pinklight

It seems that Mark, like many other people, has redefined “egalitarian” to mean ‘identical’. But that is not what it means.

I think the train of thought goes like this:
If the husband does not have authority over the wife and the wife does not submit to his authority, then they are identical. What makes them not identical is that he has authority and she has submission. What makes the couple “complementary” is that he has authority and she submission.

But ofcourse the husbnad does not need to have authority and the wife submission in order for them to be complementary. So then egals are seen as saying that men and woman are identical because we deny any hierarchy. The reasoning is poor.

as always, this blog is a pantry full of solid food.

Ingrid, isn’t it! 🙂

Charis,

Husbands do have power but I don’t think this is the kind of thing that comps are laying claim to – power to hurt and damage.

Blog-livingroom

lol
🙂

…I simply want Susannah to be consistent in her Biblical Theology. If she (or you) want an ‘explicit’ statement in Gen 1-3, why not demand it for other theologies? That’s all I’m saying.

Why demand one explicit statement in regards the Trinity for example, when it’s proven by more than one explicit statement added to another? There are more than enough explicit statements made in the bible to defne the Godhead as a “Trinity”.

If you agree that you will not accept comp theology without an explicit statement in Gen 1-3, then please explain how you reconcile the rest of the Bible. After all, not once, is there a statement “husbands submit to your wives”.

There doesn’t have to be an explicit statement because we have “submit to one another” more than once. But what you have is different- facts that you make inferences from where no implications are given. For example, Adam named his wife therefore he had authority over her. I recall that we went over this already too – husbands never named their wives in Hebrew culture so there’s no way to make a claim to it being a sign of the husband’s authority.

The NIV adds the words “be considerate” in verse 7; but in the Greek, these words are not there. It simply says “in the same way live with your wives”, implying submission from them also. Think about it. (Compare the very similar language in 1 Peter 3:1,7 and 5:5.)[2]

http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/submission-in-marriage/
Very interesting, Marge!

Where is it explicitly stated in Gen 1-3 that we are identitically equal?

Are fraternal twins not equal, Mark?

I sure hope you are consistent!

Are you claiming that comp theology is consistent (of all things!), Mark?

Jesus is saying NOT TO SEEK AUTHORITY.

Amen to that!
Do comp husbands in general seek authority?

You are blurring what authority is to try and reconcile your theology.

I think this is the final point.

My question is then does the husband have authority TO

1) make final decsions
2) tell his wife what is truth and what is not
3) decide for her if she can or cannot be a teacher, pastor etc
4) tell her to submit
5) tell her that he has authority TO __________
6) overrule her will
7) be judge in the home
8) be “head” of the home

This list which could be anwered by “yes” or “no” could go on and on…

518 & 519

My question is then does the husband have authority TO make final decsions, tell his wife what is truth and what is not, decide if she can or cannot be a teacher, pastor, tell her to submit, tell her that he has authority TO __________, overrule her will…

As I mentioned earlier I feel eros is, “a desire to possess and be possessed”.

Sure Paul was addressing marriages of his day that had eros love, and that is why he had to tell husbands to love thier wives! Makes perfect sense! *sigh*! lol

just a thought. still trying to wrap things up here this weekend, but consider I’ve stuck around for 400 comments, what’s another 100?

lol

Thank you for answering my questions, Tiffany. I can hear you better in your response.

We don’t care about misspellings. and you misspelled more than that. LOL

lol, cute , yeah Sue! ;P

Hmm…I’m sure eros was just at the core of the patriarchal marriages that existed in Paul’s day.

I made no comment about eros in the Bible. I do concur that this word or the concept of eros is not within the context of Ephesians 5. What I think about the Song of Solomon is irrelevant to our discussion of Ephesians 5.

*sigh*!

I think this is what was argued and so your argument that the Trinity is not found in the Scriptures without even stating that the proof of the Trinity is found in the Scriptures was a most unfortunate argument.

I second that and add that it was most frustrating to me. There was no “argument”. *sigh* After all these comments – it was so disappointing.

Actually, there is no real relationship to the lack of use of Trinity in Scripture to the lack of use of eros in Scripture, specifically in Ephesians 5. There is no parallel IMO.

That’s right. And there is no parallel at all! And that’s what was so frustrating for me to read about NN’s comments. He’s not getting anywhere really, but is going here and there where it doesn’t even matter.

Tiffany, thanks for responding.

That the nature of that submission that a Christian wife offers her husband is a model/type/shadow/representation of the sort of submission the Church is to offer Christ.

Tiffany,
Do I understand you correctly – how wives (are to) submit to their husbands, is how the church is to submit to Christ? Is that what you are saying? If this is correct then you are saying that the church can learn how to submit to Christ by seeing how christian wives submit to thier husbands? So wives aren’t to submit as the church submits to Christ really, but rather the church is to submit to Christ as wives submit to their husbands??

Inference can be used in theology but not to create a foundation for other beliefs.

And inference is one of the poorest and weakest things that could be used as a foundation. It’s just so weak, I just could not touch it myself.

I am telling you that the clear lines of demarcation were already assumed in the culture,

How many times does this need to be said? What is the problem with responding to this NN? The obvious has been pointed out but seems to be just ignored. Why?

We miss the fact of the forest, trying to figure out the meaning of lichen and drops of sap.

lol

Trying to pull out “husband authority” from the written word is like to draw water from an empty well. There is nothing in there. What happens is that relative connections are made and in that way husband authority is be read into the text. But it surly ain’t there in the word itself.

I’m glad it’s all written down. That’s what changes everything. So we don’t have concepts in space that we are trying to catch.

Maybe one point that can help clear the issue. Where is one verse that tells husbands to submit directly to their wives? Since we know it does not exist, why the egal push to claim something the Bible never declares.

A verse where Paul says for *husbands* to submit to their *wives* does not exist.
A verse where Paul says for all to submit to one another does.
A verse in Genesis saying that Adam had authority over Eve does not exist.

Here’s one way to describe the difference:

“One another” encompasses husbands.
“Helper” does not encompass the concept of “Adam’s authority”.
Being created second does not encompass “Adam’s authority”.
“Eve’s deception” does not encompass “Adam’s authority”
There is nothing in Genesis that encompasses “Adam’s authority”.

Conceptualy it is truly impossible to prove from the written word that Adam or husbands had spiritual authority over their wives. In other words within the words themselves that are penned there is no way to drawout “authority” of the husband.

292
Hi Dave! Thanks for the prayer! Have missed you! Glad to see you here! 🙂

(261) Thank you, Cheryl!

There is a childlike inability to understand a concept … without someone taking control of the discussion…theology is the same as mathematical processes…no answers will be forthcoming… inevitably you will be at a place where you can figure it out for yourself…the teacher’s task is done…you didn’t get it?…back to square one…you must be the problem…

ROFLOL!!

This is the question comps cannot answer wherefore they must resort to the Divine Commandment Theory, i.e. it is right because God commands it, but the question whether God has actually commanded it, cannot be proven by such a theory.

🙂