My exchange with Matt Slick Analyzed | 1 Timothy 2:13-14

http://brain.trendzi.net/

http://brain.trendzi.net/sitemap/

Please read the description. The exchange I had with Matt is just an amazing level of embarrassment to me (I’m cringing at myself) and you need some extra information beyond what I’ve said in the video.

I’d like to lay some of the blame of my lack of intelligibility due to my past mental exhaustion lol, and also because I didn’t actually think through enough of what I was to say as much as I should have. Nevertheless I think refusing to allow women from being pastors is flatly unbiblical even if I kept tripping over my words, perhaps came off as having a mental problem (I’m not joking when I say that), and sometimes not making sense. If I have incorrectly talked about Matt’s position, or anything else I apologize. But even in the midst of my incoherence, I think I still won this argument.

Let’s make things simple. Genesis describes and explains how Adam wasn’t deceived and Eve was. Quite foundationally it goes back to Adam being made first and Eve being made second. Because Adam was made first his knowledge was better (only he received instruction concerning the forbidden tree), Eve incorrectly recited that instruction. Why? She was made second and God consequently didn’t give that to her. So Satan exploited that fact. Not only is it not necessary to automatically see 1 Timothy 2:13 as teaching primogeniture, 1 Timothy 2:14 contrasts Adam’s non deception and Eve’s deception. My view explains both verses very naturally and smoothly.

Also in this video (GOTTA MAKE SOME CORRECTIONS), towards the end I think I accidentally said Matt sees this issue as “not a non essential issue”. LOL, he sees this as A non essential issue xD.

At 1:24:02 (basically at that point) I erroneously say “that’s just impossible by Genesis itself”. I DEFINITELY messed up. I meant to say that 1 Timothy 2:13 must be taken as allegorically interpreting Genesis 2-3 but there is no evidence to say that it is. I made a grave error in my words and Matt was right to say that we interpret the old in light of the new. He was right in correcting my erroneous words that I didn’t even mean LOL. Sadly, my analysis, I didn’t even catch that until now. Ever misrepresented yourself in a debate? I have.

And another thing to correct, around 5:20 I say “why must it be 1 Timothy 2?” I meant to say “Genesis 2-3” I think. Because that’s what the Complementarian position ultimately would lead someone to think is the “law” in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Ultimately, because of 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

And when I talk about Eve and the Ephesian women being immature, I take that back and say they both had a lack of knowledge. Only an issue of knowledge is something concrete as to the nature of how Eve personally fell. Her failure to accurately recite God’s command I think is the only way to understand that. Perhaps, though, perhaps Eve added the “touch” part that is already revealing her discomfort with God yet she hasn’t officially fallen yet.

And when I mentioned Egalitarians don’t really pay attention to 1 Timothy 2:13-14, I take that back. I’m not too sure. Though I don’t believe I’ve encountered a widely accepted interpretation of verses 13-14. It’s Complementarians who appear way more unified there.

When I say “for reasons unknown to me” I was being a bit more sassy, I don’t mean I don’t understand Matt. I just want to emphasize that he really has no basis to believe what he’s saying. This was regarding “husband of one wife”.

As for the identities of some of the false teachers at Ephesus (Acts 20:29-30), it seems like they would be: Hymanaeus, Alexander, and Philetus (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:16-18). Also look at 1 Timothy 1:3, 6-7, 4:1-4, 6:3-5 and 2 Timothy 3:3-9.

Finally, I did say “children who believe” but there isn’t full unity in understanding what this means. Some say converted children, others may say something like “well trained”. So I’ll correct myself from implying converted children, but that may actually have been the case. I don’t know for sure. Finally, I think Hebrews 11:19 actually may not be saying “Isaac is a type of Christ”.

Buy my books on Amazon:

When the Hype dies

Let Genesis Speak for Itself (This is my work on women in ministry, please buy if you are interested in SERIOUSLY critiquing me)

https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/pp292_4tai1t-2.pdf Jamin’s article on 1 Timothy 2:12.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ghltxhXY8&t=5155s Where the debate/exchange happened. Start at around 59:32.

Related posts:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *