pinklight

(if you wouldn’t want someone insisting they have a birthright to rule you, don’t insist you have a birthright to rule someone else).

This is the simple anwser. No way to get around that. Love it.

I believe that the head – body metaphor should be interpreted to mean that God shares his nature with Christ, man with woman, and Christ with man. This is Paul’s cosmology. We share a common nature.

Sue,

I think your work is the best to help people understand the depths of what we are dealing with when it comes to prejudice interpretations of Grudem and co.

And I think that this understanding of kephale is fine for 1 Co 11 (with “aner” being used for “mankind”?), but I do have to say that there is no head/body metaphor in 1 Co 11. Just kephale – no mention of body, and this is because Christ is not in union with the Godhead the same way that a man or woman or he and the church are in union. His union belongs to the church (the body), not the Godhead. And mankind or even just males can’t be the body of Christ either. As far as I know the head/body metaphor is only used of a certain kind of “union” (husband and wife) – not husband and children or husband and home or Godhead and Christ, or Christ and mankind etc…

In my opinion, Grudem’s been had as seen by the work you’ve done. Many know it. Thanks for all you’ve done! And I don’t really concern myself with Grudem’s mess anymore because of the work you’ve done. So when this kind of discussion arises I just sit back and read, cause Grudem’s already been had. (It’s been shown that his work is not reliable, full of error and he is not a Greek scholar anyway.)

Oh yeah, and to add to #28, Mark you never did provide contextual support for “God” in the passage to mean “the Father”. I know we went over this quit awhile ago… I bring this up because the bottom line is the context in which any word is found in. We have contextual support that Paul’s uasge was for the Godhead!! But again, you don’t have contextual supprot for your interpretation. I’ll leave it again as I already did in comment #28 – Context is King and especialy since the scripture themselves, we believe are the inspired word of God – not any lexicons.

I need more coffee!

Contextual support is key – Context is King.

It is so important for you all to realise that the best proof Sue can offer for a ’source’ meaning

Mark,
The best proof is in the scriptures themselves – the passages under question. In 1 Co 11 the context is about “origin” and in Eph 5 the context is also “origin” (where Paul quotes Gen 2 which is the reason why a man leaves his father and mother being that the woman was taken out of man). Looks like “source of life” is pretty close and that was the last way that Paul used the term in Eph 4. All you have for Eph 5 is what the wife does (“submit”). And for 1 Co 11, you have nothing at all. Why is that? So contextual support is key.

“Authority is not “removed”. It is just not added into the passage.”

Precision work. Love it.

“The marriage metaphor is not new to the NT or Paul…Just think about Hosea…Thoughts?”

Now I’m really confused.

Body of Christ (the church)
Hosea’s wife (a prostitiute and unfaithful)

Why do comps think this way?

If Christ has authority then the husband does. Comps think. But then they ask if the husband doesn’t have authority, then does Christ?

Just because Christ has authority doesn’t mean husbands do.

Just because husbands don;’t have authority doesn’t mean that Christ doesn’t.

“Thanks gengwell for confirming my question 1. I’m glad you see that Christ is in authority,”

Why do comps always allude to or ask if egals believe Christ has authority just because we say that the husband doesn’t have authority in Eph 5?

BIG difference between “second” and “last”. Deatils, details… 🙂

“I only have a quick minute and then I have to run.

Jesus is actually the “last” Adam according to the Bible.”

lol, yes! One time I felt the need to make the same correction…See I wasn’t paying attention enough.

“To continue on the Adam/Eve-Christ/Church connection.

Jesus is the second Adam.”

Yes, the connection in Eph 5 and Adam being the second Adam is “in the face.”

“The reason: “Christ IN YOU” would bear the fruit of humility, love, patience, kindness, never lording it over, etc. Christ IN YOU would never bear fruit of “I am the authority” or “you are to submit to me”.”

N e v e r.

No worries. Thanks Cheryl!

Alison, no worries, I was just emoting.

Cheryl,
You got mail…. 🙂

125

That way really great gengwall. Today’s favorite comment! 🙂

Seeing some of their stuff, slickly produced and sweetly manipulative, should tell us that we’re dealing with devilishly ingenious folks who know how to keep the leash six inches long, yet know how to do it in such a way that those on the collar end of the leash (the women!) don’t realize they are being manipulated and leashed. It all looks so good, like Alice in Wonderland’s Eat Me and Drink Me things, yet they do such damage. Mind control, anyone?

*blech*

…since the rebellion perpetrated by the comps is so well disguised that even they can’t see it for what it is, since they’ve manipulated Scripture and themselves so well that they are blind. They truly are blind guides for the blind, and eventually they will both fall into a pit.

Wow. You’re a mind reader ;P

Oh yeah and now it’s been made into a salvic issue – s t e p f o r d.

My big concern which depressed me yesterday was that if the focus is on the women, the woman must become stepford in order for her to follow the man. I think this is the part of it all that makes me the most upset. (Ofcourse this doesn’t apply to all comp wives, not the point anyway)

As Lydia said, their doctrine falls apart without the women.

Prophecy I heard a few years ago – women will start to become like stepford wives. And this is why I asked how long the foucs has been on the women. Ofcourse the patri cults are worse, but it doesn’t matter essentialy cause it all comes from the same pool.

Focus on the women = stepford wives. It’s what the woman does! And this is why it’s a very serious matter.

Notice how “soft” comps, like Mark and NN, would never say that the husband “takes authority over” or “enforces” his authority??

Kay,
I didn’t get it at first. Now I understand.
Terrible.

If you can get a copy of RK McGregor Wright’s 3 part response to the Danvers statment, do so. It was revised around 1990 but it was unpublished. However, I like Wright’s response because he is seriously into the Sovereignty of God and he shows how lame and lacking it is in scriptural basis and how badly the proof texts are interpreted. And the statement is the basis for the modern comp movement. it is the basis for the advent of CBMW.

I will look into it. Thanks, Lydia.

Many men do not feel they need to qualify their beliefs on this issue to a woman who disagrees.

What a cop out if you ask me – especialy with the issue of pride and all.

251

We wouldn’t be going round and round in these stupid circles with this infantile argument

Alison,

Tell me about it.

I’ve been around long enough to sense pride at work, and there’s a lot at work in the writings of the complementarians (Grudem and Piper especially come to mind).

I think they recognize their pride, but they ignore the sin. That’s what I think.
The whole thing is just ugly.
They are not a bunch of idiots. They are in rebellion! And their rebellion hurts people like a cancer.

TL – don’t get me started on Wild At Heart.

Ewh *blech*

LOL – This soft comp approach is a pretty sweet deal for us guys. Let’s see, I get to redefine authority as “servant leadership” which sounds so much better than “king” or “boss”. I never have to actually punish my wife for disobedience which saves me from being labelled as an abuser, but I do get to shame her by claiming she is being sinful, which heeps all the condemnation on her and keeps me lilly white in the eyes of the church. And I get to be in charge even though God hasn’t told me I am because God tells her she has to let me be, which clears me of ever being viewed as an authority grasping tyrant. This is awesome! I can’t possibly lose! Sign me up.

That’s great! LOL You’ve taken my thoughts and put them down! Thank you! LOL Hahaha

My brother use to have real issues with “having authority”, and one day a prophet shows up to town to give messages to the small town’s church. The prophet told him (this is the only prophet I’ve ever met face to face that I know was a real prophet) that God had already given him authority. Thing is, my brother never understood what that meant. God’s given authority to us all in matters we’ve yet to even understand, but he certainly has not given any authority in the way comps believe he has. He’s given us all authority to protect, love, honor, build up…he’s given some authority to discipline, to teach, to care for the sheep, to operate in their gifts etc. But what he’s never given is authority to the sex chromosome or authority based on flesh.
I still contend that comps do NOT understand the authority that God gives – and to his PEOPLE.

God’s (Godhead or the Father, your choice) given YOU authority, (and the Father gave the Son authority) over another person?

The more I continue with this thread the more is ridiculous in my mind.

Do you really think that you have authority like God over another person?? (Though you choose not to use it)

I did not just have to ask that question, did I?

God can do whatever he wants, – that’s authority, but what can you do?

Yeah, but I wonder if Mark thinks about it more like this: He has authority, but it is not Christlike to insist upon or take authority. After all, Christ has authority, certainly, but He lets us choose whether or not to follow Him. Even so, it must be up to Mark’s wife to choose to follow Mark. Logically, choosing not to force authority upon someone is not the same as not having authority.

This is awesome. I bet he does look at it the way you have described.

Back to those questions on the other thread, Mark, can you or can you not command? What can you do? Christ can command, insist, take, but what can you do? What real authority do you have?

Anti-spam = “real”