Biblical male headship vs male domination

Discussion and debate not related to prophecy.

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Mark F on Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:05 am

Abiding in His Word wrote:
So....In the Comps desperation to give husbands (not all men) some level of "headship", they reason that because Adam intentionally disobeyed, God gives him authority/responsibility to lead the one who was deceived? Does that make any sense at all?


Had Adam not knowingly joined Eve in the state of her falleness, there would be no mankind to follow. At that point Adam was not dead, but Eve was.......the Scripture is perfectly clear that Adam was not deceived, a very important fact to consider. He could have continued in a sinless state could he not? Eve on the other hand was to surely die.


You take her being deceived as some sort of free pass, like it doesn't count or something.

All of this is in the Scripture and very clear I might add, we just don't get it.
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Mark F on Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:47 am

1whowaits wrote:Mr B, yes it is interesting to contemplate the mystery of the Godhead. Our knowledge of God is limited so we have to make observations based on what scripture tells us, some of which is difficult to understand.

Each member of the Godhead is fully God but it appears that they choose to differentiate themselves by what they do, God the Father the Almighty with the main administrative function, Jesus the Son the intermediary between the Father and man, and the Spirit that encourages, helps, empowers.

Jesus stated that He and the Father were One, at the same time describing His submission and following of the Father's will, a distinction of function, of what they do, not who they are. So as Jesus and the Father are one, they are both God, why would Jesus need to submit to the will of the Father? They are the same God, would they not have the same will, the same goals? Could they disagree about anything, as they are in perfect agreement and harmony?

Why did Jesus become a man, why did Jesus lead a sinless life, why did Jesus die for us, why did Jesus do anything of what He did and is doing presently? He is doing it for us, to save us, to bring us to Himself, to reveal God to us, to set an example for us, to ultimately live forever with us.

So why does Jesus, after conquering all His enemies and becoming the ultimate ruler, subject Himself to the Father, when He and the Father are one, He and the Father have the same will, He and the Father are in perfect agreement? Why make a demonstration of this when these 2 members of the Godhead have agreed together for all eternity past?

It would appear to be for us, as an example for created beings for all eternity, that all must submit to the will of the Father, there can never again be rebellion as there has been against the will of the Father. There can be no higher example than that of the conquering Son King submitting to the Almighty Father King. It would be an example no one would ever forget.


1whowaits, You have expressed and explained Scripture very well and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

I believe that Jesus will choose to keep His humanity for our sake. He states in John 17 a couple of times His existence with the Father from before the foundation of the world, it would follow in my understanding that seeing as the Son existed with the Father before His incarnation that when the work that was predetermined to be done by the Incarnate Son, that He (the Son) would have the right to relinquish His Humanity and return to the Spiritual state that He occupied "before the foundation of the world." But as Mr. Baldy questioned and you have so excellently explained that 1 Cor 15:28 means that the Son will choose to remain in His now glorified humanity and to remain subject to the Father that He may Glorify the Father in it, and provide an eternal comfort to us in our glorified humanity so we are not left without a physical manifestation of our God and Savior.
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:02 am

Mark F wrote:Had Adam not knowingly joined Eve in the state of her falleness, there would be no mankind to follow.


:humm: This sounds strangely as though we should be thankful Adam sinned so we could be born. Surely you don't mean that, do you? There is nothing good or positive said about Adam but does say he blamed Eve and God; he disobeyed God's command to him; and his transgression brought death and condemnation to all.

You take her being deceived as some sort of free pass, like it doesn't count or something.


Mark, I posted the only two scriptures that mention Eve in the NT and they both refer to her deception by the serpent.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.1Tim. 2:14

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 2Cor. 11:3


All of this is in the Scripture and very clear I might add, we just don't get it.


What is it you think "we just don't get?"
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:51 pm

trans·gres·sion


/transˈɡreSHən,tranzˈɡreSHən/


noun

noun: transgression; plural noun: transgressions

Abiding in His Word wrote:And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.1Tim. 2:14

an act that goes against a law, rule, or code of conduct; an offense.

synonyms: offense, crime, sin, wrong, wrongdoing, misdemeanor, impropriety, infraction, misdeed, lawbreaking


But you, Abiding say that Eve Did Not Sin?
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:01 pm

Mark F, thanks, it does appear that God does wish a physical reality to continue on for eternity. Prior to the incarnation Jesus was God that could take on physical form ( possibly the form of the angel of the Lord), after the incarnation He was God in physical form. After the resurrection He appeared in a 'new body' which was physicial, it could be touched and Jesus consumed food, but also spiritual, He could appear in a locked room and ascend to the Father.

And in some way we will be joined to Christ, we will have new physical/spiritual bodies like His at the resurrection-' If we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly be united with Him in His resurrection..' Rom 6, and 'Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ Himself?....But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.' 1 Cor 6.

It appears that Jesus maintains a physical body to join with us, so that we also remain physical beings with Him, the physical reality remains for all eternity, likely for us.

It is interesting that after the millenium, after the GWTJ, after a new heavens and earth are recreated, God brings the New Jerusalem from heaven, the spiritual reality, to the new earth, the physical reality, and then the Father and Son dwell in the New Jerusalem with men for all eternity- 'I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple....the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve Him....they will not need the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever.' Rev 21-22.

Heaven, the place where God resides, comes to earth, the physical reality, for all eternity. It appears that the physical reality continues on, the question being, as the main resident of the spiritual reality chooses to live with men for all eternity, does the spiritual reality continue to exist?

It is mind-blowing to consider that God would leave His plane of existence to come and live with men in our plane of existence for eternity. All this to live and have a relationship with us, there are no words.....
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:36 pm

shorttribber wrote:But you, Abiding say that Eve Did Not Sin?


I don't believe I said that, shorttribber. I did say that Eve being deceived was not intentional and posted verses where God differentiated between unintentional and intentional sin among the Israelites that the Levitical priesthood would offer sacrifices for.

The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this....

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

No such "because you have...." is spoken to Eve about her being deceived; but God lays the blame (rightfully) on the serpent as Eve confessed her deception and exposed the serpent as the deceiver.

1Tim. 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Job 31:33 "Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant;

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died....
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:01 pm

Abiding, intentional sin is done knowing full well what the rules are and then purposely breaking the rules. Unintentional sin is done without knowing the rules or not realizing the rules are being broken, ie accidental breaking of the rules.

Eve knew what the rules were, don't eat, she knew that God made the rule, God said, she knew the consequences of breaking of the rule, death, and she then went out and ate the fruit, she did it deliberately, her sin was intentional (unless she was claiming insanity).

Eve stating that the serpent deceived me was an excuse, akin to saying 'i was stupid and he fooled me', when her own dialog with the serpent confirmed her intention and guilt.

Eve was a sinner, just as bad as Adam, to say otherwise appears to be an attempt to elevate women to a 'better class' of human, not like the man who deliberately sinned. When Paul states 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God..', he is referring to all humans for all time, both men and women. When God says' the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?', he is referring to all humans for all time, both men and women.

Women can be as sinful and evil as men, and women can desire and misuse authority just as much as men can, women desire to rule and rebel just as much as men, they are not a 'special class' of unintentional sinners.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:22 pm

Abiding, 'feminist' is not necessarily a 'clobber word' (unless it has an undeniable revulsion for the average reader), and it was the term used by the author of the piece in the OP, he coined the term 'Evangelical Feminism' in reference to a deception within the church.

To roughly summarize- there are those who wrongly deny a difference between one's worth and ones level of authority, making the case that if any husband has authority over a wife, that man demeans the worth of the woman, and thereby 'dominates' the woman. This then makes Biblical husband headship the same as male domination and a form of slavery.

This view then demands that there be equality in authority, or rather that there be no husband authority over the wife as it is just a form of male domination.

But as stated above, women can be just as sinful as men, and women can desire domination just as much as any man. The equaling of worth and authority demonstrates that the holders of this view do not have pure intentions, they distort the obvious in an attempt to justify their view.

So the attempt is to replace the Biblical husband headship with un-Biblical female domination or at least authority of the wife independent of any husband, which circumvents the lines of authority that God has set up.

So the deception continues.....
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:50 pm

Abiding, i realize that this was not your intention, but i might caution you about portraying 'feminism' in a positive light, considering what feminism has become. Whatever good has been done in the past by some has been far outweighed by the bad done by those claiming the mantle of feminism in the present day.

Feminism has become another 'me-ism', a promotion of the self above others, a desire to exert authority, and to reject any authority over those who subscribe to it. This goal and desire were made plain in the claim that females had complete and total authority over themselves and their bodies,(Our Bodies, Ourselves-1971 by feminist Boston group) to the point that it was their right to terminate any unborn life that was within their womb, claiming basically that they had the authority of life and death over their unborn.

So feminism has become almost a religion, where the goddesses rule and the sacrament is abortion. This religion parallels the Baal worship of the past, child sacrifice to promote the desires of the self, purely Satanic and evil. How many unborn lives have been 'terminated' as a result of the authority claimed by feminism? I would guess the numbers are larger than those who were offered to Baal.

So when one attempts to promote some good that feminism has done, one must also consider the great evil done under the authority of feminism. Again i know that you would not do this, i am just attempting to make that clear to others.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Mark F on Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:00 am

Abiding in His Word wrote:
Mark F wrote:Had Adam not knowingly joined Eve in the state of her falleness, there would be no mankind to follow.


:humm: This sounds strangely as though we should be thankful Adam sinned so we could be born. Surely you don't mean that, do you? There is nothing good or positive said about Adam but does say he blamed Eve and God; he disobeyed God's command to him; and his transgression brought death and condemnation to all.

You take her being deceived as some sort of free pass, like it doesn't count or something.


Mark, I posted the only two scriptures that mention Eve in the NT and they both refer to her deception by the serpent.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.1Tim. 2:14

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 2Cor. 11:3


All of this is in the Scripture and very clear I might add, we just don't get it.


What is it you think "we just don't get?"


The Scriptures are replete with patterns, in fact, I am convinced there are many that we have not come to grasp, more in the area of end times prophecies, but that is irrelevant for this topic.

The list is quite remarkable but our problem isn't finding them, the problem is correctly identifying and applying them. Your initial response is evidence of the problem. No it it is not some admirable thing that Adam chose to sin, but it was necessary for mankind to survive.

1 Tim 2:15 says: "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control."

Now this is immediately following a passage where Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach a man etc, because man was formed first and the woman being deceived is the one who fell into transgression. 1 Tim 2:8-15.

Paul is talking about Adam and Eve when he states verse 15 above. Now our intelligence cannot leave us when we study Scripture, there is only so much a pattern can provide, there is a point where it must stop. For example, a well known pattern is Abraham and Isaac when God told him to sacrifice Isaac. The pattern can only go so far but every Bible teacher uses it don't they?

This pattern is no different, Adam chose to be a sinner so they could continue in faith, hope, and love.

I believe and I expect you won't (but that's ok) that Romans 8:20 is speaking of this very event.

Romans 8:20: " For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;"

Many interpret this that it was God who subjected it in hope, personally I don't believe that God can hope as He is all knowing, so this would be an impossible statement to make about God, Adam on the other hand could have.
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:13 am

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, intentional sin is done knowing full well what the rules are and then purposely breaking the rules. Unintentional sin is done without knowing the rules or not realizing the rules are being broken, ie accidental breaking of the rules.

Eve knew what the rules were, don't eat, she knew that God made the rule, God said, she knew the consequences of breaking of the rule, death, and she then went out and ate the fruit, she did it deliberately, her sin was intentional (unless she was claiming insanity).


1whowaits, if one knows the rules and intentionally breaks them, that is disobedience; i.e. Adam's sin. I trust I don't have to post the scriptures again that verify that Adam's sin was disobedience.

Eve stating that the serpent deceived me was an excuse, akin to saying 'i was stupid and he fooled me', when her own dialog with the serpent confirmed her intention and guilt.


Stating that the serpent deceived her and admitting she ate the fruit constitutes Eve's deception is confirmed in scripture in contrast to disobedience. I don't think I need to post those scriptures again but for those who advocate the "plain" reading, there is no need for speculation or adding to the Word in this regard.

Eve was a sinner, just as bad as Adam, to say otherwise appears to be an attempt to elevate women to a 'better class' of human, not like the man who deliberately sinned.


1whowaits, the entire thread along with the other entitled "Husband/Wife Roles" is replete with just the opposite....namely to elevate the husband to a non-existent position void of scriptural evidence for that position. No one...no one has endeavored anywhere to elevate a woman to a "better class" of human but rather scripture has been provided as evidence that God does not show partiality regarding one's gender, ethnicity, or status. The "equal in worth but different in role' by virtue of one's gender is what's being refuted.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:41 am

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, i realize that this was not your intention, but i might caution you about portraying 'feminism' in a positive light, considering what feminism has become. Whatever good has been done in the past by some has been far outweighed by the bad done by those claiming the mantle of feminism in the present day.


I did portray several examples (although there are many more) of very positive contributions of feminists. Do you deny they were positive contributions?

Feminism has become another 'me-ism', a promotion of the self above others, a desire to exert authority, and to reject any authority over those who subscribe to it. This goal and desire were made plain in the claim that females had complete and total authority over themselves and their bodies,(Our Bodies, Ourselves-1971 by feminist Boston group) to the point that it was their right to terminate any unborn life that was within their womb, claiming basically that they had the authority of life and death over their unborn.


We can all agree that abortion is wrong and that's why Margaret Sanger's contribution of advocating contraception was/is so valuable. In more recent years, the practice of male contraception via vasectomy has become popular as well. Of course, those who promote the "Quiverfull" movement would keep a woman in continual pregnancy.

So feminism has become almost a religion, where the goddesses rule and the sacrament is abortion. This religion parallels the Baal worship of the past, child sacrifice to promote the desires of the self, purely Satanic and evil. How many unborn lives have been 'terminated' as a result of the authority claimed by feminism? I would guess the numbers are larger than those who were offered to Baal.


....just the same type of "religion" as the ones that promotes the idea of a Masculine Christianity and Patriarchalism, authoritarian role, Complementarian views of the Danvers Statement, and the growing heresy (imo) of the eternal subordination of the Son.

So when one attempts to promote some good that feminism has done, one must also consider the great evil done under the authority of feminism. Again i know that you would not do this, i am just attempting to make that clear to others.


No doubt there are radical, extreme teachings by many non-Christian groups, but I have not seen such radicalism promoted by Christian women. I cannot, however, say the same about Christian men who are currently advocating extremes even going so far as to deny women the privilege of reading scripture in the presence of men. I posted some of those misogynist extremes above, but there are many others some of which are too graphic for this board. These extremes must be challenged just as Jesus and Paul challenged the false teachings circulating in the 1st century.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:05 am

Mark F wrote: No it it is not some admirable thing that Adam chose to sin, but it was necessary for mankind to survive.


This pattern is no different, Adam chose to be a sinner so they could continue in faith, hope, and love.


Mark, this is the most bizarre reason for justifying sin I've ever heard. It completely contradicts the fact that Adam's sin brought nothing but death, judgement and condemnation...not faith hope or love. Was God not able to come up with a Plan B but had to rely on Adam for the survival of humanity?

1 Tim 2:15 says: "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control."

That verse has been disputed and debated for hundreds of years and we are not likely to arrive at a consensus here, but one thing we know for certain is that women are not saved by giving birth. Otherwise men, single women, and children would not be saved.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:23 pm

Abiding, i do appreciate your clarification of your view. Just to review, in your view Eve's sin was unintentional or accidental, one's worth is determined by ones position of authority or lack thereof, Jesus does not submit to the Father as 1 Cor 15 describes which in your view is a heresy, and when Paul stated in 1 Cor 11 that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God, Paul didn't really mean for this to be read in a straightforward manner. Interesting..... i would conclude that we just interpret scripture a bit differently.

I would agree that it is shameful the way some husbands deal harshly with their wives, and the instances that you indicate of mistreatment are inexcusably wrong. It is truly unfortunate that Christians would act in such a way towards one another, it is a form of rebellion, rebellion against the instructions of our Lord. But eventually we all must stand before the judgement seat of Christ as Paul indicates, all injustice will be dealt with at some point.

I believe the conflicts between men and women will grow, between parents and children, between citizens and governments, between ethnic groups, nations against nations, kingdoms against kingdoms. Because of the rebellion of men and women against the authority of God, i believe God will withdraw the restraint He has had in place, and we will all see just how bad rebellion can become. But let that rebellion not be found in our house, not among husbands, not among wives.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:31 am

1whowaits wrote: Just to review, in your view Eve's sin was unintentional or accidental,


The very nature of deception is that it is unintentional. It's a trap, snare or trick designed to lead one astray. If someone changes the name of the street on the sign, you may think you are on Smith Street but unexpectedly find yourself on Jones Street as the result of a trick someone played.

one's worth is determined by ones position of authority or lack thereof,


I don't know where the idea of differences in "worth" entered the discussion, but it makes no sense in terms of the gospel that gender, ethnicity, or status determines one's value. That is the world's way of judging worth, but God is impartial and we are to be impartial as well. Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1Tim. 5:21; Jas. 2:9; Gal. 3:28

Jesus does not submit to the Father as 1 Cor 15 describes which in your view is a heresy,


Not correct. Jesus did make Himself a little lower than the angels for a time and a purpose. Heb 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

My objection is the eternal subordination of the Son teachings.

and when Paul stated in 1 Cor 11 that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God, Paul didn't really mean for this to be read in a straightforward manner.


Paul was a brilliant orator, student of the Torah, a citizen of Rome, and knowledgeable in Greek philosophy who knew the word for authority and did not use it anywhere to designate authority of a husband over his wife other than 1 Cor. 7 where it is mutual.

The orthodox understanding of the eternal trinity is not a hierarchy of authority of the Father over the Son, but a fellowship of equals. Christ is the model for all believers, not just males or husbands Paul repeatedly calls all believers to be imitators of Christ or God in these very contexts: 1 Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1; 1 Thess. 1:6.

Interesting..... i would conclude that we just interpret scripture a bit differently.


The Complementarian teachings are so pervasive today that I think it will almost take a system of "deprogramming" to untangle the twists they have incorporated into scripture. But thankfully imo, there are many who are challenging their method of interpreting just as Holly is exposing the erroneous interpretations of the NAR and demanding answers as to the motivations behind such endorsements of unscriptural hierarchies.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby mark s on Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:37 am

I Corinthians 15

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12872
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:48 am

Mark, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. God is a Spirit.

To define their unity in human terms for the purpose of understanding their union, God is spoken of in terms of a father, in terms of a midwife; a mother who gives birth; a Rock, One who has feathers, etc.

Jesus is spoken of as a Son of God and a Son of Man. He is God in the flesh. Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:9

The Holy Spirit originates from God to convict the world of sin and judgment. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. John 16:14-15

The Trinity existed from the beginning with equal in power and authority.

The tri-equality, tri-essental (of the same essence), and the tri-eternality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Statement of Faith

My guess is that the reason for the upsurge in proving the Son is eternally subject to His Father is because of the promotion by the Complementarians for the subjection of wives to their husbands. :wink: They have tempered with the Trinity in a desperate attempt to promote their fallacious agenda.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby mark s on Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:41 pm

Hi Abiding,

I in no wise question the tri-unity of God, well stated in the statement of faith, and to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God, being one God.

I've posted a Scripture. This is not in reference to the "male headship" debate. The question of the Son being subject to the Father simply reminded me of this Scripture. Do you think it may relate to the discussion?

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12872
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:36 pm

mark s wrote:I've posted a Scripture. This is not in reference to the "male headship" debate. The question of the Son being subject to the Father simply reminded me of this Scripture. Do you think it may relate to the discussion?


Hi Mark,

I don't understand your question. If the scripture is unrelated to the discussion of "male headship" and you agree that Jesus is fully God, then what was your purpose in posting it? I'm guessing you thought it did relate to the discussion or you wouldn't have mentioned it. :humm:

As an aside, there really are no such words as "roles" and "headship" to define believers. I find them very misleading as "headship" implies an office/rank and "roles" implies a part one plays in a performance or drama.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby mark s on Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:19 pm

My guess is that the reason for the upsurge in proving the Son is eternally subject to His Father is because of the promotion by the Complementarians for the subjection of wives to their husbands. :wink: They have tempered with the Trinity in a desperate attempt to promote their fallacious agenda.


I Corinthians 15

28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.


I think this passage relates to the above comment.

Personally, I think that these are unrelated topics, whether the Son remains subject to the Father, and whether wives are subject to their husbands in a way that is particular to the husband and wife relationship. I don't see how one has a bearing upon the other, in the sense that an argument for the one proves or disproves the other. It's simply what the Bible says about each, that's what matters to me.

But on the topic of whether the Son is subject to the Father after His return to the heavenly realm to receive again His glory, this passage states that the Son will be, as a future tense, subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that is, the Son, though he himself is excepted from that, presumably the Father.

So then if this is the correct interpretation of this passage, then this states that the Son will be in the future, after all enemies have been subdued, subject to the Father. This being written after Jesus' resurrection and ascension.

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12872
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby mark s on Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:33 pm

As my own aside, I think that the term "roles" is very descriptive of various believers. Not all have the gift of evangelism, and not all have the gift of teaching, for instance, so one could easily say that one functions in the role of an evangelist, while another functions in the role of a teacher. It's simply a way of speaking.

Even at a natural level, one functions in the role of a mother, while another functions in the role of a father. While sharing some commonality, these two roles are very different from each other, both being vitally important to the proper upbringing of children, generally speaking. The roles of mother and father complement each other in the raising of children, and we see very well what happens when one or the other is missing from the family.

And we can't really say, in my opinion, that one can equally take on the others role. The mother cannot be a father, due to the both physical and psychological differences between men and women. The family missing a father is just that, and the mother cannot become father. Only a father can fulfill the role of father.

I personally don't find anything wrong or unjust with this notion, it's simply the way that God made us, and the way He designed things to work. And I don't feel that one is greater than or less than the other.

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12872
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby mark s on Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:38 pm

I could add that in the church, certain people fulfill the role of "overseer". This is something that certain people do, but not all, at least as I read Scripture. Again, this does not make them better than others, or of more value than others, simply that they have been selected for that duty to perform.

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12872
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:14 pm

mark s wrote:Personally, I think that these are unrelated topics, whether the Son remains subject to the Father, and whether wives are subject to their husbands in a way that is particular to the husband and wife relationship. I don't see how one has a bearing upon the other, in the sense that an argument for the one proves or disproves the other. It's simply what the Bible says about each, that's what matters to me.


I agree that they are unrelated Mark.

But on the topic of whether the Son is subject to the Father after His return to the heavenly realm to receive again His glory, this passage states that the Son will be, as a future tense, subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that is, the Son, though he himself is excepted from that, presumably the Father.

So then if this is the correct interpretation of this passage, then this states that the Son will be in the future, after all enemies have been subdued, subject to the Father. This being written after Jesus' resurrection and ascension.


If whether the Son remains subject to the Father, i.e. eternal subordination of the Son, and whether wives are subject to their husbands are unrelated, why are we discussing them in a thread about biblical male "headship" vs. male domination? :mrgreen:
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:11 pm

mark s wrote:As my own aside, I think that the term "roles" is very descriptive of various believers. Not all have the gift of evangelism, and not all have the gift of teaching, for instance, so one could easily say that one functions in the role of an evangelist, while another functions in the role of a teacher. It's simply a way of speaking.


I find it interesting that the word "role" is used mostly by those who advocate the "plain" reading of scripture but have no qualms about utilizing extra-biblical terms such as roles, function, winsome, office, deaconess, complementarianism, servant-leader, equal but different, etc.

Even at a natural level, one functions in the role of a mother, while another functions in the role of a father. While sharing some commonality, these two roles are very different from each other, both being vitally important to the proper upbringing of children, generally speaking. The roles of mother and father complement each other in the raising of children, and we see very well what happens when one or the other is missing from the family.


A woman doesn't "function" in the "role" of a mother, Mark, she IS a mother; likewise a father IS a father by virtue of having fathered a child. Not all women will be mothers and not all men will be fathers. Just as unmarried women aren't defined by how they live day to day; neither are married women defined by whether or not they have children. We are individuals different only by our anatomy, our choice of careers and/or education, ethnicity, skills, talents, and gifts.

And we can't really say, in my opinion, that one can equally take on the others role. The mother cannot be a father, due to the both physical and psychological differences between men and women. The family missing a father is just that, and the mother cannot become father. Only a father can fulfill the role of father.


This statement might have some validity if you define persons by a preconceived concept of what their "role" is. If, however, you see each as a woman, man, and/or parent then you will see each as fully capable of providing nurture, compassion, discipline, values, and love, etc. to their children both together or alone in the absence of one or the other. I truly think parenting can be easier with both mother and father contributing to the well being of the children, but think we underestimate the ability of one to provide for the care of the children in the event of death, divorce, or a career that necessitates long hours away from home by one or the other.

I personally don't find anything wrong or unjust with this notion, it's simply the way that God made us, and the way He designed things to work. And I don't feel that one is greater than or less than the other.


He designed us as male and female individuals. He did not design how we choose to live out our individual lives; i.e. where we choose to live; whether or not we marry; whether or not we have children; where or when we engage in fellowship with other believers; whether or not we circumcise our sons; whether or not we choose to home-school our children; whether or not we serve in the military, etc. He has given us freedom of choice in our walk and joy as we treat others as we want to be treated. We love because He first loved us but how, when, and where we engage in "one-anothering" is not defined in scripture as gender specific. Our commonality is our humanity not our gender, ethnicity, or status or accomplishments.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:54 pm

Just a couple comical male/female stereotyping of "roles" experiences from years ago....

I offered a ride to school to the son of a friend who had missed the school bus. He was grateful and when I picked him up, he looked at me incredulously and said, "I didn't know women could drive a stick-shift!!" Where in the world did he get such an idea? I thought I'd make his eyes even bigger and said, "Oh my...I can even fly a plane!" Then I winked so he would know I was joking. But really....women couldn't drive a stick-shift??? :roll:

Many years later I had a wonderful boyfriend who was totally unsympathetic when I tried to use my "I can't do it" excuse. He would always say, "If Amelia Earhart can fly an airplane, you can do that!" He encouraged me to grow and refuse to see boundaries where there weren't any and look beyond those I had invented by myself!

I used to love cutting down bushes, small trees, and generally any type of yard work. More than once, I incurred the anger of the neighborhood women who said I was giving their husbands ideas!!

I grew up in a family of 9 siblings; 6 girls and 3 boys. We lived in a Tudor-style home with 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. We didn't have male/female jobs around the house. We all vacuumed; cleaned toilets; took turns doing dishes (we didn't have a dishwasher; did our own laundry. We all contributed because we all lived there. None of us grew up with a sense of entitlement.

I don't understand stereotypes and I don't see them in scripture.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:10 pm

On the subject of 'roles' or positions, God knows our future, He knows what we will become, He guides our steps, does God appoint us to the position He desires for us?

I am thinking of 1 Cor 12- Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers....', and 1 Cor 7- 'each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him....brothers each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to'.

And Romans 8- 'we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.'

God 'calls' us to His Son, but He also appoints and assigns and calls to positions. Are overseers just randomly chosen, or does God call them to the position? Does God work behind the scenes so that the person He 'assigns' arrives at that position at the right time? Are spiritual gifts randomly assigned or does God give spiritual gifts with a plan in mind?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:07 am

1whowaits wrote: and 1 Cor 7- 'each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him...


1 Cor. 7 is a chapter about one's choice to be married, or to remain single, and a concession to marry due to a lack of self control in the area of sex.

And Romans 8- 'we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.'


Sure. But we are not like the members of Supreme Court who serve in this one position for a lifetime. One only has to read through the Bible to see that the we walk day to day following the leading of the Holy Spirit. Peter, for example, was (according to Romans 8) was called to be married. We know this because of the verses about his mother-in-law being sick. Then he was (apparently) called to be a fisherman and later to be a "fisher of men." Then he was asked to follow Jesus. He is then called a disciple but still retained his "purpose" as a fisherman. Later we see Peter accompanying Jesus and witnessing the Transfiguration. Then on the day of Pentecost, Peter shares the gospel with the crowds who had gathered and thought those who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit were drunk with wine. Then he was called to write letters to those scattered throughout Asia Minor and we see him call himself as both a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.

Our lives are not static but rather a day-to-day journey following the lead of the Holy Spirit.

God 'calls' us to His Son, but He also appoints and assigns and calls to positions. Are overseers just randomly chosen, or does God call them to the position? Does God work behind the scenes so that the person He 'assigns' arrives at that position at the right time? Are spiritual gifts randomly assigned or does God give spiritual gifts with a plan in mind?


You might want to start a thread about gifts/service within the church/body of Christ, 1whowaits.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby mark s on Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:45 am

Abiding in His Word wrote:
If whether the Son remains subject to the Father, i.e. eternal subordination of the Son, and whether wives are subject to their husbands are unrelated, why are we discussing them in a thread about biblical male "headship" vs. male domination? :mrgreen:


Hi Abiding,

As I said, the comment simply reminded me of a passage.

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12872
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Sonbeam on Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:43 am

Mark S made the following comments in the thread titled “Biblical Headship vs male domination, ”

“Even at a natural level, one functions in the role of a mother, while another functions in the role of a father. While sharing some commonality, these two roles are very different from each other, both being vitally important to the proper upbringing of children, generally speaking. The roles of mother and father complement each other in the raising of children, and we see very well what happens when one or the other is missing from the family.

And we can't really say, in my opinion, that one can equally take on the others role. The mother cannot be a father, due to the both physical and psychological differences between men and women. The family missing a father is just that, and the mother cannot become father. Only a father can fulfill the role of father.”


I believe a commentary titled, The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and Family fully affirms Mark’s comments here:

http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles- ... and-family

It addresses God’s pattern for marriage and the family as instituted by Him from the beginning. Also how man’s departure from this biblical model is bringing about the breakdown of the family with several negative consequences ……….." gender role confusion" being one of them.

Blessings,

sonbeam
Sonbeam
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Previous

Return to General Bible Study & Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest