Kay

Cheryl wrote:”If her nature was corrupted, then why did Jesus come through the woman and only the woman? Why was no man allowed to be the father of Jesus?”
Mark answered:
“7. Now Eve is a sinner. Paul explains that as a sinner we are dead(eph 2:1) spiritually and physically.”

Mark,
We answer your questions – why don’t you answer ours?
Or maybe the question numbers are just mixed up there??
Why is it so difficult to understand that Eve is not Adam’s child who inherited his sin nature?

The promised Savior was “her Seed” (Gen.3:15). Not Adam’s seed, but Eve’s – “her Seed.”

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one Man, many will be made righteous.” Rom.5:19
Surely, you don’t claim both that through Adam sin came into the world and also through Adam we are made righteous, do you??

Mark wrote: “10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?”

Why would Mark ask this question? What does it matter to him, which doctrine Cheryl is teaching? -because according to him she isn’t supposed to be teaching any doctrine in ‘formal church’ anyway.
Looks like a smoke screen to me.

“And it may not have been Susanna – it may have been Kay.”

gengwall,
It wasn’t me…I was on Thanksgiving vacation and barely able to keep up with the regular comments 🙁
…I’m just now caught up. Wheww!

Cheryl & TL,
Such wonderful toys…uh er umm, I mean tools – you all are making me drool again. Sshhhh.

Jim,
Have you read through Cheryl’s posts on 1 Timothy 2 listed under “Categories” here on the right hand side of the blog page? I hope you will. There is a wealth of info in each article.

“Forget the briefcase, forget the road show, forget the career. Stay in the field. Pull the weeds. Chop down the thistles. Stay in that category where the curse has fallen.”
lmb,
That would be the day, wouldn’t it? But, alas, he has a problem with consistency….

And “woe” to the poor woman who is unable to marry and have children…she’s lost her chance to fulfill her curse or be reminded of sin by God.

MacArthur continues: “That’s what God wants out of the woman. Forget the briefcase, forget the road show, forget the career. Love your husband. Love your children. Stay in that category where the curse has fallen”

Is it just me, or does it sound like he really wants women to stay tied to ‘her’ ‘curse’?

Here’s a quote from John MacArthur Jr.:
“And a woman, too, is cursed in the sphere of her work, the sphere of her life; the relationship with children and her husband. And to you women I say this: If you are somewhat surprised that you have trouble with your children and that you suffer pain in that area, both physical pain and emotional and sometimes deep, deep spiritual pain, and if you struggle with your husband, um, just know this. God didn’t intend it that way in the beginning. That’s a result of sin, and you’re bearing something of the effect of the curse that God put on Eve. And you say well, then I, you know, if I’d have been in the garden, I wouldn’t have done with what Eve did, so why should I have to pay? The answer is because God wants to remind you all the time how terrible sin is, and what it’s done.” (“The Curse on the Woman” Part 1, Genesis 3:16)

Looks as though MacArthur is in full agreement with God intending to torment women.

K Liebens wrote: “Both male and female are equally valued and loved in that both play vital, distinct and complementary roles. However, gender liberalism, in a modern context, is a mockery of the very state of being male or female, and thus of being human by first principles.”

K Liebens,
Really??? So, then why are the Chinese aborting female fetuses in record numbers in order to have a male child instead????
Really??? So, then why are millions of little girls sold into sex slavery in places like Thailand??

That is the reality.

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh him ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.” Proverbs 12:4
Curious that you quoted this verse. Isn’t a crown worn on top/over the “head”?

“He told them to tell others. They told others. This is the very essence of the Gospel. They were actually instructed, one might even say commanded to tell others (dare I say “preach”?) the Good News. This is no mere accident of appearance. It is the most essential element of our faith. To dismiss it so blithely is absolutely stunning.”
M. Baker-Wright,
As you can tell, I’m right there with you in astonishment!

“Also i am a bit confused why egals think that because Jesus appeared to ‘women’ it is concrete proof that they should lead and run churches. Jesus had many women follow him but none were ever the apostles nor took on any leadership role. MAybe someone can explain the seemingly great importance of this event.”

Mark,
Are you serious? “the seeminly great importance of this event.”???
We are talking about *The Resurrection* after all.
If the Lord had appeared to you first and ask you to go and tell the brethren, would you have said, “No thanks, why not just let Mary.”??
Come now.

I have friends who are missionaries, who have had new believers that in their ignorance of “all things decently and in order,”(I Cor.14:40) walk into the middle of a “formal church” service and stand there loudly asking them questions during the sermon.
So, because they violated that statement of Paul’s, would you consider that man to have committed a sin? If not, why not?
Since you consider women teaching/preaching to men a sin, how would this violation be different?

Cheryl,
I’ll take that as a compliment…however you probably ought to be a bit worried.

Mark,
Earthly father/son relationships don’t even consist of subordination throughout the entire relationship. Or perhaps you believe they should exist that way – is that part of the faulty cultural influence you believe we egals are under?
Do you believe that sons continually being in subordination to their fathers is the true way father/son relationships should be?

I would think so since the Divine Father/Son relationship should be our true standard. It would be very inconsistant to apply it only to male/female or marriage relationships, but not to the actual model relationship itself.

Dave wrote: “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!”
Well put, Dave!
Mark,
It’s that picking and choosing of situations that non-ESS egals see as a problem…it’s that picking and choosing the ‘who to’ and ‘when to’ apply your ‘men’s roles’ and ‘women’s roles.’

You can never completely separate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or you no longer have the Trinity. And if you cannot do that without spoiling the Godhead, how can you possibly pick and choose such sharply divided ‘roles’ and apply them to people?

“Maybe someone else’s eyes need to be opened away from our cultural influences.”
Mark,
Exactly which cultural influences are blinding us?

“Why is it a sacrilege to think of the Father on the cross, but not a sacrilege to think of woman on the cross?”
Sue,
You know I was wondering that as well.

Mark,
Again, it is the inferences that comps/hierarchialists make from them that are the main sticking point.

“The question needs to be asked, does God use them himself to help us understand Him better. Of course he does- Ezekial 16 is a classic example. If God has given us human analogies to help us, which he has, let’s use them to better understand Him and his word.”

Mark,
I think you misunderstand my point. The problem comps see is with trying to put man in a ‘role’ that is God’s. We certainly wouldn’t say that Ezekial 16 is license for men to do the things to their unfaithful wives which God says in that chapter, would we?

“He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14). The disparity between us and God IS impossible really to imagine. Why should we think that the relationship within the Godhead would be like any of our relationships? All analogies fail, because the disparity here is between what is Infinite and we finite and fallen. We are merely seeing “through a glass darkly” the Perfect and the pre-fall.

Perhaps it is man who has come up with “roles” to distinguish the members of the Godhead because in man’s own limited understanding he needs that somehow in order to feel that he understands and knows God better. But God is far past our finite understanding and not confined by it, even if we try to make it so.

“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.”
Mark,
I don’t think it is that egals cannot come to terms with differences in subsistence – it is the inferences that comps/hierarchialists make from them that are the main sticking point.

“5. Kay, no i don’t think women should wear head coverings. This was a cultural practice to show the wifes submission to her husband. Our culture does not use a head covering to show a wife’s submission, so i don’t believe it should be enforced.”

-I think several of us have related enough historical evidence to show that headcovering was not *always* being worn to signify submission in NT times. Couple this with 1Tim2:9 mentioning braided hairstyles as being an issue.

Mark wrote: “Jesus is the image of the Invisible God. Hence his qualities or homoousious are God, yet he is distinct from the Father. In what way is he distinct- obviously functionality.”
Mark,
If Jesus is only the image of the Father but not the Godhead, how do you explain this?:
“Who, being in very nature God (theos),
did not consider equality with God(theos) something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.” Phil 2:6-7

Mark wrote: “2. However i do think that Jesus is ’subordinate’(and i use that term unhappily) in relation to his subsistence. This has been the orthodox position of the Trinity since the Nicene Creed.”

Mark,
You’ve expressed unhappiness with “subordinate,” what term would you rather use?

The Bible says that the Father raised Jesus, the Son raised Himself and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus. If they can function in the same way in the resurrection and still be unique individuals in one God, then why do you make different ‘roles’ to be the only way that they are distinguished?
The question has been raised – were they not individuals while they worked at the same job?

If the subordination is both permanent and comprehensive, it is not merely ‘a’ function.
Essence:
1. the characteristic or intrinsic feature of a thing, which determines its identity; fundamental nature
2. the most distinctive element of a thing the essence of a problem
3. a perfect or complete form of something, esp a person who typifies an abstract quality he was the essence of gentility
4. Philosophy
a. the unchanging and unchangeable nature of something which is necessary to its being the thing it is; its necessary properties
b. the properties in virtue of which something is called by its name
c. the nature of something as distinct from, and logically prior to, its existence

Susanna,
Thanks for posting that! You’ve done a lot of work – I’d like to read your book.

“However in relation to the evidence i know about kephale and the way it was used metaphorically in this grammatical construction, and the way i read the rest of the bible i feel that what i have offered here is reasonable.”
Mark,
The way I read the rest of the Bible, it never once states that a man or a husband has been given ‘authority’ over a woman or a wife. Not once -for it to be seen in the Bible it must be previously assumed by the reader.

Nothing, Jesus said is used by comps/hierarchialist to prove their view – because nothing He said bolsters it. Not once did He command His female followers never to teach or preach to a man. In fact, His words say just the opposite of what comps espouse.
“Not so among you”
“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life”
“If I then, your Lord and Teacher have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet”
“All authority (exousia) has been given to Me”
“All authority”
“All”
“All” as in not a jot of it has been given to anyone else.

Good point, pinklight. Placing them side by side makes it rather difficult to refute the obvious correlation.

“(Later they are teaching Waltz but my wife and I rock at waltzing”
gengwall – “rock at waltzing”? LOL that’s too much!

Dave, I’d like to, but haven’t seen my camera’s computer cord since moving several months ago – could “snail mail” one to Ryde PC though.

Now, off to read Mark’s new post…