Susanna Krizo

Oh Mark, I just love it when you comps write like this! I know you are a smart guy, you just have swallowed a bit too much of the comps’ cool aid (isn’t this American saying an interesting way of putting it?)
So, let’s look at your argument:
“You implied that John 1 was ‘explicit’ enough to show Jesus is God. A few months ago i went to a Christadelphian seminar designed to rebuttle the orthodox view of Trinity. The man was quite convinced that ‘word’ did not have to mean what a orthodox christian would have it mean. He used semantics for the word, lexicon definitions, contextual matters etc etc…
so the point is this… it may be ‘explicit’ for you but for a cult it is not!”

Yes, what you wrote is true… for a cult! They are known to twist words and change meanings, which is why they are called a cult. Christians however cannot and will not do so. If the Bible says the Word was God, it means the word was God. It does not mean he was a god, or an angel or any of that kind. It means what it says.
May I suggest that as far as Eph 5.21 is concerned it your understanding of the word hypotasso (submit) that is the problem not the word itself. I.e. if everyone cannot obey, then perhaps the word does not mean obey? If you cannot squeeze it into your theology, perhaps it is your theology that is the problem?

You wrote: “What is termed ‘explicit’ enough will depend on one’s own Biblical theology and bias’ on the theology.”
I will say Amen to this for I agree that what the comps consider explicit depends on how it supports their theology. I.e. Junia is not a woman, but if she is, she is not an apostle; Phoebe is not a deacon, Deborah is not a judge, but if she is, she usurped the title herself; women should not work, but if they have to (single moms and widows), it’s ok. etc.

You wrote: “So to me the teaching of the Bible is quite clear and explicit to support a comp position but for you, the opposite is true. How does anyone reconcile this?…Consistency in biblical exegesis, hermeneutics etc which i think is far better on the comp side…not perfect but better.”
Ahem… consistency in biblical exegesis….? Ok, so the comps have a great hermeneutic when they say men have authority over women although the Bible never says so? That mutual submission does not exist although the Bible says it clearly? A minute ago you wrote that what one believes is clear depends on one’s theology. I.e. you may think the Bible is clear, but you have also admitted that it is clear for you because of your own bias: you want it to support complementarism. If we cannot agree what the Bible says explicitly, then we have no change of having a conversation with those who disagree. This is how cults are created. Either the Bible is clear or it isn’t. It cannot be clear to you and not clear to me, unless you want to support the belief that God enlightens the hearts of only some? Naturally I agree that translations often confuse the issue, wherefore it is so important to go back to the original.

You wrote: “Your little history lessons are fascinating but irrelevant to our topic. After all, you haven’t mentioned that egalitarianism has NEVER been an orthodox position and it’s incline is intrinsically intertwined with the sexual revolution, women’s liberation and post-modern philosophy. Please at least be consistent in your history if nothing else.”
My “history lessons” are irrelevant but yours is relevant? I have never said that egals have not been the orthodox position because it blatantly false. Tombstones, letters, inscriptions etc, all testify that the church had female clergy and that it did not disappear until the 13th century (even Catholics admit to this). It coincides perfectly with Thomas Aquinas twofold subjection in which he made the woman subject to the man from creation due to Aristotle’s philosophy. May I again suggest that you have absorbed a bit too much of comp theology with its revisionist history? Egalitarianism is not an offshoot of secular feminism from the 70s. Women fought for their rights already in the 19th century. Seneca Falls convention (1848) was held in a Methodist church, during which Christian women concluded they needed to get the vote and set out to do so. Did you know that New York revoked female suffrage in 1777, a year after the declaration of independence? As I said before, comps have done a magnificent job of convincing the world that egalitarianism is only about 40 years old. Not so. The early church upheld the equality of all humans.
I find it interesting that all comps come with are these same arguments: a) there has never been a female clergy b) egals. was formed in the 70’s. What about the 1900 years between 70 and 1970? They do not provide any info, which is of course because very few of them have ever touched a history book. Mark here is not an exception.

You wrote: “As regards your other statements…freewill…not really relevant to this post. I only mentioned them to demostrate the explicit/implicit argument or lack of…that is all.”
Of course… when a comp argument is defeated, it becomes irrelevant. Like female inferiority. As late as 1870, Barnes was adamant that God created the woman inferior to the man. In 1970 all theologians agreed: women are not inferior, we are all equal. Why the change? Because women got the right to vote in the twentieth century and began to change laws, but also because it was proven that girls did better in school than boys (which is still true). But because it would have been impossible to say that girls were smarter than boys, we got a sexless intelligence and the inferior woman had to go.