Susanna Krizo

Hi Mark, I think Dave already answered your arguments, (I never thought of the trinity argument that way, that no one ever argues there are four Gods. Thanks Dave!)

I do want to comment on free will, for I understand where the confusion came from. When there is not an explicit reference we must make inferences, this is true. But when it comes to inferences, we must ask the dreaded question why? I.e. God commands the man not to eat of the tree. Why does he do so? Because the human had free will to choose to eat of it or not to eat of it. If he did not have free will, it would be nonsensical for God to command the man. Because the Bible does not mention free will specifically we have now such doctrines as original sin and predestination which are based on the belief that the human will is in bondage due to sin wherefore we cannot choose good. Erasmus and Luther contended on the subject, both threw Bible verses at each other which were more or less clear, yet they did not agree with each other and neither convinced the other. In the case of the man’s rule, for centuries it was based on Gen 3.16 and specifically the Vulgate’s false rendering of it (under the man’s authority will you be..) Everything else in the Bible was re-interpreted according to the belief that God punished women with subjection due to Eve’s sin. But today, such belief has been abolished which has left the comps without a foundation. The man’s prior creation does not work, neither does the “naming concept” for the man does not name the woman, he recognizes who she is (i.e. if I would see you and say, “Hey there’s Mark,” it would not give me authority over you). You have to have a “why,” but that is the one thing you do not have.
I find it interesting that you used JW as an example for they exactly what you do: they take John 1.1 and change God into god and say Jesus is a god, not God Almighty. You take Eph 5.21 and say that it does not say what it means, instead you re-interpret it to mean the man submits to his wife differently, although the text does not say so.

Mark, I need to go to the gym but I wanted to correct one though of your:
You wrote: “You have proved exactly the point. References to Jesus or the Spirit’s divinity are not an ‘explicit’ mention of a Trinity. We must group all relevant information together to form our theology of the Trinity. So why is it, you refuse to do that on the gender debate, but rather require an ‘explicit’ reference.”

In the case of the trinity, the whole point is to prove that Jesus is God. Does the Bible say explicitly that Jesus is God? Yes, it does: In the beginning was the Word… (John 1:1). The trinity is created to explain how one God can contain three Gods, but we do not need to use the concept “Trinity,” we can say simply: Jesus is God and show where in the Bible it says so. I.e we take an EXPLICIT verse and make an IMPLICIT concept of it.
In the case of the man’s headship you take an IMPLICIT concept and make it into an EXPLICIT commandment, since the Bible does not say “God gave the man authority.” I.e you must use the whole list you gave to create your conclusion that God gave the man authority. In the case of the Trinity, this is not needed, instead the lists of verses are used to fortify the already existing explicit verses, which is true of all theology. I assume you are a protestant? Do you support such doctrines as the purgatory, infant baptism, Papal authority, original sin, indulgencies? And if not, why not?

The reason we are even looking to Gen 2 to find the man’s authority is because of Thomas Aquinas redefined the creation account in 1265, using Aristotle’s philosophy. Until then, the fall account was the only one used to subject women to men. Today we do a complete reversal of the ancient theology in that we claim that Gen 2 says women are subjected, while Gen 3 is a consequence of sin. Before they used to say men and women were all created equal and subjection was caused by sin. This is the reason comps cannot provide even one explicit verse which the man is given authority and this is why they are in so much trouble in their debates with egals.

Charis, I will respond to you tomorrow, ok? I have to think about what you wrote. Blessings sister.

hi Mark, good to hear from you! How are things “down under”? I so loved Australia when I visited my relatives in 2000 that I almost emigrated, but I think I already told you this before.

To your question:
Oh, you bet I am consistent! The trinity is found in Gen 1, at the baptism of Jesus all three appear. All three area called God explicitly (Spirit: Acts 5, Son: Rom 13, Titus 2 (I think) etc.), they are all said to give life, all were present at creation, etc. I could provide many more if you wish, but as a Christian, this really should not be a stumblingblock for you.
The Bible however does NEVER say God gave the man authority. It is never said explicitly or implicitly, that is something that has been superimposed on the Bible. There is not even one verse you can refer to that says as much, not even one. You know this as well as I do, which is why you have not provided one.
Gen 1-3 never says we are identical, but it says we are equal. The woman was created from the man, i.e what the man is, she is – a human being. Equality does not mean identical, that is a belief created as a response to patriarchy which insisted that our differences made us unequal, i.e. as Aristotle put it: the woman as an impotent male, wherefore she had to be ruled by the man. All humans are equal in worth just because they are humans and created in the image of God.
The Bible does not use the words “free will” but it does not have to for the concept is readily available for all to read. I.e. why did God give the law if humans did not have the ability to choose between good and evil? (Erasmus argued against Luther about the subject and their discussion is found in book form if anyone is interested). Why does Gen 4.7 tell Cain to rule over sin if he had no ability to do so. Why did God EXPLICITLY tell Adam not to take from the tree if he had no choice on the matter? That said, where does God say, “Adam, rule over Eve?” The early church was very consistent in that they found the rule in Gen 3.16 since it is the only place where Gen 1-3 speaks of any kind of rule.

You wrote: “According to your theological perspective, we would not know half of what we know because it is not ‘explicit’ enough for you.”
You are right, we would not know even half of the errors the church has showed down our throats due to inferences and other faulty ways of interpreting the Bible. However, I am not the measuring stick. Show me where the Bible says God gave the man authority and I will cheerfully believe you.

And for your info: I always ask for explicit verses when it comes to foundational doctrines – as do you! One of you, I think it was NN, but it could also have been you, told me that since the Bible does not explicitly say the husband should submit to his wife, mutual submission does not exist. Why is it that you demand explicit verses from us when you cannot provide such yourself?

I noticed that Tiffany agreed that the main point is whether God has actually given the man authority over his wife. NN is not able to give us any proof that God has in fact done so, has Tiffany? I.e. we could spend a year here talking about the finer points, but unless someone shows where the Bible says explicitly that God gave the man authority as part of creation, egals are correct in their conclusion that it is based on sin.

Loved your comment on slavery Dave, that was exactly what the 19th century American slaveowners said too: slavery is beneficial for the slaves, and obedience is a religious duty.

Could someone please explain quickly how the whole eros-argument goes, I want to include it in my next book.

NN, How about this:

a) God has authority because he is God.
b) God love because he is Love

a) Man has authority because he is _______
b) Man loves because he is _________

NN wrote: “Husbands also are not told “have authority” – the asymmetry of the relationship makes this implicit and inescapable. Rather, they are told what to do with it; how to reflect Christ in it.”

If I could theology like this, I would be the happiest person on earth! Anything goes, no need to prove a thing. Just say “the asymmetry exists” and voila! the hierarchy is there. That the Bible never says so doesn’t matter; that there is not even a whisper of it, doesn’t matter. The inequality is there because NN has decided that it should be and therefore it is. Every single cult in the world operates like this, and if you challenge their teaching, YOU are the one who is too stupid and ignorant to understand the secret teaching God has revealed only to them. No amount of mathematical formulas is going to provide proof that God created a hierarchy, and since it is the only proof NN provides, we can safely say: he has no proof. I.e it is simply wishful thinking which he bases his entire theology on.

I am really busy today, but here’s one thought:
A marriage can never be 100/0 for it would mean that one person does it all and the other is a freeloader, which is totally unbiblical. What I assume is meant is that the two has become one and we are only talking about one person (hence the 100 from one person and 0 for the other). In this case the husband becomes the one, as lord Blackwell (I think) said a couple hundred years ago, absorbing the wife, and eclipsing her. This is however not true. There are still 2 people in a marriage, wherefore either it is 50/50 or another equation. What is meant by 100/100, a concept popularized in the 70s, is that both do as much. not expecting the other to do his/her part.

Dave, that is precisely what I just asked as well. If Eph 5 speaks of marital love, then “one flesh” must mean the fleshly union of the husband and wife, AND the church and Christ. But what does the Bible actually say? “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved (agape) the church and gave himself for her.” “So husbands ought to love (agape) their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.” If this text speaks of eros, then the husband is said to love himself with eros-love for it is this kind of love that he is told to love his wife with. NN mentioned that authority is “nourishing” alluding to v. 29, but he missed something crucial: it talks about THE MAN’S BODY, not the woman’s. I.e. the man is said to nourish and cheris his own body and that is the kind of consideration he should show his wife, not that his authority should be “nourishing,” unless of course we want to argue that the text gives the man authority over himself, who then becomes subject to his own authority. Further the text says, “For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones,” which is directly from Gen 2 in which the woman is created from the man and the man says she is of his flesh and bones. This describes unity of origin, i.e. the church finds its origin from Christ just as the woman finds her origin from the man. And it is here that we find the key to the whole question: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” The church was created of the flesh and bones of Christ when he left his father and came to be joined to his wife, as the woman was created of the flesh and bones of the first man and men leave their fathers and mothers to be joined to their wives. “One flesh” describes the coming together of two, not necessarily physically, for although a man and woman become one through sex, they spend most of their time as separate individuals outside of the bedroom and yet, they are always considered to belong to each other.

Thanks Tl, I know that I misspell tons of words, especially when my fingers are trying to keep up with my thoughts but bethrowed was just so bad that I had to point it out! It all stems from being trilingual… in Finnish we write words the way they sound (which is also true of Spanish), and when I am really tired, my brain cannot always separate which language I am dealing with and defaults to Finnish. It is an interesting phenomenon.

BTW, since one person cannot experience marital love on his or her own, the whole point with the comparison of Christ-church and husband-wife is that it is a metaphor and describes the oneness that exists between the two. If this is not true, then you must explain how the wife is literally the husband’s body and how the church can be literally the body of Christ and experience eros type of love with Christ. Don’t forget that Song of Solomon describes human love and because it offended some, theologians began to see it as a description of the love Christ has for the church. In the OT, God is described as loving Israel and even desiring her sexually, but it does not mean that it actually happened; it is a metaphor used to describe a spiritual reality. (BTW Dave Gen 3.16 does not say the woman desires the man sexually, it should say “and your turning shall be to the man….)
I.e. for Eph 5 to describe eros, you must get rid of the metaphor and read it literally. “Head” should then describe an actual literal head. Is anyone willing to do so?

Ah, my dyslexia is getting worse with sleepdeprivation! Betrowed should be “betrothed”…

Hey guys, Cheryl is right, the tirnity argument does not work and here’s why:
Tertullian coined the Latin word Trinitas in an effort to explain why Jesus is rightly called God. The concept of a trinity is used to explain why there is one God while the Bible calls the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all called God. I.e when we find a text which says Jesus is God (such as in Romans and Titus) we can implement the concept of a Trinity. But when it comes to eros, although the word itself is not used, sex is described, in often graphic details, and no one has had to coin a word for sex to describe what is going on. Although the word eros is not present, 1 Cor 7 describes martial love it in detail. However, Eph 5, which is where NN is trying to squeeze it in, does not speak of sex, for if it did, we would have to say that the church has sexual intercourse with Christ and it is this that the husband and wife must imitiate. The text does not say it, nor does it imply it, for the love that is described is agape, which is experienced by all, not just husbands and wives. It is not sex that makes the husband and wife one flesh, it is the convenant which they have made, which makes them one flesh just as the covenant Christ made with us through his own blood (this is my covenant with you..) makes us one spirit with him. Paul says very specifically that he has bethrowed us to Christ as a virgin, the consummation awaits. Hence, if you want to put eros into Eph 5 you must explain how the church and Christ can experience physical marital love, especially considering he is in heaven and we are here on earth, and because he calls us his body; how do you experience eros if there is only one person?

Charis and Tiffany, I agree with TL: you must be able to separate the worth of yourself from the worth of your argument. It is not that people here do not care for you or your opinions; the question is about the arguments themselves. To be a good debator, one must always learn to divorce onself and one’s worth from one’s arguments.

The dreaded question “why?” People are so used to absorbing info without thinking it through. People also absorb mostly info that affirms what they already believe, which is why Augustine said so famously, “faith before reason,” for one must decide what one wants to believe (have faith) before one believes a fact (use reason). This is so very true about theology. Scholastic theologians turned around and said “reason before faith,” wherefore we now demand proof before we can believe. But this causes a problem: you can present any and all facts and people still won’t believe what you say.
I also agree that NN and Mark like to lecture, but make no mistake! they consider everything we write, but do not comment on the facts they cannot answer for they do not want to admit defeat. So far NN’s arguments have all been defeated, are there any left?

So, NN… since the antonym of “hypotasso” is “antitasso” (Rom 13, Jas 4, 1 Pet 5), how do you suggest that the husband has authority over the wife? If the opposite of “submit” is “resist” how can you read into the text the notion of submission-authority?

NN wrote: “It is often very easy to read a sentence and get very caught up in our prior presumptions about theology and miss the content of the sentence itself.”
Amen brother! It is so easy to read Eph 5 and see only authority-obedience, when in fact it speaks of love and devotion. The words “authority” and “obedience” are not even present in the text, but are assumed to exist.

I never said I was trying to make a statement which was formally valid. There are many types of logic in philosophy and the so called “formally valid” is only one of many. I made a logical statement using the logic that the consequence always follows its premise. That was the entire point. You said that formally valid logic is basic stuff. Not so. Everything in philosophy is “basic stuff.” It all depends what you are trying to prove.

NN, You misread my text, I wrote: “Since the statement “a husband is never told to submit to his wife” is categorically negative, it can have only one inference, a complete converse, which is also logically necessary.”
I did not say that a complete converse is logically necessary. I said that because the above statement is categorically negative, the inference must be logically necessary to be valid. A statement such as “a husband should sometimes have authority over his wife” is not valid since it means the husband ought to submit to his wife sometimes, which then negates the first sentence. Only a logically necessaty statement such as “a husband is always told to have authority over his wife,” allows the first mentioned to remain true.

Perhaps you should be more careful when you read my posts and make sure you understand what I say instead of assuming I do not know what I’m talking about.

NN, you wrote: “Logic acting upon axiomatic premises is the ONLY method of acertaining provable truth.”
So you are saying that we need to have a first principle, a self-evident truth, as the basic premise from which we deduct our conclusion? That is precisely what I said, i.e. you cannot use an inference as you premise. You can only create inferences from a premise and accept them or reject them according to proof. But here’s the real pickle when it comes to theology: how do you determine what the first principle is? How do you prove God’s existence? How do prove God is good? By using logic? That was the fallacy of the ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury. He argued that since the mind could not conceive of anything greater than God, it proved the existence of God. But as has pointed out, this makes God’s existence dependent on the mind, i.e. what the mind cannot perceive does not exist, which is a false assumption.

You wrote: “Your first syllogism is not formally valid, you have committed the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
I wonder where you studied logic… The following is from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises; its conclusions are consequences of its premises. But in what sense do conclusions follow from premises? What is it for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? Those questions, in many respects, are at the heart of logic (as a philosophical discipline). Consider the following argument:
1.If we charge high fees for university, only the rich will enroll.
We charge high fees for university.
Therefore, only the rich will enroll.
There are many different things one can say about this argument, but many agree that if we do not equivocate (if the terms mean the same thing in the premises and the conclusion) then the argument is valid, that is, the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. This does not mean that the conclusion is true. Perhaps the premises are not true. However, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true, as a matter of logic. This entry is about the relation between premises and conclusions in valid arguments.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence)
I.e. If a god can create life and a woman can create life, it follows that a woman is a god. The conclusion is not true, but it is valid.

You wrote: “oh, and actually the converse of a true statement is not logically necessarily true, only the contrapositive is”
This is what I said too.

You wrote: “Might I suggest that Lewis’ lament for the state of the educational system was not unjustified.”
I graduated from High School in Finland, which is considered the best educational system in the world in all international comparisons (US is solidly at the bottom when 8th graders are compared).

To your last comment: there is always an opponent in a debate. An opponent does not mean that we are in a competition; it means that there are two parties in the debate.
Better luck with your next post.

To NN,
Logic. Yes, we should use logic, but logic alone is not sufficient.
a) a god can create and sustain life
b) women can create and sustain life
c) women are gods
How do you find out whether the above statement is true? Not by using logic, but by using dialectic investigation and checking what the further requirements for being a god are. We find that a god must be omnipresent.
a) a god must be omnipresent
b) women are not omnipresent
c) women are not gods.

Inference can be used in theology but not to create a foundation for other beliefs. The first thing that must be done is the building of a complete picture of the subject at hand and an exact understanding of any and all statements and ideas as they are intended. Only after this is done can new ideas be derived from the basic premise, and the inferences can either be accepted or rejected based on proof. Concerning the subject at hand, the complete picture would include such statements as “the creation account does not say God gave man authority,” “the law does not say God gave man authority,” “the Gospels do not say God gave man authority.” The basic premise includes now three statements which contradict the inference that the man should have authority over the woman wherefore it is rejected as invalid.
There are two kinds of inferences: one which is logically necessary and the other which is not logically necessary in which case it is possible to accept a statement while rejecting the inference. Since the statement “a husband is never told to submit to his wife” is categorically negative, it can have only one inference, a complete converse, which is also logically necessary. It is here that the greatest risk for error comes in to the picture, for what is the complete converse of “a husband is never told to submit to his wife”? Comps say it “a husband is told to have authority over his wife,” but this statement depends on our understanding of the word “hypotasso.” If the antonym of “hypotasso” is “epitasso” (command) the statement is correct; if it isn’t, the statement is incorrect. The antonym of “hypotasso” is “antitasso” (to resist), which does not carry the meaning of giving commandments, wherefore the above conclusion is incorrect and the inference is rightly rejected. The complete converse of “a husband is never told to submit to his wife” is “a husband is told to resist his wife.” This is an unbiblical statement and is also rightly rejected. Thus the only conclusion which is left is that the husband should submit to his wife as she submits to him.

I noticed that you like C.S. Lewis. I went to school in a country not too far from his and received the same classical education he did. A word of advice: never underestimate your opponent.

To summarize how NN and Mark come to their conclusion:

1. NT does not say explicitly “husbands submit to your wives”
2. Inference: the Bible says implicitly “husbands have authority over your wives”
3. Inference: Gen 1-3 teaches God gave husbands authority at creation
4. Inference: Eph 5.21 excludes husbands from submitting to their wives

In other words, their entire theological structure is based on infrence.

Cheryl, I agree that Mark would one of those guys you would just be dying to be friends with and I feel for him because I used to get really mad in debates too until I realized that it just doesn’t work, you have to learn to separate your own worth (which is infinite and should never be questioned) from the worth of your argument (which may be debated freely). I think NN falls into the same category although I think he has the same problem that I have: he is far too intellectual. It is a good thing when you have to solve a problem which is theoretical, but it does not work when it comes to a problem which is theological. Anyways, I wanted to affirm their contributions here, which are more than welcomed, while at the same time reminding our opponents that the argument better be good for we have listened too long to answers that produce only more questions.

One more thought on the concept of eros love: where do you think we find the concept that a relationship between a man and woman must consist of inequality? It is not from the Bible, that’s for sure; it comes straight from Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics where he argues that although two men can have a friendship of equality, the relationship between a man and a woman consists always of inequality, the woman being by nature inferior to the man.
Food for thougth: why do you thin Islam is patriarchal? It is not because of the prophet Muhammad. It is because Islamic scholars studied Aristotle for centuries (they called him “the Philosopher”, as did Jewish scholars. It is ironic that the one thing the crusaders brought back from the east was Aristotle’s writings, which scholastic theologians synthesized with medieval theology. That the man should rule is found in all religions and philosophical movements and it is not a coincidence.

Yes these are nurturing NN, but I am not a child!!!!

Context, context, context!!

Eph 5:1-3
Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. NKJV

All Christians are told to live a life of love AS CHRIST HAS LOVED US AND GIVEN HIMSELF TO US! I.e. ALL Christians should live as Christ, loving each other (John 13-17), and to love with self-sacrificing love (agape) which is God’s love for us. It is not just for husbands to imitate Christ, Paul even says “imitate me as I imitate Christ,” we should all be like Christ, which is why we are called Christians. (Now that is an axiom, if nothing else is! LOL)

Hey Cheryl, I think we won the debate (doing the victory dance…), for you know you have won when the opposing party gets nasty (rule #1 in debating: the one who gets mad has already lost). If the foundation of Mark and NN’s theology is that the Bible never says explicitly that a husband ought to submit to his wife, then egals are right, for it is the weakest argument that exists and is disproven in about three seconds. As far as Gen 1-3 is concerned, Grudem & co all agree that it does not mention the man’s headship which is why they have to go to the NT to find it (which is equivalent of saying the Constitution affirms slavery three thousand years from now).

And Mark, if you have no intention to answer our questions, why are you here? If you want to do a monologue, I am sure there are plenty of places where you can do so.

I guess wives are not supposed to love their husbands since the Bible never says explicitly “wives love (agape) your husbands.” It says phileo your husbands.” Of course the Bible says to all Christians: love another, but since there is no such explicit commandment, wives are exempted from loving their husbands with agape love.

NN, I’m not stupid, you’re not stupid, so let’s not treat each other like one is, ok?
You wrote that a formal proof can be derived from an axiom. For the readers who may not know what an axiom means:
“In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.” (From wikipedia)

I.e. you do not need to prove what the axiom (or first principle) is, for it is considered self-evident. As you also admitted, everyone has a different opinion as far as the first principle is concerned. And here’s the problem: you consider the man’s headship a self-evident truth which you do not need to prove and from this axiom you create your formal proof that the man has authority over the woman.
If I would use this same principle, I could call myself a god. The axiom would be that a god can create and sustain life, and since I have just created a new human being which I sustain through the milk I create, I am a god. I.e. anyone could choose an axiom of their own and provide logical proof. For this very reason, in theology, we must all agree what the axiom is, e.g. God exists, and it must not only be logica, it must also be found in the Bible. So far I have asked you to provide a text which says God gave the man authority over the woman, but the only thing you have done is to provide formal proof that your axiom, which you cannot prove, is correct. It ain’t gonna work.

Formal proof is any logical proof developed from axioms (’first principles’ – truly fundamental first principles, by definition cannot be proven). This is quite as true of science as of theology (though of course what each considers “first principles” are quite different)

And as far as a hypothesis goes, I do not have a poor understanding of it. You do not begin with falsifying your hypothesis, you begin by seeingif you can show it to be correct. E.g. I begin with the question: If I eat a pound of candy every day, will I gain weight? The next step is to try it out, to eat a pound of candy each day and see what the scale shows, while controlling all the variables. If after a set amount of time, let’s say a week, I have gained weight, my hypothesis has been proven true. If I have not gained weight, my hypothesis has been proven incorrect and I need to modify it, or discard it. You must begin with an assumption, for the purpose of a hypothesis is to see whether your assumption was correct or not. In science, a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered strictly scientific. Since you cannot prove God exists, or that he does not exist, theology does not function in the same way as science. This does not mean that we cannot use the same principles, but we must remember that some things can be proven, others cannot. As far as the man’s headship is concerned, you have chosen to treat it as a first principle which cannot be proven, whereas I treat the subject as one needing more proof than just “God says” for I believe if Gof said it, I would find it in the Bible. This is where the whole debate hinges on. Either you prove to me that God says in the Bible that he gave the man authority in the Bible or I will consider you to have lost the debate.

What NN is referring to is the scientific principle of falsification: you cannot prove something correct, you can only falsify a theory, i.e. prove it wrong. This however does not apply to pseudo sciences, such as theology, for you cannot prove anything right or wrong using the same test as the original researche in order to see if you can falsify it. E.g. how do you prove God exists? You cannot, but neither can you prove he does not exist. In theology we use therefore the Bible as our point of reference: it has to be in the Bible for it to be correct. To say, “God says it” is invalid unless one can show that it is in the Bible, unless of course one wants to start a cult.
NN cannot prove his thesis for it is not in the Bible, neither can Mark, wherefore they use the scientific principle of a hypothesis: they begin with the assumption that the man’s authority exists in the Bible and set out to prove it. This works in science, but not in theology.