nn

To Kristen (350)
Let us apply the reasoning which you just outlined to a parallel passage of scripture, we’ll pick 1st Peter:
1 Pet 2:13 ~ “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme”
1 Pet 3:1 ~ “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives”

Applying the same reasoning we say that “wives should submit to their husbands in the same way that christians are to submit to human governance. But this is quite different than your proposed reading of Ephesians. And since two contradictory statements CANNOT both be true (again a fundamental axiom of logic) – we must find a hermeneutic which produces a consistent understanding for both passages.

Which leads us back to my question, but let me rephrase it for you: For any command given – it is a transcendent principle being applied to a specific context. How do you distinguish between the transcendent principle itself and the particular adaptation of the principle to the present context? And, as a sub-question – how do we tell this without forcing our own present cultural biases onto the text.

To Susanna (348)
You say “inference” as if it were a bad thing. But inference is the very core of logical reasoning.

E.g.:
Premise: The Bible is inspired & authoritative as the Word of God
Premise: The Bible says to “love your neighbor”
Inference: “I should love my neighbor”

To quote C.S. Lewis discussing how a thing is known:
Logic! What do they teach in schools these days?

(as an aside your ‘logical outline’ of what is supposedly my thought omits pretty much all critical elements pertaining to the logical reasoning)

To Kay (340)
You are quite right to point out that “authority is not the same thing as self-sacrificing;” let me rephrase for clarity –
This is the type of exercise of authority to which christians are called. Authority can be used properly or wrongly – the Bible teaches that the proper use of authority is to be nurturing, self-sacrificing, etc. Just as we see in the parental relationship described in the Bible – which we can all agree is one of authority (at least to parents of relatively young children).

Or do you disagree? Do you think that when we find ourselves in a position of authority (for whatever reason) that the Bible teaches that we should use it in some other way?

To Kristen (338)
I understand entirely what you are saying and did the first time. What I pointed out is that the venn diagram set of possibilities which I constructed was a complete set spanning all possibilities. And your claim fit in category 2.

To illustrate Deut 17:16 instructs the kings of Israel that they are not to “multiply horses to themselves.” Does this mean that current kings shouldn’t own ranches? (how about Presidents?) Of course if you understand the culture ancient Israel – “multiply horses” was a means of waging war. Multiplication of horses was a means to “rely on your own political strength” and not God (multiplication of wives for a king was much the same). And you can see this if you read the biblical text carefully – horses are repeatedly used as an indicator of war and military might. So we see a transcendent truth – “rely on God and do not seek to create reliance apart from Him” find particular cultural expression which is no longer true of our culture (we don’t use horses for military might). But we note at the same time that the “10 commandments” were spoken into exactly the same culture – and yet we view these as transcendent of cultural particulars.

And this brings us back to the question: How can you tell? When Paul says “all christians should submit one to another” you say ‘that’s a transcendent truth of the christian faith” when he says to exactly the same group “wives submit to your husbands” you say ‘well, that’s just a result of the culture that he was speaking to.’ But how do you think you can know? Especially, how can you be sure that you aren’t simply reading the biases of your own culture into the text? (and egalitarianism is certainly a culturally popular idea now, ever since the French Enlightenment)

So, if Paul were talking about marriage as universal human relationship, transcendent of particular culture – how would you know?

To SM (337)
Actually if you read (318) & (328) – it is apparently quite the opposite of what Gengwall has been saying. Though if you read what I have said previously (76) – it is what I have been saying all along…