Dave

Sorry for the ‘P’ word…though I am glad you were listening gengwall!

I struggle with CBMW, not simply because of what they say, but because of the way they are accepted as saying the truth. It is amazing how sheep-like people can be. I went to Bible college as a comp/sheep, but someone told me before I went to make sure Bible college did not ruin me. The first year nearly did! Then I worked out that I had to question everything. I had to work it out for myself. I had to listen to God, through others and through his Spirit. I try to encourage the people in our church to question everything, including me. The best way to have a defence against wolves in sheeps clothing is to help the sheep not to be stupid!

“What surprises me the most is how many men think they are universally better “listeners” when it comes to hearing from God. That certainly has not been my experience (either personally or anecdotally amongst my circle).”

Interesting comment gengwall! I think God chooses to use people in his work. I have learnt so much from others through this forum, even NN taught me something, which was probably the last thing he wanted to teach me! I guess I just think when God wants to get a message across and he wants us to hear it, he uses whatever way he chooses.

Of course we have a theme in scripture that it is only those who have ears to hear who will. This has to do with the state of our heart, not our gender! Otherwise it would be “Let him who has a penis hear”! 😉

I am not sure if there are ‘hundreds’ of different comp positions, but there are certainly more than one! The terms ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ do not get applied to egals, just comps.

What makes no sense to me is that God chooses who he speaks through and to whom he speaks. God chose to speak to a man (Balam) through a donkey. Not only that, but the donkey appears to be female!

How then can they say that God cannot speak directly to a woman?

I thought we had only one mediator.

Ah yes, I am reading you more clearly now! You will have to excuse us Aussies…we are not always the sharpest tools in the shed. In a typical male way I was not seeing any problem with a wife with a powerful sex drive. Very selfish of me!

SM, you said, “Dave, the problem is *hers* particularly if there is no “joyful submission” on the part of her husband in the faithful practice of the text we have undertaken.”

I was asking what the problem was with a wife having the greater sex drive. It was a joke, much like what I assume is used in men’s chat forums, though gengwall could probably clarify for us!

I guess when you tell husbands that wives have authority over their husbands body, as husbands do over their wives, that you are telling them to submit to one another.

Hmmmm…headache…

Lin, you said…”And, btw…I have known people where the problem with sex overdrive was the wife, not the husband.”

I do not understand…this is a problem? 😉

Logically, if everyone had equal sex drive then Paul would never have needed to say anything. Everybody would just have sex on every 5th day at 3pm without fail…unless they were praying and fasting.

Going back to our discussion with NN, I cannot help but think that 1 Cor 7:3-4 is talking about more than just sex. The reference to authority is to bodies, so reduceing it to sex drive I feel is limiting the scope of the authority.

NN – thanks for providing the original challenge to Cheryl’s post. It has certainly caused me to look more deeply at the passage, and I believe helped me to understand it more accurately. Thanks!

In relation to your original challenge, we certainly got distracted with some word meanings that did not even appear in the passage where we started. I therefore understand why you felt compelled to bow out and ‘move on’. You did however say the following…

“So consider this an extended advertising campaign in support of truth and honesty in debating this topic. When we (collective we including both complementarians and egalitarians) find that we have made a faulty argument, let’s acknowledge it and move on. Let us seek truth and understanding rather than “winning the argument.””

These are great words, thankyou for reminding us of the importance in seeking truth. My question for you, if you are still there, is would you like to show a flaw in our reasoning in response to your original challenge, or would you like to ‘acknowledge’ your faulty argument before moving on? We are still interested in seeking truth!

Dave

Kay, you said, “The sex act is THE defining difference between marriage and all other relationships, and it is certainly not something that can be compartmentalized from the rest of the relationship.”

Brilliant!

Sorry, did I say ‘just sex’? What a non typical comment for a male to make…

NN, you said, “Dave – because a subject has a specific right with respect to the governing authorities does not necessitate that this subject thereby has equal authority to the government over him.”

I completely agree with you, but the passage not only makes it clear as to the rights that the husband and wife have, it also makes it clear as to the ‘governing authority’ involved. Now, does the ‘governing authority’ of the woman extends to all areas of marriage beyond the marriage bed? That is the question!

I would however ask the question, ‘Why is it that the only place that refers to the man being the governing authority of the woman it also says that the woman is also the governing authority of the man?’

The burden of proof is surely on the comps to show us where the ‘governing authority’ of the woman is limited to the bedroom.

Further to this, when we look at 1 Cor 7:3-4 we should note that the conjugal rights (i.e. sex) are only a part of the jurisdiction of the governing authority that has authority over the entire body of the spouse. The implication is that the authority extends to more than just sex, I would suggest to even things like providing for and caring for the body under their jurisdiction (Ephesians 5:28-29).

Paul could appeal his right to a fair trial, but he had to do this to a governing body that had authority over more than simply the right to grant a trial to those who requested them. To me, 1 Cor 7:3-4 is simply an outworking of the concept of what it is to be one flesh, a concept that I believe relates to so much more than simply the act of sex, though the act of sex clearly comes within it’s ‘jurisdiction’!

Thanks for popping back NN. I believe that we are now ‘getting somewhere’ after so many comments. Perhaps you might like to stick around just a bit longer?

I have tried to read all of the comments…you guys really get going when you get going! I hope in saying the following I have not missed something so that I am stating the obvious!

I was thinking that NN has a point in that Paul did have a ‘right’ to appeal to the higher authority (I realise that he was trying to suggest that the ‘right’ was an authority but Cheryl has addressed that). What NN says is true, Paul had this right. Not only that but I think it also relates directly to 1 Cor 7. But I think NN has not applied his own thinking correctly. If he has he would have come to the conclusion that 1 Cor 7 does provide evidence for egal thinking and undermines comp thinking. Let me explain!

In verse 3 we see these rights clearly outlined. These are the same as Paul’s right to a trial. They are ‘conjugal’ rights as one version puts it (ESV I think). They are an ‘obligation’ or a debt owed. The interesting thing is that then in verse 4 Paul tells us where the appeal goes to – the ‘governance’ as NN put it. The woman is entitled to her conjugal rights and if she is denied she can appeal to herself as it is her that has authority over his body – she is the governing authority! Go Girl!!! Likewise the same for the husband. Go Boy.

Beyond this there is no governance or higher authority. NN was trying to play with words (like taking ‘authority’ and making it ‘rights’) so as to skew the passage to only talk about rights. He could then claim that governance was not there and this had to be decided from other verses. He is wrong!

Perhaps ‘incompatible’ is too strong, perhaps they can work together (e.g. In CHrist) but are completely seperate from one another.
?!

I have been mulling things over all morning and wondered if hierarchy and relationship were incompatible. When I say relationship, I mean it in the friendship/love/personal way, not as in ‘position of one to another’ way as that would be simply hierarchy.

Comps would say that our relationship with God is one of hierarchy, but hierarchy has to do with status, subordination, position etc.

Relationship, however, works seperately to status etc, sometimes inspite of! God does have a position higher/greater than us, but he chooses relationship first and foremost through Jesus.

The great thing about Jesus is he is where hierarchy and relationship exist together, not in tension but in harmony. He has authority, but chooses to serve us with his authority.

I hope this makes sense!

I do not think I added clarity…just ocnfusion. I will come back wit perfect clarity later…
…much later…

Thanks for the clarification gengwall. I have to go do something all morning, I hope to mull over it more, but my initial thought is that all authority comes from God. I am sure comps would agree…I hope! Throughout scripture any acts of authority, either through Jesus or even the prophets in the OT, or Paul rebuking/exhorting in the NT, the authority comes from God. The question is, how do we determine what really is authroity from God and what is not. The only answer I can think of is discernment through the Holy Spirit and the written word. God’s authority can come through any means by whic God chooses, even a donkey!

I have recently been at another blog where I was chewed up and spat out. They then ripped my heart out and stamped on it. They then pursued my children…you get the picture. None of their behaviour fits with the Spirit or scripture.

Now, they are never going to admit out loud that their behaviour is wrong. They simply keep saying that they speak with authority. But it is characteristic of the authority of the world/satan.

Did I go off-topic or is this related?

I shoudl go and think…

Gengwall, could you give us an example of CHrist’s authority over the church that comps would point to? Just trying to understand you.

Also, I have an issue with taking any God/human relationship and saying it is equal to a human/human relationship when authority is the issue. I assume you do too. 🙂

Sorry, I LOVE it!

Hi People!

I have always felt that hierarchy was abuse, simply because hierarchy between men and women seeks to limit, restrict and put someone down, essentially seeking to make them less than they are. I see this as abuse. It is certainly not loving, encouraging, edifying and lifting others up!

This means that I do not see a slippery slope from hierarchy to abuse, but rather that hierarchy is abuse. Now, having said that I recognise that some comps would be mortified if they heard me say that, but then my parents controlled and manipulated me for many years, and yet they loved me. It was just that their love was so misguided and distorted that what was well intentioned equaled abuse.

Is that clear?

Kay, I love it when you emphasise!

Great post CHeryl!

I always look at gifts as not a gift that is given to me, but rather a gift that is given through me. This is why it needs to be used for the edification of the body, because it has not been given just to me, but given for me to pass on. Ephesians 4:7-14 also suggests this (if I am reading it right) as Christ has given the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers to build the body of Christ – not so some lucky chump could say “Hey I got the teaching gift…yeah!”. The reason the gifts are given is not for the individual, but for the body.

No doubt some in Paul’s time used gifts for their own edification (1 Cor 14:27-28). In a sense this is still building up the body (be it only one part – 1 Cor 14:4-5) and so Paul exhorts them to use it for a greater good. From my perspective to suggest that God would give a gift for someone not to use, then that just does not fit the NT pic.

Mark, I personally do not think that any gifts came with a built in use by date! Others might disagree!

Sorry if my comment appeared negative and sarcastic. My point is that we can all acuse each other of being influenced or biased, but this does not get us anywhere. I believe that K Liebens has shown their own bias through their comment. No one is completely immune from this….

“Much of the text is confounded by the writer’s inability to recognise and address key paradigms or precepts of a gender liberalist nature which he has internalised through societal influences. This in turn has undermined an absolutist view of the relevant scripture and his creedal base.”

Are you sure?

I thought that perhaps you had failed to recognise your own confounding through your own inability to address and recognise key paradigms and precepts regarding gender equality that are both implicit and explicit within scripture which you have apparently not internalised, but rather attempted to undermine through an absolutely literal and non-contextual (to the point of being irrelevant and nonfactual) view of scripture.

I do not know enough about you to make comments on your credal base!

Hey Amos,

Enjoying your thoughts! I too vote for no hierarchy in Christ!

Actually I take some of that back Mark…

“the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (Jn 14:26, 16:7)”

You do seem to be able to see the Father AND the Son sending the Spirit (poor old #3). Why can you not accept that the Son sent the Son as well as the Father sending the Son? After all, something we can learn from Phil 2 is that he humbled HIMSELF.

Mark, when does your exam finish? Up for a coffee at 1pm?

Mark, you said,

“in my opinion is reflective of his person as the second member”

This might seem petty, but I think this reflects pure tradition that simply serves to undermine your view of the Trinity. The members ar enot numbers in the Bible! This is not ‘Get Smart’ with agent # one and agent # two! By numbering the members of the Godhead you continue to view it as hierarchy that is not there!

You also said,

“Combine this with the fact that the Father is not begotten, but the Son is (Jn 1:18, 3:16, 1 Jn 3:9) and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (Jn 14:26, 16:7) aswell as the great eschatological passage of 1 Cor 15:20-28, and we begin to see the unity of the one God, expressed in the distinct subsistence of being.”

Now, it is so easy to see when someone goes silly with the concordance when they put a verse like 1 John 3:9 as a reference to the Son being begotton…because this is not what the verse is about at all!

Your reference to 1 Cor 15:20-28 is interesting as it actually show the seperateness of the members (God the Father verse 24 has the kingdom delivered to Him from CHrist) AND the unity (For God – the Trinity, has put all things under His feet v.27).

Mark it seems to me that your view of the Trinity only allows you to see the members seperate in certain situations and then as one in certain other situations. The truth is that they are one in all situations and three in all situations. You said yourself God is unchanging. If so you then need to apply this to His unity and His threeness!

I am glad you can keep my view on Calvin secret! I am off to church!

Hey Mark,

I will be at PTC on Monday. You going to be around? I will shout you a coffee!

Mark, you came back at us with a quote from Calvin. This is not scripture (I know they teach otherwise at the PTC!). Remember when you stand on the shoulders of giants, that historically giants have been very dull creatures. As they say, “in the tallest buildings it is the top most floors that are least furnished.

How do I see the Father and the Son seperately? The Son was baptised and the Father was proud of him and the Spirit descended in the form of a dove. The Son was crucified and the Father forsook (is that the right word?) him. Lots of differences, all there in scripture. At the same time, you cannot use any of these examples to drive a wedge between any of the members of the Trinity. Do so and you break the unity that makes the three one.

Now you, Mark, say that the Father and the Son are so seperate that ONLY the Father sent the Son. Who was it who raised Jesus? Who was it who sent him? Where is the conclusive Biblical (Calvin not included) evidence for ESS?

“Like i have said previously Paul often uses ‘Theos’ to refer to the Father.”

Yep, you said it before and did not back it up with any evidence and you have done it again! I would have thought you would have had mopre of a case with John than Paul…but can you back it up?

“According the Amos Love’s interpretation, it must then mean that the Father, Son and Spirit were all crucified! Is this what people really want to believe?”

Mark I went over this before as have others. You are the one who is messing around with the Trinity! You want to say that the three who are one were completely seperate at the cross. We are simply saying that they were still three who were one at the cross. Mark, you really need to deal with this, agree to disagree OR see the light! Your view is the one that does not cater for three being one. Our view does. Our view also deals with one being three. Your view does this too well! You, Mark, are not holding the balance. I do not know how I can state this any more clearly!

How do you deal with Jesus being raised from death by all three? Where is the conclusive Biblical evidence for ESS?

I beg to differ Amos Love. There are Complimentarians and Egalitarians in Christ – and they are equal…and yet…different…

Welcome back Mark, my equal but different friend! 😉

You said to Pinklight,

“You seem to think that ’subordination’ of subsitence must infer ‘unequal’ as God, therefore heretical. This is the commonly adopted approach of Egals, but is unscriptural and un-confirmable by the historic debates. If one cannot come to terms with the differences in subsistence, a modalistic Trinity is the result, which is condemnable- because the Son is really no different from the Father.”

That was one very un-backed up statement which we could only excuse IF you are studying hard for your exams! If you had listened to what is being said, we do not believe in a modalistic Trinity…we have maintained the difference in the Trinity…and the oneness…and we have argued from scripture. Please show clearly in scripture conclusive evidence for ESS.