Cheryl Schatz

Okay, I am back and I think I have been able to read the majority of the comments.

Tiffany,
You asked on #412:

I am not getting in the eros/hierarchy/etc discussion but I would like to jump into this idea of word/definitions in the Bible you have put forth. It is your contention that we can use the word Trinity to describe the Godhead because we see it clearly defined in scripture even though the word itself is never used. I would agree with you. You then seem to be saying that eros can not be used because no definition of it exists.

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that to interpret Ephesians 5 to include eros would need a solid argument from the text. And to say that eros is a picture of hierarchy would also need to have a solid argument from the text. What I am saying is that the solid argument is missing. I do not ask of complementarians anything different than what I ask of egalitarians. Most know that I have not agreed with some views of egalitarians here and others have not agreed with me. When there are disagreements the requirement to be persuasive is to show the view from the passage, the particular text and the grammar to explain how our understanding is the natural meaning of the author in their writing.

If you want to say that there is not hierarchy in marriage even though eros is there then that is perfectly fine and the discussion can proceed from there.

That is what I have done. There is no hierarchy in eros nor have the Scriptures included a hierarchy in eros, but for the matter at hand, there is nothing in Ephesians 5:21-22 to suggest that Paul is point to eros or to hierarchy.

To suggest a definition of eros used is “a cult like tactic” and “an invalid argument” when the exact same principles were applied to the word Eros as you do to Trinity does not work.

You misread me. I was referring to the tactic of using an invalid argument to disprove a valid point. It is the argument that pretty much all cults use. As I pointed out the very definition of the Trinity that I gave is found throughout the Scripture yet we cannot take the Trinity as a meaning anytime that Jesus is spoken of even though as the Word He is God. In the same way we cannot take a definition of eros where the thought is in a sexual passage and import it into other passages. Just as incorrect importation forbids the Trinity from being brought into all passages about Jesus, so it can be an incorrect importation to bring eros into a passage about husbands and wives.

Does this make sense?