by willful sin. Scripture never once says that sin entered the world through Eve and God didn’t question whether she would obey his command to not eat of the tree of life as he questioned whether Adam would obey showing that Eve did not have a rebellious sin nature that would continue to disobey as Adam had. Eve was not forced out of the garden with a “sin nature”.

    And if sin can be genetically inherited, then what of the children of saved parents? Do they inherit both natures? Neither? Only one?

    Sin is inherited genetically through the male. A male that is saved is still in this mortal body and the body has not yet been redeemed. Since every child has a human father, there is no way that a human child is not tainted by sin. Only Jesus had his life through the woman alone. Only Jesus was without inherited sin.

    The “inherited sin nature” theory raises many more questions than it answers.

    Not true. The “inherited sin nature” explains why the sign of sin is on the male alone. It also explains why a baby does not have to see sin lived out to sin.

    The “no inherited sin nature” has questions that have no answer. Why does a small child sin as a habit even if the parents do not have the same practice of sin? Have you ever had to teach a child to lie? Why do they do it naturally? Why would God choose the “symbol of sin” to be from the organ of a male where the man’s seed comes out? Why is there no female equivalent of sin in a female baby? Why do female babies have the symbol of purity in the area of their reproductive organs yet males have the symbol of sin?

    Anyways I spent quite a bit of time on my graphics and ran out of time for my article, so I will finish it on Monday.

  184. Holy means to be without sin. It means perfection and blameless. The angels are Holy even though they are not God. Adam is not called holy, but he was created perfect and without sin. Jesus too needed to be perfect and without sin as a human as Adam was.

    In addition to the source I cited before, the dictionary says:

    holy |?h?l?|
    adjective ( holier , holiest )
    1 dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred : the Holy Bible | the holy month of Ramadan. See note at divine .
    • (of a person) devoted to the service of God : saints and holy men.
    • morally and spiritually excellent : I do not lead a holy life.

    We too are called to be holy :Rom.12.1, 1Cor.7.14, 34, Eph.1.4 (note: “holy and blameless”; if holy meant blameless, this would be redundant, so also in 5:27), Eph.3.5, Col.1.22 etc.)

    That isn’t true. Jesus had to be the kinsman Redeemer past Abraham because he must pay for the sin and the effects of sin back to the original sinner. Abraham was not the original sinner.

    You’re missing my point. The term kinsman-redeemer only applied to Israel (Leviticus 25:25); I’m not aware of it applying outside Israel. So when you use that term, you’re talking only about Israel. But “to be like his brothers in every way” (Heb. 2:17) means this:

    14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity… 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

    Note that the emphasis is on sharing in humanity; he is to be like US– all of us, not just Adam before the Fall. In fact, this context is specific to Israel– “Abraham’s descendants”), which means he was under more specific restrictions than that of all humanity.

    Did Jesus have Adam’s post-fall “corrupt flesh” (mortality)? Yes, or he couldn’t have physically died. Putting this all together, I don’t see any place where scripture specifies that in order to be both holy and like us in every way, that he had to go to Adam’s pre-sin state.

    Does that mean Jesus had sinful flesh? Of course not– unless you presuppose inheritable sin. Yet we know he was “without sin”. So there we have it: Jesus was like US in every way including mortality, and he was without sin.

    The bible says it was through one man’s sin that made many sinners. How did one man’s sin make many sinners except through Adam’s bringing sin into the world and we inherit that sin nature through Adam?

    The question is not whether Adam brought sin into the world, but how. Did he do so by genetic inheritance, or by opening the door? Remember that in Genesis 3 the ground was cursed because of him, and he became mortal (“you will die”). But no curse or death was pronounced on his spirit, nor was there any mention of a “sin nature”. As I noted in my article, Rom. 5:12 says “because all sinned”, and that physical death came even to those who DID NOT SIN AS ADAM (vs. 14). Also note in the article the “all” and “many” references, as well as the “condemnation” and “justification” ones. We are “made sinners” because Adam caused a world of decay and temptation. It was free will + temptation, not a sin nature, that made Adam sin, and those are the same things that make us sin too. Adam had been in a perfect environment but the serpent tempted. How much more since then do we face temptation!

    Circumcision was a sign of the cutting off of sin as the foreskin is the biblical sign of sin. It was a very powerful sign that sin was passed from Father to son. More to come in my article.

    Scripture references, please.

    You did seem to agree that he could have had a human father or he could have been created from the dirt without any blood lineage at all back to Adam.

    No, I said God could have snapped his fingers and made Jesus’ body perfectly human, including the proper bloodline. It’s purely hypothetical, and I only offered it because you asked a hypothetical question.

    So do you have any answer to why Jesus had to be virgin born? Could not God have prophesied something else? What was so important about not having a father?

    Already answered that.

    Women have the spiritual symbol of sin with the “foreskin” of their heart, but they do not have the physical symbol of sin.

    Scripture references, please.

    The seed of Eve did not pass on rebellion because Eve did not sin in rebellion. It is only through the seed of Adam that rebellion is passed on.

    We agree that Eve was not the one who rebelled, but where does scripture say Adam’s literal rebellion is genetically passed on?

    This is not so. The bible says that sin came through one man only. Eve did not pass sin on to her offspring. We all have the sin nature because we all have a human father, but the females never are said to have the physical symbol of sin.

    So you say that the seed of every woman ever born is without sin. Scripture references, please. We agree that sin entered the world through Adam alone, but not how the rest of us became sinners. And again, where does scripture connect circumcision with “the physical symbol of sin”? You agree that this rite is “how males must enter the Abrahamic covenant”, and I showed that this covenant had nothing to do with male sin.

    One is personal sin where the child will not share in the guilt of the parent and where the soul that sins shall die. But there is also a sin that is there from birth that is a result of our humanity. Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Romans 5:19. We were made sinners from birth and we were made sinners by the sin of the one man.

    I see no fine print on the passage you refer to in Ezekiel stating that it does not apply to “inherited sin”; such a thing as “inherited sin” isn’t even hinted at. And the verses you cite to support it are, if you check context, hyperbole (in the Psalms) and Rom. 5:19 says “many”, not “all” (If you say “many” means “all”, as Calvinism does, then you have to also say “ALL” were “made righteous”!).

    The scripture tells us that the physical symbol for sin is the foreskin.

    What scripture?

    They were created perfect as the angels were but both angels and mankind were given a choice to obey or not. The woman sinned because she was deceived. The man sinned out of his own freewill choice and by sinning in this way God said that he dealt treacherously with God.

    This is exactly what I’ve been saying: sin is a choice from free will beings, and is triggered in us by temptation. Eve was tempted but “beguiled”, hence her sin was not like Adam’s, but she sinned nonetheless. She was a sinner. And even today I’m sure a lot of sin happens, to both men and women, through trickery, hence the statement in Romans about “did not sin like Adam”.

    Eve’s seed was not tainted with rebellion as Adam’s seed was.

    It remains for you to prove that Adam’s seed was tainted with rebellion.

    Eve was also not kicked out of the garden of Eden. Only Adam was driven out. Eve went with him not because she was kicked out by God but because she desired her husband and because he was now taking a position of rule over her.

    Full agreement here. But you presume it had to do with tainted seed, not different reasons for sin.

    Sin is inherited genetically through the male.

    No matter how many times you make this assertion, you still have to prove it by scripture.

    It also explains why a baby does not have to see sin lived out to sin..

    I completely disagree. Babies die because of mortality, as I showed from Romans 5. Are you sure you’re not a Calvinist? 😉

    The “no inherited sin nature” has questions that have no answer…

    Not so. I have just answered, from scripture, why babies die and we’ve agreed that free will is a contributor to sin. Babies have a free will, however simple, and they are born in to a world of mortality, corruption, suffering, and all sorts of temptation. And of course the question of why God chose a “male symbol of sin” is moot because he didn’t. If circumcision is a sign of guilt, then Jesus should not have been born with this sign in his flesh.

  185. Paula,
    Oops, I deleted your double post and then delete your “sorry about the double post” comment forgetting that you also had a comment in it. The comment you made that I accidentally erased said:

    Also I need to clarify the last sentence. Jesus was born not with “circumcision” but without it, hence the symbol of sin in his flesh, if that’s what non-circumcision means.

    Yes, that is what non-circumcision means and you did not deal with the fact that the foreskin is the symbol for sin in the bible. I would like you to answer that point. The foreskin is the symbol of sin and Jesus was to be born with the symbol of sin even though he had no inherited sin and no sin of his own.

    Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

    What is the “likeness of sinful flesh”? Since the foreskin is a biblical symbol for sin and Jesus was to be made in the “likeness of sinful flesh” Jesus had to have a foreskin and he had to have it cut off just as is required by the law.

    I will be going through your comments point by point as I have time in between working on my post. Taking one point at a time may be more helpful than dealing with a dozen issues at a time. At least it will be for me who is trying to multi-task.

    So I need you to deal with the symbol of sin – the foreskin. Why is this a symbol of sin? All of God’s symbols have meaning. It isn’t just haphazard as if God chose the tip of our baby finger to be a symbol of sin. Please explain why God chose the foreskin as a symbol of sin and why only the males have this symbol of sin in their flesh? Then please explain why this male-based symbol of sin is given to all of us spiritually when the bible says that we have a foreskin on our hearts that needs to be cut off?

    One other comment that I will take the time for is your comment about Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist but I do take truth from those who hold to this position when it fits with scripture. I also take truth from the opposing position when their position fits with scripture. I am also not an Arminian as I prefer to be free to follow what scripture actually says than be tied down to one or another particular mindset. And while I am much further away from Calvinism, those who do hold to that position are very right in holding tightly to the biblical doctrine that Adam brought sin into the world. They are very wrong in assuming that Adam was given some kind of special authority over creation that was not also given to Eve and thus they give Adam the authority to bring sin into the world, not because of his rebellion against God, but because of a special position with God that he held. I deny Adam’s “special authority” but I do not deny that Adam’s sin tainted us all with inherited sin. In fact, I appreciate my Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ for being faithful to scripture and that they do not deny the fact that we are under two condemnations of sin, not just one. When Jesus came to fulfill the law on our behalf he dealt with both condemnations on our behalf so that we have been freed from the law of sin and death. We no longer need to follow our “old man” that old sin nature that inhabited us from birth.

    Anyways if we could deal with this one issue first and then move on, it would help me. So do you admit or deny that the scripture gives the physical sign of sin to the male only? Do you admit or deny that the cutting off of the foreskin is a sign of cutting off of sin? Can you explain why the symbol of sin was to be cut off from father to son to his son to his son… showing that from one generation to the next the symbol of sin keeps showing up and needs to be cut off in the child’s flesh? Circumcision has a great lesson for us that we cannot ignore. The repetition of the symbol of cutting off of sin is repeated in the New Testament and therefore it is not just a symbol that was for the Jews and is not to be considered meaningful for us. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and we all thus have a foreskin on our heart that needs to be dealt with. Please explain the connection between the foreskin of our heart and the foreskin of a male. What is the tie to sin in both?

  186. You have yet to show where scripture states that the foreskin is a symbol of sin, instead of a symbol of Jewishness. And rather than a “great lesson”, Paul called it “nothing”. When he did refer to it, he talked about being a Jew, not being a male sinner passing sin by genetics. Circumcision is only the sign of a covenant between God and Abraham.

    Please deal with this fact: The Bible never ever says or implies that sin is genetically passed at all. Even if you assign a symbol of sin to circumcision regardless of no scripture stating as much, it still doesn’t say anything about “sinful seed”.

    You said, “Since the foreskin is a biblical symbol for sin…”

    Again, you have not shown from scripture that the foreskin is ever called a symbol for sin.

  187. Forgot something…

    Did Adam have a foreskin before the Fall?

  188. One thing at a time. Foreskin is indeed the biblical symbol for sin:

    Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.”

    Deut 10:16 “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

    Deut 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

    Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

    Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

    Now Christ was made in the form of sinful flesh. What is the form of sinful flesh that Christ had in his body when he was born? He had a foreskin as this is the “body of flesh” that needed to be removed. His foreskin was cut off as the law required and he fulfilled the law on our behalf. He was indeed made in the form of sinful flesh but he did not keep that sinful flesh as he fulfilled the law regarding the symbol of sin.

    While you are reading through the scriptural proof that the foreskin is the symbol for sin, please show me what do you see as the symbol for sin in the flesh in scripture?

    I do apologize for not giving these scriptures to you before and you having to push me for them. I am very sorry for being so lax. I have been so focused on my article that I was trying hard not to be distracted. So thanks for pushing me to list the scriptures here. Now that I have listed some of the scriptural proof that the foreskin is the symbol for sin, I would like you to explain why the foreskin is the symbol for sin and why this physical sign is on the male alone.

    You also said:

    You have yet to show where scripture states that the foreskin is a symbol of sin, instead of a symbol of Jewishness.

    Actually this isn’t true at all. The symbol of Jewishness is the removal of the foreskin. To say that the foreskin is a sign of Jewishness is the complete opposite of what is true. It is the removal of the foreskin that God set up for the Jews to show themselves set apart from the ungodly nations. This is because the foreskin is the symbol of sin in scripture.

  189. One other scripture since we have been talking about Paul and his comments about removal of the foreskin. Paul likens the work that the Holy Spirit does in our lives in cutting away the sin in our heart to the true circumcision:

    Php 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

    Spiritual circumcision is necessary for Christians. Just as the Jews were required to remove the fleshly symbol of sin, the piece of skin that is on the males, so Christians must have the spiritual symbol of sin, the foreskin on our heart removed and this applies to both male and female. Circumcision is very important in scripture. It is no longer a fleshly importance, but it has a highly symbolic importance regarding what God has done for us in the heart.

  190. Paula,
    You asked:

    Did Adam have a foreskin before the Fall?

    I am sure that he did. The foreskin did not become a symbol of sin until Adam brought sin into the world and he became tainted with his rebellion and became a continual sinner. Because we were all “in Adam” when he sinned, we became tainted through Adam. When Adam brought sin into the world the foreskin became the sign of his on-going sin nature and the physical passing on of this same sign of sin to his sons who passed it on to their sons was the physical sign of sin that God required to be cut off for his special holy nation of Israel. And everyone of us who has a human father has the foreskin on their heart which is required to be cut off when we come into the family of God.

  191. The analogies you mentioned are for Israel, as it was a sign of the covenant, a sign that represented the the faith of Abraham. That is the reason for the references to “circumcise your heart”. If it included Gentiles, do you think they’d relate to circumcision?

    Do you think God was only talking to males in those verses? If not, then how does “circumcise your heart” symbolize only male sin? How does it relate to “tainted male seed” if God was also talking to females?

    You keep referring to circumcision as a symbol instead of a sign. If we presume that it symbolizes Adam’s sin, where is the the leap made from this symbol to literal tainted male seed? This is the main point of contention: the presumption that a symbol of sin must prove genetically transmitted “sin nature”, a leap that cannot be made from anything but first presuming the point being debated.

    Again, our “sinful flesh” applies to all humans, not just males. To be like us, Jesus had to become human. That’s all scripture says.

    Sorry about my hasty typing on the quote about the symbol of Jewishness; of course it’s the removal of the foreskin.

    Yes, Paul makes the analogy of circumcision and removal of sin; but again, such an analogy only means something to Jews. And again, this “spiritual circumcision” is applied to both male and female Christians, so it completely loses its alleged “tainted male seed” analogy.

    I still challenge you to find “tainted male seed” in Genesis; God never cursed Adam beyond physical mortality. The scriptures never say female seed is sinless.

  192. Cheryl,

    I said at the outset that I didn’t want to distract you from your busy schedule. It does appear that we have reached an impasse though (i.e., “yes it does!”, “no it doesn’t!”), and I think enough material has been presented on both sides for people to work through this and make their own decisions.

    We agree on the essentials: that we’re all sinners, that we needed a Savior who had to be fully God and fully human; that there was no divinely ordained hierarchy before the Fall; that women do not carry Eve’s gullibility and are not restricted in using their gifts in the church. We each hold inspired scripture in the highest regard and are motivated to learn what it actually says.

    As I said at the start, we wind up at the same destination. This is true also for other debates such as Calvinism and Eternal Security. The value and goal of any debates on these topics is in helping the undecided to choose; no one is under any delusion that one debater will sway the other. In fact, it would not serve the very useful purpose of getting all the facts on the table, because it is firm conviction in one’s position that ensures each side will thoroughly examine the other.

    So I’d like to suggest that we give this a rest and let you get back to your DVD work, which is sorely needed. Satan loves to distract and divide, and I think if we continue it will become counterproductive. What do you think?

  193. Paula,
    I will answer this one post of yours just before I finish formating my new article.

    The analogies you mentioned are for Israel, as it was a sign of the covenant, a sign that represented the the faith of Abraham. That is the reason for the references to “circumcise your heart”. If it included Gentiles, do you think they’d relate to circumcision?

    But we as Christians are brought into the the faith of Abraham as we are grafted into the tree. Romans 11:17 & 18 says:

    Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and become partaker with them of the rich root of the olive, tree,
    Romans 11:8 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

    The sign of the covenant of Abraham is the sign of circumcision. We are grafted in with the sign of the circumcision on our hearts.

    Do you think God was only talking to males in those verses? If not, then how does “circumcise your heart” symbolize only male sin? How does it relate to “tainted male seed” if God was also talking to females?

    “Circumcise your heart” does not refer to just the sin of males. If I did not make this clear, then I apologize. The physical act of circumcision refers to males alone since only males have the sign of sin in their flesh. The spiritual act of circumcision refers to both male and female since all of us have the sign of sin in our hearts.

    You keep referring to circumcision as a symbol instead of a sign. If we presume that it symbolizes Adam’s sin, where is the the leap made from this symbol to literal tainted male seed? This is the main point of contention: the presumption that a symbol of sin must prove genetically transmitted “sin nature”, a leap that cannot be made from anything but first presuming the point being debated.

    A symbol is synonymous with sign. If you prefer I will call it sign, I have no problem doing that as you wish. The Hebrew word for “sign” also means flag, beacon, monument, evidence, mark, token. The evidence of tainted male seed is the fact that we were “in” Adam when Adam sinned just as Levi was “in” Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

    Hebrews 7:9, 10 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

    If scripture says that the seed within the father can be credited with the act of the Father, then the seed within the father can also be credited with the sinful rebellion when Adam fell just as scripture says. We don’t need to take a leap to tie the sin of Adam to our inherited sin. Scripture very clearly says that Adam brought sin into the world. He brought sin into the world just as surely as Levi paid tithes while he was in his father’s loins.

    Again, our “sinful flesh” applies to all humans, not just males. To be like us, Jesus had to become human. That’s all scripture says.

    I have affirmed this. I said that we are all sinful because all of us have a human father. It isn’t true that it is “all” that scripture says that Jesus had to become human. Jesus also had to be in the ancestry of Abraham and of Adam. He also had to have the sign of sinful human flesh. The only sign that Jesus had of sin was his foreskin.

    Sorry about my hasty typing on the quote about the symbol of Jewishness; of course it’s the removal of the foreskin.

    Yes, Paul makes the analogy of circumcision and removal of sin; but again, such an analogy only means something to Jews. And again, this “spiritual circumcision” is applied to both male and female Christians, so it completely loses its alleged “tainted male seed” analogy.

    Not a problem about the hasty typing. I do it all the time. For me sometimes it is just tiredness and other times I have to admit I may be just plain lazy to re-read what I have written. I am not implying that you are like me.

    The analogy does not only mean something to the Jews. If that were so, then the analogy of the foreskin of our heart would mean nothing to us. If you also notice that I very carefully made a distinction between the source of sin coming in to the world that causes all humans to die (physical sign of sin being the foreskin) and the fact that all of us have the foreskin on our hearts a spiritual sign of sin. Just as we cannot be in the family of God with the foreskin still intact on our heart, so Adam’s seed could not produce the Messiah because scripture says that the seed can be affected by what the father does. God purposely didn’t allow the seed of the man to be a part of the Messiah and when God shows us that the sign of sin is in the male flesh alone, we should be able to understand that this is a physical sign not a spiritual one. I think I have proven my point quite well from scripture that we were “in” Adam when he sinned. Only Jesus was “in” Eve alone without being “in” Adam. But because Eve came from the flesh of Adam before Adam sinned, although she was his flesh and blood DNA match, she was not of the seed of Adam after his treacherous act towards God that took the whole of the human race down except for Eve and Jesus.

    I still challenge you to find “tainted male seed” in Genesis; God never cursed Adam beyond physical mortality. The scriptures never say female seed is sinless.

    Paula, Adam was not “cursed” with physical mortality. It wasn’t a curse, it was a result of doing what God told him not to do.

    You said that scripture never says that the female seed is sinless. However the bible very clearly says that sin came into the world through Adam alone. This means that Eve did not transmit sin into the world as Adam did. If Eve did not transmit sin into the world, then her seed did not inherit any sin either.

    You still haven’t answered why the foreskin is a sign of sin. You haven’t answered why there is no physical female sign of sin, but there is a spiritual sign that females share with males (yet which is a clearly male sign as it is called a foreskin)?

    I can see why you are having such a hard time with 1 Timothy 2:15. It appears to be very difficult for you to see that “THE childbearing” refers to the seed of the woman – THE Messiah brought sinless into the world through the very first deceived woman. I think you will continue to have a roadblock in this verse until you reconsider the scriptures that tell us that we have two condemnations of sin – one that condemns us physically to die (and is the sin nature that we inherit from Adam resulting in our physical death) and the other that condemns us to be spiritually separated with God unless we allow God to cut away that foreskin of our heart.

    I also understand that you will not be persuaded very easily on an issue that you have already made up your mind on that you are right. I will not push you any further on this and just ask that you take the time to consider the verses that I have presented. I have also taken the time to read through your article and I can see where you miss the mark. You hone in on only one of the condemnations of sin and miss the other. While it is completely true that “The one who sins is the one who will die” and “The child will not share the guilt of the parent nor will the parent share the guilt of the child” this is talking about personal sin and not what we might call the inherited sin tendencies. You say that there is no such thing as “inherited sins” yet it is the “inherited sin nature” that we are talking about not a specific sin that is put onto the account of the son.

    You also say that the only thing we “inherit” is a mortal body and a cursed earth. I very strongly disagree. The scripture tells us much about our sin nature and scripture calls it the “old man” the nature that drives everyone human. Jesus talks about what is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of the spirit is spirit. Our fleshly old man is what we inherit through from our fleshly union with Adam. Our new man comes with a new nature and is what we inherit from Jesus the last Adam. This new nature is not part from our own doing any “work” and it is not from anything natural in us. Our new nature comes from the second Adam just as our old nature comes from the first earthly Adam.

    You also make a point that there is no such thing as a death of man’s spirit, but you forget that separation from God is called death in scripture. When Adam sinned he didn’t die the very day in a physical way, but he certainly did “die” in his relationship to God. Adam became separated from God and as Adam became a sinner bent on continuing in that pathway, God kicked Adam out of the garden. For Adam it was not just a one time sin, his nature changed and with him we participated in that old nature. It is the last Adam that brings us our new nature.

    Yes, I do agree that we can give this a rest. I think there is enough in these discussions and with the new blog article that I will post shortly to give people food to think about. As always I hope to give reason for my beliefs and if I am wrong, I am open to correction.

  194. I’ll just touch on a few things and try not to repeat things already gone over.

    The evidence of tainted male seed is the fact that we were “in” Adam when Adam sinned just as Levi was “in” Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

    Notice in Heb. 7:9-10 the phrase “so to speak”; it’s an analogy, not literal. Of course Levi was not literally in Abraham when the tithe was paid, for he wasn’t Levi until sperm met egg. So this is not proof of a literal tainted male seed, but more along the lines of legality. And when you speak of “crediting”, again it’s about legality, not literally.

    So it remains that there is no literal tainted male seed.

    I said that we are all sinful because all of us have a human father.

    There is no scripture that states this. But there are scriptures that say “because all sinned”.

    The only sign that Jesus had of sin was his foreskin.

    Scripture does not say Jesus had to have a “sign” of sinful flesh, but to share in it.

    You say the foreskin is a sign of male sin, but also a sign of all sin. It can’t be both, since only males have it. I believe you stretch this analogy farther than scripture warrants.

    … the sign of sin is in the male flesh alone, we should be able to understand that this is a physical sign not a spiritual one.

    You said it was spiritual too.

    You still haven’t answered why the foreskin is a sign of sin.

    No, because I said it wasn’t a sign of sin, but a symbol of a covenant.

    I can see why you are having such a hard time with 1 Timothy 2:15

    Huh??? I’m not having a hard time with it at all; I have no clue what gave you that impression. “I don’t see” your interpretation; that is not a difficulty on my part.

    I also understand that you will not be persuaded very easily on an issue that you have already made up your mind on that you are right.

    Cheryl, I can say this right back to you. We both think the other has “missed the mark” here.

    You also make a point that there is no such thing as a death of man’s spirit, but you forget that separation from God is called death in scripture.

    I made a clear distinction between literal and figurative death in my article. This statement you made tells me you missed some things.

    As always I hope to give reason for my beliefs and if I am wrong, I am open to correction.

    Another debatable point. :-)

    As you can see, we’re both doing the “I’m right and you’re just not willing to see it” dance. There would be no point in continuing, so this is where I’ll stop. You can have the last word because it’s your blog and your “home”, and I respect that.

  195. Paula,
    I will let you have the last word. The only thing I will add is that I thought I had made it clear that the fleshly foreskin referred to only males and the spiritual foreskin referred to males and females. Just as only males are physical sons, so males and females are “spiritual sons”. If anyone has a better way of saying this to help me explain my point, then I very much value input as I can learn too. I do not know how I am not successfully getting my point across, Paula, but if you can’t see it then I must have failed.

    Also my comment about 1 Timothy 2:15 was not about your work on the entirety 1 Timothy 2 which is quite excellent as usual. My comment was in reference to the definite noun “THE childbearing” which, in my reading of your comments, you seem to want to continue to make into an action word.

    As always you are my sister in Christ and I value your opinion. I will quit now so that your points that you put up will not be overshadowed by my clarification.

  196. All I’ll say is that I view “the childbearing” as the noun it is. Perhaps the confusion is in the technical aspects of grammar.

    teknogonia is parsed as noun, genitive, singular, feminine. The genitive case means it’s a noun that is the object of a preposition or shows possession, relationship, value, or quality. But this is no ordinary noun like “the box” or “the person”, but has the ending -ing; this is properly called a gerund. It is based upon the verb “to child-bear”. It’s just like saying, “We witnessed the crowning of the queen”; “the crowning” is a noun but it comes from the verb “to crown”. So a gerund is a verb ending in -ing that is used as a noun.

    And if you followed that, you get 5 extra points.

  197. thanks for the suggestions and links Cheryl. Good discussion on the ramblings blog.

    Also, thank you Paul and Cheryl for allowing everyone to observe a truly respectful discussion. Haven’t read it all yet, but intend to soon.

    :)

  198. Exegetist,

    That’s the cool thing about this blog. No Winthrops booting you out of the colony for heresy, and no protestant inquisition over secondary issues. Just like you said, it’s free and open discussion with civility.

  199. Paula, thats interesting with the point about it being “gerund”.

    In Him,
    Martin

  200. For anyone interested, I’ve updated my 1Tim2 analysys:
    http://theology.fether.net/_private/1Tim2.html
    It now includes a transliteration, literal reading, and two translations for each verse.

  201. I have just been banned by CARM. I think they took down the whole women pastors subforum.

  202. I think we should start an Honor Roll for “Meritorious Service for the Cause of Christ which Exacted the Price of Exile”.

  203. Don,
    What a shame or perhaps I should call it a sham! You are one of the most even-tempered, likable guys that I have ever met on CARM or anywhere else. When someone like you gets banned, you can know for sure that they are running scared. They don’t have any other options but to hide what they have done in order to cover up the name-calling and terrible treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ.

    I am not surprised if that have deleted the whole women’s board. This is what Matt apparently did with several other boards claiming that they had become too vitriolic. Now I am wondering if the vitriol on the boards was actually things that CARM was embarrassed about and was guilty of themselves? I guess we will never know when they can get rid of the evidence. I will be answering Matt Slick’s “answers” to my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 as soon as I get a chance. This “answers” are basically “non-answers” and he brings nothing into the discussion that is worthy of being called a challenge. I find this very sad with all the name-calling and hurtful things that Diane and Matt have said that in the end they have nothing to bring to the table nor do they want to answer publicly for what they have done on their own discussion. Sad. Very, very sad.

  204. Actually it looks like right now that they have the women board open to public view. I will have to take advantage of that and post links to what was said. I wonder if they tried to clean up all the attacks. Interesting!!

  205. I cannot see the woman pastor’s thread. But if anyone wants to save anything there, they should do it now. I would like to save my discussion on Genesis, but I cannot.

  206. What is the name of the Genesis thread if you remember and I will save it.

  207. I was sorry to see you banned, Don. I wasn’t quite sure where the animosity towards you came from. Your answers were careful and thought provoking and I appreciated them. I also believe you were a good example of Christian grace in action.

  208. I do not recall exactly, but it was mostly me and a comp doing the posting, at least at first. It got up to calling her woman, I remember that. It definitely had Genesis in the title and I was either the creator or 2nd poster I think. If you search on my name, you might find it easier. The other poster just seemed to go away, so it quiesced a few weeks ago.

    I was trying to consolidate the commandments given and to whom.

  209. Don,
    How long did they ban you for? It isn’t permanently is it?

    Sandy #209 Thank you for your kindness to Don. He has been a help to so many and has dealt with a lot of abuse. I won’t post on CARM any longer because of the abuse, but Don has been a real trouper in his Christ-like attitude.

  210. I sent this to Matt,
    —–
    I just sent this to Matt.

    Hi Matt,

    Thank you for providing a forum to discuss the issues of women pastors and egalitarianism in general.

    Here is my post that I think caused concern.

    “No, non-egalitarianism is power seeking by males and responsibility avoiding by females. Their hearts have deceived them in this area and since they claim the reason is the Bible, it becomes a form of sanctified sin, which is one of the hardest types for the sinner to even acknowledge.”

    I apologize for being too general and broad in my statement above and therefore I was wrong.

    I have previously posted that I believe it would be very difficult to tell apart a complementarian (non-egalitarian) couple from a egalitarian couple if both were mature Christians. I failed to do that in my post above and was wrong.

    I have also previously posted that either a comp. or egal. might abuse another (or not), simply having one model or the other may not mean anything in a specific case. But I failed to mention that in my short quote and was wrong.

    You can post this at CARM if you wish.

    Regards,

  211. Don,
    Matt showed his control by banning you. It makes me wonder if his very actions proved what you said? It would have looked much better for Matt if he would have graciously responded about how he, for one, is not power-seeking and would never exert his power over another. I guess he can’t say that now. Would have been good, though.

  212. By their fruits shall you know them. When the owner of a ‘Christian’ website uses a word that he knows is offensive and is regarded as a swear word in the UK (c..p) and continues to use it to describe a post, then you know he is running scared. If one is totally secure in ones belief there is no need to swear and resort to playground name calling and to permit others to do the same. Surely ones Love of God and assurance of God’s Love for them would enable them to have the dignity to rise above such tactics.
    If in defence of your belief you feel the need to resort to shutting people out of the topic, banning them, bad language and bad temper then you need to ask how secure they are in their belief.
    (PS. I’m not ignoring any replies, I’m away for a while)

  213. Paula,

    You have 2 minor typos in your 1 Tim analysis, I think specific and judgment are spelled wrong.

  214. Thanks Don. I think I found the ones you referred to.

    Between coding directly in html and all the non-English words, using a spell checker just wasn’t an option.

  215. Glad for your updated analysis Paula :-)

    May Jesus bless you with wisdom and knowledge of His Word, and use you for His glory and honor.

  216. Thanks Martin! :-)

    I’m just about finished with a similar one for Eph. 5. But before I put it up I’m trying to decide on a more permanent home for documents like those.

  217. New home for these “analysis” documents:
    http://theology.fether.net/

  218. Just read your article on Eph. 5, very interesting. One thing I wonder about is how the Bible exhorts women in the marriage? And definitions for it (like respecting the husband, how do you define respect etc.). It was interesting the background you provided with Roman marriages.

    In His wonderful grace,
    Martin

  219. Hi Martin,

    Given that women then were already forced to be subservient and basically slaves of their husbands or fathers, it would seem most unlikely that Paul would need to make a law about it. Whatever he’s telling them was therefore likely to be unexpected or against the norm. Knowing that the norm was for the woman to belong to her father, such that the marriage was always unstable, it seems to make the most sense out of why Paul would say what he did.

    He keeps comparing Christian marriage to the relationship between Jesus and the Assembly, and it should reflect that. The problem has been that most people think in terms of “pecking order”, as if Jesus’ primary attitude toward us is one of domination. But what I see in Phil. 2:5-11 for example, is Jesus laying aside power and position, coming to be betrothed to his bride, building her up and cleansing her, while returning to his father’s house to “prepare a place” for us.

    This sort of relationship was unheard of, especially between someone of power and someone lowly. So it makes the most sense to think Paul is trying to convey that same radical concept in Christian marriage. I would think, then, that a wife’s respect or honor for her husband is to represent how the Assembly should ideally relate to Jesus. We should strive to be “natural” in our allegiance to Him, not legalistic or perfunctory. And we must not share that allegiance with the world. In the same way, a wife should no longer be devoted to her father above all, but instead to be devoted to her husband, so that the two are “one flesh” just as it is between Jesus and the Assembly.

  220. Paula:
    ‘I would think, then, that a wife’s respect or honor for her husband is to represent how the Assembly should ideally relate to Jesus. We should strive to be “natural” in our allegiance to Him, not legalistic or perfunctory. And we must not share that allegiance with the world. In the same way, a wife should no longer be devoted to her father above all, but instead to be devoted to her husband, so that the two are “one flesh” just as it is between Jesus and the Assembly.’

    I find this curious especialy the second sentence. You’ve got my wheels turning…

  221. I agree with Paula in #27 (“childish bullying taunt”).  I used to work in an elemantary school, and as soon as I read Diane’s remarks, I thought, “That sounds exactly like one of the children I used to teach.”

    “By your fruits you shall know them.”  I don’t see any evidence from Matt & Diane of joy, peace, love, longsuffering, gentleness, self-control, etc.  I think that by plainly reading the scripture you can find what that means.

  222. Hi Cheryl,

    I have no opinion of Adam and animals,. but I totally agree with your opinion of Sellner.

    She is a hateful, mean spirited… [edited by Cheryl to stay away from name-calling] who runs roughshod over the opinions of anyone that does not agree with her on CARM.  Prove she is wrong?  She bans you. 

    She and Slick and their ilk are too afraid to step foot into reality and must hide behind their “power” in controlling an insignificant internet discussion board.

    More power to you.

  223. Hi Derwood,

    I edited your post slightly.  I don’t like to exercise excessive moderation so while it is okay to discuss behavior, I would like to stay away from name-calling. especially since Diane specializes in name-calling.

    I agree with your assessment of what Diane does when people disagree with her.  Many here are banned for life merely for disagreeing with Diane even if they do so in a respectful manner.  As far as the other character I have agreed not to discuss him publicly so I will refrain.

    If there is anyway that we can help you further, please let us know.  I understand your frustration and I sympathize with you.

  224. Just wanted to say that I have found reading your blog so refreshing and reasuring. I have spent quite a time on CARM over the last few months, and have found my approach runs totally contrary to the leaders of the board. I went there as a place of recovery following Spiritual abuse, and found myself accused of being an unbeliever and all manner of things… It has not ben a useful experience, apart from the lovely friends that I have made from all sides of the board. (Christian through to atheist.) What I find saddest is that I know there are people who are converted away from Christianity by going there… That hurts so much. I think I have now been banned, as I disagreed openly (and very civilly) with Diane and cannot get on any more…

  225. Judy,

    Welcome! As one who has also been banned, I completely understand the hurts that you feel especially since you thought that CARM would be a place of safety and recovery. Unfortunately for the most part it is not. The leadership has chosen a direction of attack and conquer for anyone who disagrees with them. I have also tried the civil approach and in the end I was not only banned but I was completely removed. All the criticism and accusations against me were left online while my comments were totally removed as if I didn’t even exist. Diane Sellner has tried to control what happens on this blog too through intimidation but she is unable to do that as there is freedom here to disagree and no one is going to control and hurt others on my space.

    My concern is also that there are some who are turned off of Christianity because of the unjust and unChristlike actions of the administration on the CARM boards. It is a sign of what is actually beneath the surface. While the CARM web site has a lot of good material that can be helpful to many, I do not recommend the CARM discussion boards at all. Many tender Christians have been hurt there and the style of Christianity shown by the administration and by Diane in particular is not helpful to the cause of Christ. I was hopeful that I could have been a help to show them that there is a better way to handle disagreements, but those who disagree are not treated with respect as fellow Christian brothers and sisters. Because of the regular abuse that goes on there, I recommend that people give the boards a miss.

  226. Judy, welcome to the club of those who have a deep faith but the details of that faith do not happen to tally with those of the ones who run the cram site.
    Those of us who have been kicked off permanently for such an ‘outrage’ and do not happen to believe that God is more about exclusivity than inclusivity and more about contempt than LOVE were described by somebody as ‘Compassionate Christians’.
    If you really want to go back to the cram site to read posts and your ISP has been banned then you can access the site with a proxy server.
    I have found since my exclusion that I have become less and less interested in a web site that only appears to exist to serve the over inflated egos of its owners and managers and my time is better spent spreading the word of Love of God rather than watching the antics of those who believe that God and Love are not synonymous.

  227. Thanks so much both of you for your responses… I am finding it a real blessing to read over the information on this site. It is so reassuring to know that so many Christians feel exactly the same as I do about CARM. I have been accused of being ‘liberal’ and too looooving (as an insult!) I love Jesus and I believe the Bible, but I tend to leave the judging to Jesus, and try to just show Jesus and share Jesus with others.

    I think there is so much that we as Christians could hold different views on, and so I tend to be very inclusive in my faith- and allow the Holy Spirit to make the changes. To me, it seems there are only a few essentials to our faith- and they are less to do with legalistic following of rules and more to do with having a heart that has been cleansed by Jesus and an openess to love God and your neighbour.

Leave a Reply

*

Text formatting is available via select HTML. <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>