1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

I finally got to meet Paige the other day...

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Daniel David, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Todd,

    to assert that Priscilla was not directly involved in the teaching of Appolos is actually the stretch. If it had only been Aquilla the scriptures would have said so.

    Dont you find it interesting that we all come to the Scripture with a bias - mine is that of liberty for women to pursue ALL of their God given gifts (including teaching men), yours that women should never exercise authority over men - and that teaching them, and I suppose giving them grades equates to exercising authority.

    Both of our viewpoints can be argued from scripture. You will never convince me that you are 100% correct, as I will never convince you. But we are still Christian brothers, and I respect the positions you have taken.

    I will agree with you that women should probably not teach preaching classes (at least in the SBC), but are thier minds any less capable of understanding, writing about or teaching theology - I would submit no. In the case of the two Profs at SWBTS - hebrew and history, even from your argument- they are not "handling the Word" per se. I think Priscilla is an excellent example however of a NT woman "handeling the Word" and teaching Appolos theology.
     
  2. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not really, the Bible is pretty clear:

    “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately”

    Look carefully:

    “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they … explained to him the way of God more adequately”

    Look at the verse just before the one you quoted:

    Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

    This verse is the context and interpretive principle for everything that follows after it. The passage teaches mutual submission throughout. Our problem is that we tend to read the passage asking “Who is in charge?” instead of “How can I serve others?”

    The principle of mutual submission completely transforms human relations, from marriage to master/slave relations (it completely undermines slavery in the best possible way).

    Furthermore, Karen Bullock affirmed that was teaching under the authority of her husband at Southwestern, so what’s the problem?
     
  3. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for all the duplicate posts - the BB is acting a bit wacky this am - I thought that I had run afoul of the BB Gendarmes - I would hit the post button and get a blank screen - thinking that nothing happened I hit it again, and again!

    sorry
     
  4. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    It is one thing to teach and another to pastor. They are very different. Just look at the word for shepherd and the word for teach. The shepherd must be able to teach. But the teacher is not always a shepherd. Why do you think in the list of gifts is teaching. Teaching is one of many. If a woman cannot teach then God would have never given her the gift.

    Would you have any problem with a woman teaching the Bible in an English class?

    Sometime read the book “And the Word Came With Power: How God Met & Changed a People Forever” by Joanne Shetler. That book is about two ladies that started a church. My hunch is that had they not been women they would have been a threat to the men in that village.

    So I don't think we can ever say a woman should never teach a man. What do you think women evangelists do overseas. Why is it that the IMB will send women into non-English speaking areas, but not English speaking.

    I have personally seen the pastor of a church invite women missionaries to speak in church for the entire 30 or 40 minutes and then he would give the invitation. Every area of life is handling the Word of God. It is not just about intellect and taking a class. It is the Hebrew idea and not just a Greek idea of God.

    If you would like me to show you how the IMB has changed while Rankin is at the helm I can show you a letter I received from him. He has changed his theology some just like a chameleon. I am convinced that the SBC is more about political image than theology. The SBC supposedly is about autonomus churches. But what would they do if the Mormon bishop came to preach. Absoultely nothing! I know personally. I pastored a church that had that practice for at least 20 years before I came and the local association did nothing. They told me they could do nothing. So I tackled it on my own after I found out with all kinds of opposition from some leaders. So I just don't buy it by their actions. They come out strong against women pastors and I agree, but I do think there are cases when a woman would be better to start a church in a village. At times women can much more easily get into places where man cannot. We must not discount what God wants to do. That village does not know God. All they know is what they see.

    What do you think of Lottie Moon. When I was a student at SWBTS one of the men in class asked a woman missionary who was speaking in class who had been on the field for about 30 years. He asked her what gave her the right as a woman to be on the mission field. She had a great response, "If there weren't so many lazy men like you we wouldn't have to go." He never said another word.

    Patterson is a dispensationalist. Come on do you really think many Baptists believe that kind of man made doctrine. Just look at its origin alone. Even Spurgeon calls it darbyism. Patterson is of the dispensational theology that not even much of DTS believes any more. I would feel more comfortable at DTS than around him hearing his teaching. I can assure you that none of the former prsidents of the seminary would agree with his theology. Do the research yourself.

    Perhaps you do know that B.H. Carroll was divorced as well. He did smoke cigars too. The cigar in his hand was painted over so that the image appeared to look good. Isn't that dishonest to history.

    You do know that Dr. Leon McBeth was asked to write a book on women in Baptist history by Broadman. He wrote it and they killed it only after a few copies. Too controversial for them. He wrote a historical book not a commentary. Doesn't that seemlike they can't face the facts. We accuse the Catholics of not wanting to admit the facts but it seems the SBC is just as guilty. Keep the people ignorant so thet won't know and it will go away. You do know that Southern destroyed some of its materials in its library just a few years ago. They didn't like what those matrials said. But I do know that SWBTS subscribes to many books that do not agree with what Baptist believe so that students can get the information first hand. Where's the integrity. Of course that is not limited to Baptists either. I have friends that have graduated from other seminaries that ask me questions about what I believe because they have not gotten that information in the seminary they attended.
     
  5. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    BB, I asked for a text that supports the idea that women are called to teach men. All you had to do was say that you know of none, and you would have correctly answered.

    This is so typical of liberals. You can't exegete, you you read into stories your theology and then work backwards.

    Priscilla taught WITH her husband. You don't know the nature of what she said do you? Nevermind, I know you don't know the answer.
     
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    How utterly hilarious. Does everyone see this excellent exegetical work? BB has Paul as a loon.

    Okay, now using the BB commentary, we see the following:

    1. Husband submits to wife.
    2. Parents submits to children.
    3. Master submits to slave.

    Brilliant. Of course, liberals need the myth of mutual submission to be true. 1 Cor. 11 really chops their interpretation down also, but that is for another time.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have been removing multiple posts; I hope I didn't snip a non-repeater.
     
  8. Speedpass

    Speedpass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I just wonder if Patterson and Company have met in secret yet to decide who should be the only candidate for SBC president. IIRC, the president's position comes up at this summer's meeting.
     
  9. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How utterly hilarious. Does everyone see this excellent exegetical work? BB has Paul as a loon. </font>[/QUOTE]Not at all, although the gospel does appear foolish to those who are caught up in the world system of exercising power instead of service.

    Paul was a disciple of Christ and teaches us to live the life of Christ. Disciples of Christ do not worry about being in charge, they serve and are served by others motivated by love, not obligation.

    And the wife submits to the husband. They should have a marriage where they utterly devote themselves to each other – especially the husband, he is to love his wife as Christ loves the church.

    And children to their parents. Parents should not provoke their children, but guide and encourage them in faith and life. They should give themselves for their children’s welfare.

    And slave to master. The master/slave relationship is transformed into a brotherly (sisterly?) relationship where the “master” looks out for the welfare of the slave and recognizes them as a brother/sister in the faith. (See Philemon for an example of Paul urging Philemon to recognize this truth.) By transforming this social construct into a relationship of love and service, both the master and the slave are redeemed. Obviously, this Christian transformation of the relationship completely undermines the social order, but that’s the nature of the gospel.

    I think so. God is wiser than any of us. If we are to live the life He has for us, we must give up our foolish ways of thinking/acting.

    1.) I am not a “liberal” by any sane definition.
    2.) Mutual submission is true. Paul was very explicit in Ephesians 5:21. Of course, you don’t want to accept it, but that doesn’t make the scripture any less true.

    Not really. But I’m not going to argue it because your hostility demonstrates that you are not willing to hear truth from me. I don’t want you to reject what the Holy Spirit might be trying to tell you because of your irrational hostility toward me.

    If you want to be a student and understand my perspective on those verses (and other related verses), I suggest you locate a copy of “Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society” by E. Earle Ellis. Dr. Ellis is both a Baptist and a Calvinist (as well as a member of my church) and taught at Southwestern from the late 1980s until recently when he retired. (He may actually still teach one or two classes at SWBTS, but I think most of his time is spent writing.)

    Here’s a link to the book on Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802804519/qid=1077070004//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/102-7059716-7451302?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    It is out of print, but there are used copies available.
     
  10. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    BB, I asked for a text that supports the idea that women are called to teach men. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that’s ironic since we were looking at a biblical example of that very thing. I simply pointed you back to the passage we were discussing.

    But that would be a lie. I noticed that you didn’t answer my questions to you about the text we discussed. Do you think Priscilla was in rebellion against God because she taught with her husband? If you say no, then you agree with the point I was making, that Priscilla helped teach Apollos.

    I’m not a “liberal”. (Of course I know that that’s the worst thing you can publicly say about me without getting censured.)

    That’s a problem with lots of people. I work hard not to do it, but all of us are imperfect interpreters. So-called “conservatives” do it constantly.

    Bingo! That’s the point I was making here. I’m glad we can agree on this.

    And you don’t either.
     
  11. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baptist Believer and GB -

    Looks like we are the inerrantists on this thread. We believe the Bible Literally says that Priscilla (with Aquilla) taught Appolos. Daniel David has turned out to be a liberal after all, he does not believe in the inerrant word of God! I always kind of suspected that he was a liberal in fundy clothing, but his arguments against the plain teaching in Acts confirms it.
     
  12. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually Jimmy C, I do believe that Priscilla and Aquilla taught Appollos. Now, would you care to explain the content of her teaching? According to you liberals, your connection to this ethereal realm of understanding is the basis for women being 'called' to teach men.

    It would be so easy to be a liberal. I could just ignore exegesis in favor of drug induced delusions.
     
  13. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Excellent. You are doing well. Yet I can’t understand your hostility to those who would follow Priscilla and Aquilla’s example today.

    I know that name-calling is a vital part of your rhetorical technique, but why don’t you try to avoid making false accusations against those you oppose and talk about the issues instead?

    Not necessarily. You are lumping everyone whom you oppose into one group and condemning us all. That’s foolish and dishonest.

    Some folks who support women in vocational ministry are pretty flaky and misuse the scriptures to everyone’s detriment. (Just like some “conservative” folks ignore facts, history and biblical teaching, and demand that all of us accept a KJVO viewpoint.)

    But there are many other folks who understand that are also called of God to teaching ministries because of our understanding of the scriptures. (I gave you a link to the Ellis book in a previous post. I suggest you check out the book to see how an extremely conservative interpreter of scripture (and an world-renowned Pauline scholar) approaches the classic texts. You might be surprised… If nothing else, you will understand the viewpoint of other people enough to refute their position.

    Huh? Are you using drugs? :confused:

    [ February 18, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]
     
  14. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The context of her teaching is very plain in the Scripture - Appolos was a new believer on fire for Christ, however he did not fully understand, Priscilla and Aquilla instructed him at the first recorded seminary - Priscilla was the first recorded female professor of theology!

    My coworkers would be amused to find out that they are working with a liberal! Of all the things they have called me over the years, liberal is not one of them on any issue. I would assert that when one sets out fundamentals of the faith that my beliefs are conservative.

    I do not, however dismiss Priscilla, Phoebe, Deborah or Philip's daughters. I see them as examples that the Lord can use women every bit as well as he can use men. If I were a woman I would look to these examples to see that ministy is not limited to men.

    By the way DD, good luck in rehab
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Actually Jimmy C, I do believe that Priscilla and Aquilla taught Appollos. Now, would you care to explain the content of her teaching? According to you liberals, your connection to this ethereal realm of understanding is the basis for women being 'called' to teach men.

    It would be so easy to be a liberal. I could just ignore exegesis in favor of drug induced delusions.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Liberals! Sounds like you are the judge of all doctrine with the standard being you. But I guess you have perfect doctrine so that is okay. But you forgot one--humility. SoI guess that does make you less than God but now a god to yourself instead.
     
  16. Todd

    Todd New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some things never change - the moderates posting here are still using Eph. 5:21 as a removal of Paul's clear command for women to submit to their husbands. Let's go through this one more time, real slow, so that everyone will see the hermeneutical fallacy linked with interpreting Eph. 5:22ff as has been done by the moderates posting here.

    If you will notice, Eph. 5:21 is the closing statement in a list of imperatives ADDRESSED TO THE LOCAL CHURCH which begins in v.18. Thus, when Paul commands that the members of the local church should be "submitting to one another in the fear of God" he is obviously instructing the members of the LOCAL CHURCH to have the proper respect, courtesy, and love for one another. If v.21 were a sufficient verse for home relationships, then it would have been unnecessary for Paul to have continued his imperatives with 5:22-6:9. Obviously, the reason that Paul wrote 5:22-6:9 is because he was giving instructions regarding relationships WITHIN THE HOME - he had moved beyond general instructions for the local church by laying down some guidelines for roles within the home.

    To that end, Paul clearly said that women were to "submit" (Gr. - hypotasso, "to place underneath") to their own husbands (v.22), and that husbands were to "love their wives" (v.25) even as Christ loved the church. If God would have intended for husbands to also submit to their wives, why wouldn't he have inspired Paul to write so within these instructions for home relationships? I think we all know the answer to that question if we will just be honest with the text.

    This is elementary hermeneutics - it's a shame that moderates often look past even the most simple exegesis in order to justify their "a priori" convictions.
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    This is elementary hermeneutics - it's a shame that moderates often look past even the most simple exegesis in order to justify their "a priori" convictions.

    What does your statement make you?


    A juicy steak tastes much better when eaten very slow. So I will make this very short so you can read it very slow and digest it. In your hermeneutics you forgot one major thing. Eph. 5:21 is a participial phrase. (It has no verb.} In Greek it is used to connect one passage to another. It is used as a transition.

    One thing you might consider is that Paul’s admonition is not theoretical but practical. His emphasis is always love. So in that passage he is showing in a practical way for husbands and wives to love one another. You cannot love someone if you do not put them first. That is submission. There is to be a mutual submission. You cannot lead without someone submitting themself to the leader. That is not to be an absolute submission. It is to be “as to Christ.” I grew up in a home where my dad at times would want me to put things in my pocket and walk out the store. Never once did I ever submit to that request and neither should any wife submit herself to any request that dishonors God. Submission takes strength. It is not out of weakness but in reality strength.

    Show me a case where two people loves each other and I will show you where there is mutual love. respect, and submission. I ‘ll bet that Dr. Bob gladly submits to his wife when she speaks about medical issues. She is the expert. But I would bet she submits herself to him when he speaks about theological issues. He is the expert in that field.

    I would contend that Paul is telling the couple to submit themselves to one another and then shows practical ways to do it. Men and women are very different and have very different needs.
    When you look at the qualifications of a pastor he is to be gentle. Is that not submission? For sure it is submission to God and those he is leading. Is not his leadership to be characterized by love. His love is submission by serving them. He reaches down to them lifting them up. That is the kind of leadership Christ exemplifies and that is the kind of leader a man is to be to his wife.

    When both the husband and wife submit themselves to one another there is a building up of one another. Isn’t that what the church is to do?

    In Phil. 2 it says that we are to count others as more important than ourselves. Are husbands exempt from doing that with their wives. A true servant of God does that all the time. He lifts others up to a higher plane.

    When Christ gave Himself up for us all did He not submit Himself to us and to God? He is the perfect leader.

    You are right some things never change. God’s word never does. But it sure helps to understand what submission and love are to fully appreciate the impact of what Paul rote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How perfect God is in giving us the perfect guide book for relationships with people and God. .
     
  18. Todd

    Todd New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clearly, I acknowledge that brothers and sisters in Christ (as regenerate husbands and wives are) should demonstrate mutual submission to the desires of each other, as was the disposition of our own Lord Jesus Christ (Phi. 2:3-4). Yet, none of your reply explains the need for vv.5:22-6:9 if mutual submission was to be the only guide for all faith and practice in and out of the home. If the words of Paul in vv.5:22-6:9 were to be understood only in terms of mutual submission, then they would have been unnecessary. Again, the aforementioned verses were speaking of household relationships, not local church relationships! Your response does not satisfactorily deal with these unavoidable hermeneutical issues.

    When did I ever imply that a woman is to submit to ungodly requests made by her husband. Clearly, Acts 5:29 would not allow such submission. Yet, at the same time if the husband is asking the wife to do something that is not in violation of God's Word, then it is her responsibility to submit, as unto the Lord! This is the clear teaching of the passage.

    My wife and I enjoy a relationship of mutual submission, when such submission is possible. But what about those times when there is a disagreement? Who's leadership are we to follow then? Clearly, God says that the husband's servant leadership is to be submitted to by the wife in such cases(Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Pet. 3:1-6). You may ask, "Well, what if the wife's means of dealing with such and such an issue was better than the husbands?" That may have been the case, but I would submit to you that the wife would have lost her heavenly reward by not submitting to an inferior method of dealing with things offered by the husband than for having submitted to the husband's leadership to begin with. Primarily, God has asked the wife to submit to the husband when he is not in violation of God's Word, and if she has done that, then she will find favor in the sight of God.

    Now you are showing that your hermeneutics are clearly biased and you seem to be referring to psycho-babble towards the end of the aforementioned quote. Regardless of what needs the husband and wife have, God says "Wife, you are to submit" and "Husband, you are to love even as Christ loved." These are not just practical little suggestions offered us by the pen of Paul, they are imperatives. And since you seem to know something of Greek, then you will know that imperatives are not suggestions or practical "how-to's" in the Bible, they are commands that are to be obeyed. Your exegesis is also shown to be lacking on account of your biases - you use the Greek to make a case when it is convenient, and then you set it aside when it is cumbersome. That is unfaithful hermeneutics and exegesis, and I would submit that it would receive failing marks if in a seminary classroom.

    With this, are you implying that the Pastor is to submit to the wishes of his congregation? You must not be a Pastor! Well, this Pastor can tell you that such a model will not work - someone must be the point-man, and in the local church God's point-man is the "undershepherd," the Pastor. While I will concede that a Pastor's leadership should be that of a servant, it is still leadership that must be submitted to (see. Heb. 13:7, 17). Lack of submission on the part of the congregation is always sin, just as the lack of submission on any wife's part is sin as well. We do have a couple of examples from Acts where the leaders of the NT church allowed the congregation to make some decisions (Acts 6), but the key word there is "allowed" - it was not their so-called "right," but it was a privilege granted them by the church's leadership. Churches that long for the kind of undershepherd to which you were referring don't want a "Pastor," they simply want a "Preacher" who will come and deliver a nice homily and then allow them to make all the decisions for themselves - I know because I once attempted to Pastor a church like that. Just as that is not a proper view of the Pastorate, so your view of submission is flawed as well.

    When Christ laid down His life on Calvary's cross, it was not for some inspirational submission to mankind - it was for the propitiation of God's wrath! (see Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10) I'm afraid your theology is need of a huge overhaul. Let's apply your theology of husband/wife relations to those of Jesus and His disciples. If Christ didn't believe that His disciples should be in submission at all times, then why did He rebuke Peter by saying, "Get thou behind me Satan?" Why didn't He just respect Peter's opinions without handing down such a scathing rebuke? I'll tell you why - because Jesus was their Lord, and the disciples were His sheep. I could've provided many other examples like this, but I think you get the picture: As the disciples submitted to Christ, so the wife is to submit to the husband, as unto the Lord. God has placed the wife over the husband for this very reason! (see 1 Tim. 2:13-15)

    And though your words, though they be like "Chicken Soup for the Soul," do not deal with the sound exegesis and interpretation of the Scriptures. If you think I'm wrong, then answer the exegetical and hermeneutical problems to your position that I have offered above. If you can't do so, then I challenge you to abandon your faulty understanding of husband/wife relationships in favor of what God has to say about them.
     
  19. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, it is Ephesians 5:22 that has no verb… it is dependent on 5:21 for the verb translated as “submit”. However, the point is the same, the two verses are linked and dependent upon each other.

    Clearly, I acknowledge that brothers and sisters in Christ (as regenerate husbands and wives are) should demonstrate mutual submission to the desires of each other, as was the disposition of our own Lord Jesus Christ (Phi. 2:3-4). Yet, none of your reply explains the need for vv.5:22-6:9 if mutual submission was to be the only guide for all faith and practice in and out of the home. If the words of Paul in vv.5:22-6:9 were to be understood only in terms of mutual submission, then they would have been unnecessary.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. Verses 5:22-6:9 flesh out the command to submit to each other in very practical terms. Paul wanted all of human relationships to be transformed by love and mutual submission by those who are disciples of Christ. Christ Himself is our model of servanthood.
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Clearly, I acknowledge that brothers and sisters in Christ (as regenerate husbands and wives are) should demonstrate mutual submission to the desires of each other, as was the disposition of our own Lord Jesus Christ (Phi. 2:3-4). Yet, none of your reply explains the need for vv.5:22-6:9 if mutual submission was to be the only guide for all faith and practice in and out of the home.

    Did I say that mutual submission was the only criteria?

    If the words of Paul in vv.5:22-6:9 were to be understood only in terms of mutual submission, then they would have been unnecessary. Again, the aforementioned verses were speaking of household relationships, not local church relationships! Your response does not satisfactorily deal with these unavoidable hermeneutical issues.

    First of all you did not deal with the context of Eph. 5:21. You tied it only to 5;22 and on. You made no mention of it. It is a transition that ties the passage before to the passage that follows. In verse 22 it is conditional as stated “as to the Lord.” As I see it that is the only condition. So it is not an absolute submission to a dictator. Later he tells the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He loved the church unconditionally. If the passage is not practical then what is it? I find it interesting that her submission is set apart with a condition as to the Lord and the husband’s command to love is to be unconditional. The command to the wife is given to the wife not as a battering ram for the husband. If I were to place emphasis on one versus the other I would say the command to love is even greater than the command to submit because one has a condition and the other does not .

    When did I ever imply that a woman is to submit to ungodly requests made by her husband. Clearly, Acts 5:29 would not allow such submission. Yet, at the same time if the husband is asking the wife to do something that is not in violation of God's Word, then it is her responsibility to submit, as unto the Lord! This is the clear teaching of the passage.

    If you believe in absolute submission then you did. But I do agree with what you wrote perfectly.

    My wife and I enjoy a relationship of mutual submission, when such submission is possible.

    That happens more as you get older.

    But what about those times when there is a disagreement?

    You may not be old enough but sometimes you are not going any where. Sometimes as men we need to learn to be patient as God is with us. Sometimes the issues are not so cut and dried as you may think. I have been there. I know. God never forces Himself on us. He patiently waits. That is leadership in the home. You cannot fire or divorce your wife. You cannot force your wife to do something she cannot. That’s when love must abound. My wife graduated with honors and is a brilliant woman. She is an impeccable writer and student. She memorizes scripture like you wouldn’t believe. I can speak in front of large numbers. Wheras she likes to be in the background. She does not want to be made to come up front. So I never force her to come up front. She works in a hospital. Several times she has gotten the employee of the month award. But she loves it most when I keep her in the background. So I honor her by not making her come up front and just having her stand where she sits in the audience or congregation. That is how I submit to her request. Do I like it the best? No, but I love her more than my desires. So I don’t bully her and belittle her. She is not like me. Nor am I like her. That is how I submit to her. She submits t me by allowing me to introduce her. If she had her way she would not want to be introduced at all. If I had it my way I would bring her up front. So we submit to each other in this case. Yes there have been cases where I have told her we are going to do what I believe is right. But in every case when I haven’t listened to her first it has failed.

    I see it as the man must love his wife. The woman must love by submission. He shows his love by leading as Christ did. She shows her love by submitting to him.



    Who's leadership are we to follow then? Clearly, God says that the husband's servant leadership is to be submitted to by the wife in such cases(Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Pet. 3:1-6). You may ask, "Well, what if the wife's means of dealing with such and such an issue was better than the husbands?" That may have been the case, but I would submit to you that the wife would have lost her heavenly reward by not submitting to an inferior method of dealing with things offered by the husband than for having submitted to the husband's leadership to begin with. Primarily, God has asked the wife to submit to the husband when he is not in violation of God's Word, and if she has done that, then she will find favor in the sight of God.

    You seem to express absolute submission and then conditional submission. I would contend it is neither. It is “as to the Lord.” God is the Lord, not any one man or woman. He is Lord of all. When the man leads as God commands him then she must submit herself. But when he violates God’s word then she must not. I believe it’s that simple. It’s not so much of a case of who rules the roost but who rules the roster.

    Now you are showing that your hermeneutics are clearly biased and you seem to be referring to psycho-babble towards the end of the aforementioned quote. Regardless of what needs the husband and wife have, God says "Wife, you are to submit" and "Husband, you are to love even as Christ loved." These are not just practical little suggestions offered us by the pen of Paul, they are imperatives. And since you seem to know something of Greek, then you will know that imperatives are not suggestions or practical "how-to's" in the Bible, they are commands that are to be obeyed. Your exegesis is also shown to be lacking on account of your biases - you use the Greek to make a case when it is convenient, and then you set it aside when it is cumbersome. That is unfaithful hermeneutics and exegesis, and I would submit that it would receive failing marks if in a seminary classroom.

    You misread what I wrote, “Paul is telling the couple to submit themselves to one another and then shows practical ways to do it.” So are you contending that God does not give us instruction to do things perfectly according to the way He made us? I would ask you to show me how you can even possibly love your wife or for a pastor to love his congregation without submitting to them first. Yes there are times when you must be bold and go against the crowd. I would contend that there may be times when a wife must do the same thing. God is her absolute Lord not you.

    With this, are you implying that the Pastor is to submit to the wishes of his congregation?

    I did not intend to imply that. In fact I personally stood against one group of deacons in your convention that you are a part of. They supported the practice of inviting the Mormon bishop to preach. They also invested in the BFA which made national news. All against my advice. Many other pastors that I told went against my advice too. How’s that for an SBC church? In fact I contacted the state convention, a former SBC president, the local association and some local pastors for help. The only person who stood to be counted was myself, a few in the congregation and a local pentecostal pastor. So much for the whimps in the SBC! That is the reason I left the SBC! I got tired of their convenient conservatism.

    You must not be a Pastor!

    It is one thing to be a pastor and another thing to pastor a church.

    Well, this Pastor can tell you that such a model will not work - someone must be the point-man, and in the local church God's point-man is the "undershepherd," the Pastor. While I will concede that a Pastor's leadership should be that of a servant, it is still leadership that must be submitted to (see. Heb. 13:7, 17). Lack of submission on the part of the congregation is always sin, just as the lack of submission on any wife's part is sin as well. We do have a couple of examples from Acts where the leaders of the NT church allowed the congregation to make some decisions (Acts 6), but the key word there is "allowed" - it was not their so-called "right," but it was a privilege granted them by the church's leadership. Churches that long for the kind of undershepherd to which you were referring don't want a "Pastor," they simply want a "Preacher" who will come and deliver a nice homily and then allow them to make all the decisions for themselves - I know because I once attempted to Pastor a church like that.

    That would depend on whether you believe in a plurality of pastors or a single pastor. Just look at the passage in Acts 6 and see how they made decisions. Those decisions were made not as individuals but collectively under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You do know the average church in the SBC is about 75 people. The two largest churches in the area is one of about 2000 and the other of about 1000. Neither of those have a single pastor. One of those chruches started with 4 people. The other was only 20 people about 30 years ago. Both of the pastors are from John MacArthur’s seminary. They believe in a plurality of leaders and ministries. They make decisions collectively and not as just individuals for the church. The SBC churches in the area run about 60 and the other is 11. The one will probably close its doors soon.

    Just as that is not a proper view of the Pastorate, so your view of submission is flawed as well.

    That is the very reason why I don’t care to pastor matriarchal churches in the SBC any more. I never once experienced that before coming to the south and being in an SBC church. I once told a music minister that and he told me that it had been that way all of his life. It was the liberal SBC folks cloaked as fundamentalists that would not stand. “Men” who believed the same things as you. Who does most of the work in the church you pastor? That tells you who leads. How would you like it if a woman comes back from the state meetings and tells you how to pastor the church. That happened to me several times by a state volunteer under the conservative resurgence. Again liberals cloaked in fundamentalism. They are constantly undermining the pastoral authority. Sometime if you want to be miserable as a pastor just send some of the people in the congregation to be involved at the state level as a volunteer. In fact one of the ladies involved at the church I pastored writes children’s lessons fro the SBC. But she could never get any children’s discipleship going locally. But she always had ideas from her state meetings on how the church should be pastored.


    When Christ laid down His life on Calvary's cross, it was not for some inspirational submission to mankind - it was for the propitiation of God's wrath! (see Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10) I'm afraid your theology is need of a huge overhaul. Let's apply your theology of husband/wife relations to those of Jesus and His disciples. If Christ didn't believe that His disciples should be in submission at all times, then why did He rebuke Peter by saying, "Get thou behind me Satan?" Why didn't He just respect Peter's opinions without handing down such a scathing rebuke? I'll tell you why - because Jesus was their Lord, and the disciples were His sheep. I could've provided many other examples like this, but I think you get the picture: As the disciples submitted to Christ, so the wife is to submit to the husband, as unto the Lord. God has placed the wife over the husband for this very reason! (see 1 Tim. 2:13-15)

    Did not Jesus give Himself up for us all? Is that not submission? Did he not submit himself up to God? You application is severely flawed. It is not even remotely close. Jesus submitted himself to God for us on our behalf. Phil 2:6-8, “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
    Is that not submission and humility?

    When my submission is to God, I am bold as a lion and can stand.


    And though your words, though they be like "Chicken Soup for the Soul," do not deal with the sound exegesis and interpretation of the Scriptures. If you think I'm wrong, then answer the exegetical and hermeneutical problems to your position that I have offered above. If you can't do so, then I challenge you to abandon your faulty understanding of husband/wife relationships in favor of what God has to say about them. </font>[/QUOTE]My ultimate submission and humility is to God. My wife’s ultimate submission and humility is to God. My Bible says the righteous are as bold as a lion. It is not submission to man at any cost. It is submission to God at any cost. There is a huge difference. I want my wife to submit herself to me but not when I am wrong. I do not want a door mat but a godly woman as my wife. I have a daughter that gets nothing less than A’s. She has been the top student in each of her grades and has debated other students on topics that few adults would dare in her public school. I see adults that are the biggest whimps and I have a daughter that calls into question some of the things people believe. Just five years ago the SBC had published some nonsense in a magazine read by adults that she read. She mentioned to me that the article was wrong. After reading it myself I called all the pastors in the association and we returned our materials. She was in fourth grade then. Through this she has learned to submit herself to her teachers and students. She has learned to disagree with respect and stand up for what scripture teaches. I believe that is true submission. I believe that is the kind of submission Paul talks about in Ephesians.

    I didn't expect you to get what I wrote. You did get it just as the same way as when I was told the first time. But I think when you begin to see how Jesus dealt with others in the gospels you will appreciate Him more and have a better understanding of true leadership. What I have stated here has worked in places where I have worked. I have seen it work with about 35 employees under me saving the company thousands of dollars due to increased production and care on the part of the employees. Employees know when they are loved just as your wife does. We are ambassadors for Christ not dictators. Leadership is not like the business model. In fact the majority of businesses fail within two years. Know of any businesses over 100 years old. Know of any as old as the Bible? None. Only God's. I had the privilege of working for a Christian man who owned the largest and most successful business in the US of its kind. When I met that man for the first time he put me through the test. He and several others interviewed me for nine hours. But when I was hired what a man to work for! He made me feel 50 feet tall. I worked hard for him. So did everyone else. He paid us well too. That's leadership with love. Too often we have this hard idea of leadership. But that man would sit down with me at lunch and we would discuss ways to make the company successful. I was new to the business. He was 76. But one thing I noticed was that he listened to me. On one occasion we talked about something and I was able to save the company several thousands of dollars with one idea. Even though I was new, he listened. That is submission. Another time I came to him with an idea. He told me it had never been tried before but to give it a try. It was a tremendous success. The company had been in business 77 years by this time. Who was I but just another manager? But the owner listened. That's submission. In his leadership he submitted himself to me. As my leader I submitted to him. It was the right thing to do. But as my leader and mentor he submitted himself to me voluntarily. I think that is the idea what Paul wrote about.
     
Loading...