RE: Women's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

hnt -> RE: Women's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/20/2007 7:26:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbxright

What is your interpretation of this verse, PDChaplain?

The plain and simple reading, agreed on by most, is that each spouse in a marriage submits to the other in the marriage bed. How does your interpretation differ?


I would interested in your point of view also.



Harvie -> RE: Women's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/20/2007 7:34:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hnt

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbxright

What is your interpretation of this verse, PDChaplain?

The plain and simple reading, agreed on by most, is that each spouse in a marriage submits to the other in the marriage bed. How does your interpretation differ?


I would interested in your point of view also.


Not that anyone has asked me, but I am most definitely NOT interested in reading ANYONE's opinion on "submission in the marriage bed" and think that discussions of that nature would best be held in PMs or in a different forum.



suzanned -> RE: Men's/Women's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/20/2007 7:49:59 PM)

quote:

It is my opinion that the pro-fem approach seeks to look for a way to avoid the force of Ephesians 5:22."



The fact is that the word submit is not in v 22 at all, but you would need to look to v 21 for this thus to say it is separate is somewhat obscure. The Scriptures were not separated into chapters until the 1200's and verses in the NT until the mid 1500's.

In 1Peter the dealing is with the Christian wife of an unbeliever. This is not meant to be a model for Christian marriage. It is dealing with winning over a spouse.



PDChaplain -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 10:52:57 AM)

Suzanned, thank you for your interest but I do believe my interpretation is the correct one .... and I will stand behind it.[:)]

Covaan_Meshuga, my best advice to you from now on is to make liberal use of your "Ignore" feature as it concerns me.

Thank you.



Memaw. -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 12:05:15 PM)

Ephesians 5

21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.


In a true Godly marriage, one submits unto the other.

I believe too many men use v22 as a reason to browbeat their wives.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Emphasis mine.

I take that to explain that a woman is to submit to their man, not any other man.

Then we take that with 21 and see that we are to submit one to another.

Wasn't that easy?[:)]



KHutcheson -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 12:47:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Memaw.

Ephesians 5

21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.


In a true Godly marriage, one submits unto the other.

I believe too many men use v22 as a reason to browbeat their wives.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Emphasis mine.

I take that to explain that a woman is to submit to their man, not any other man.

Then we take that with 21 and see that we are to submit one to another.

Wasn't that easy?[:)]


LOL! Easier said than done, apparently.

Having been married for almost two decades now, and having observed my friends and brothers in the church, I will tell you what I see as the number one barrier to this verse. It is pride, plain and simple. Too many men have bought into the world's way of thinking, that men are the boss, they are superior, and no one is going to tell them what to do. Do some of these men sincerely believe they are supposed to be the boss in marriage? Yes. But very few of them are willing to do the hard work and bible study to really examine the picture in depth. Someone tells them they're the boss, and hey, it sounds pretty good. (No matter that nowhere in the Bible does God ever tell the husband he's supposed to assume authority over his wife, except for the verse where both husband and wife have authority over each others' bodies.)

There's also a great deal of fear. What if they submit to their wife. Does that mean they're "whipped?" Does that mean they are weak? They like the picture of the "in-charge" Jesus, but they are uncomfortable with the foot-washing, self-sacrificing Jesus.

I think if you take names and genders off of submitting and sacrificially loving, you really can't tell the difference. They look pretty much the same. I think they're two sides of the same coin, really.

Men accuse women of not wanting to submit, which is false. I don't know any Christian women like this (but I do see unchurched women like this). Regardless of whether you are a traditionalist or an egalitarian Christian, women submit in both scenarios. It's the men that I see trying to wiggle out of submitting, not the women.

So to my brothers, I would exhort you to study this deeply. If you read the CBMW stuff, you owe it to yourself to read the other side of it as well. Submission (Eph 5:21) is not to be feared; it makes for a very rich, satisfying marriage, and one that glorifies God.

Kevin



PDChaplain -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 1:05:22 PM)

Kevin, I would suggest that you include BOTH genders in the sin of pride. Men sometimes DO have the type of pride you allude to. Shame on them! That is NOT the correct picture of complementarianism, however. What you are referring to is tyranny. Tyranny is a horrible state to be in. The pro-fems have deliberately mischaracterized complementarianism as that state. It is not, brother.

Pride exists in many forms and it is not confined to one gender over another, Kevin. Men exhibit pride when they rely upon themselves in an unhealthy way, apart from the normal, Godly assurance they have when they are in His will. Women are prideful when they refuse to accpet their husband's servant-leadership role and instead choose to bow to the god of feminism. The egalitarian platform evolved from feminism. It is fact. History proves it.[;)]



KHutcheson -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 1:12:49 PM)

Of course women are prideful. But I was addressing, specifically, the reasons why so many men are reluctant to search the scriptures for what they really tell us about our roles in marriage. They are afraid of what they might find.

Egalitarianism did not evolve from feminism. It evolved from people who searched the scriptures without an agenda, who were seeking God's truth, who were able to cast aside the heavy burdens and eisegesis laid on it by others. As for feminism ... in U.S. history, it was the Chrisitians who were among the original feminists; without Christian influence, for example, women would not have the vote today.

Kevin



PDChaplain -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 1:25:46 PM)

Kevin, the Christian influence in women's right to vote is a FAR cry from the radical behaviors we see today as feminism has evolved. How can light exist within darkness, brother? The error of the egalitarian platform is the fruit of trying to co-exist within a platform of unrighteousness. It can't be done, Kevin, without the Christian having to sacrifice foundational belief. Basic, Biblical Christianity clearly shows the pattern of complementarianism. There IS a ladder of authority established within the Word ..... God, Jesus, man, woman, child. The fact that a minority of pro-fems reject this truth is neither here nor there. There are very valid reasons, Kevin, why NO evangelical leader of merit teaches or preaches the egalitarian way. I have provided us with factual evidence .... from CBMW .... that shows otherwise.

Kevin, are you purporting to say that ALL these men and women of God ..... their ministries established for decades, in the case of most of em' .... are WRONG and that this "new revelation" of pro-fem thought is correct .... and that only within it's uprising in the last 40 years????



PDChaplain -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 1:35:38 PM)

From here ......

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/family.html#Chapter%203

"The central command to wives is submission to their own husbands. Paul writes: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything… Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:22-24, 33). The word (hupotassesthe) translated "submit" in verse 22 (the Majority and Received text) [47] is a present middle imperative of hypotass. This verb when used of the military means to place or rank under (Plybius). [48] When it is used by Paul in the middle voice it means "to subject one's self, to obey, to submit to one's control; to yield to one's admonition or advice." [49] Most modern versions (ASV, NASB, RSV, NEB) prefer the translation "be subject" or "be in subjection." Webster's unabridged dictionary defines the verb subject as: "to place under… to bring under the authority or control of." [50] Christian wives are commanded to submit to the authority of their own husbands in the Lord. The same command is repeated in Colossians 3:18, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." The expression "as is fitting" (hs anken) means that the submission of the wife to her own husband is appropriate Christian behavior. It is as it should be for it is proper as a Christian duty. The wife who in accordance with Scripture submits herself to her own husband is living her life in accordance with proper Christian behavior. Paul's fitting, points to the time of their entrance upon the Christian life." [51] The apostle clearly expects every professing Christian wife to immediately begin to submit to their own husbands in the Lord the moment they become a believer. Submission on the part of the wife to her own husband is not optional, but is a necessary aspect of Christian behavior."



PDChaplain -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 1:40:03 PM)

For husbands, from the same source .....

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/family.html#Chapter%203

"Before one examines how husbands are to lead, one first must examine the biblical reasons for the covenant headship of the husband. The biblical evidence for the leadership of husbands over their wives and children is so clear and abundant that conservative Christians may consider this point as too obvious to merit attention. The fact that this point is now almost universally rejected by secular humanists, modernists, neo-evangelicals (and some deluded feminists within Reformed denominations), informs us that this teaching can never be neglected or taken for granted. Thus one must examine the many ways in which the Scriptures teach the authority of the husband over his own wife and children.

1. There are many passages in the Bible that directly teach the headship of the husband. Ephesians 5:23, "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." What does Paul mean when he says that "the husband is the head of the wife"? The word "head" (kephal) in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22, 4:15, 22-24; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 18-19) means "ruler," "leader," "the one who has authority over." The husband is the "leader" or "the one who has authority over" his wife. Feminists have attempted to circumvent the clear meaning of these passages by arguing that kephal does not mean "authority over" but rather means "source." This argument has been thoroughly refuted by conservative Bible scholars. [20]"



Memaw. -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 3:52:22 PM)

Well,
I don't use fancy words, and I don't have a whole lot of intelligence, BUT I do have some smarts.[;)]

I figure if I love my husband the way I love myself, and he loves me the way he loves himself and we submit to one another BOTH UNDER THE COVERING OF CHRIST, hey, we got it whupped![:)]



Exegetist -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 4:07:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KHutcheson

Of course women are prideful. But I was addressing, specifically, the reasons why so many men are reluctant to search the scriptures for what they really tell us about our roles in marriage. They are afraid of what they might find.

Egalitarianism did not evolve from feminism. It evolved from people who searched the scriptures without an agenda, who were seeking God's truth, who were able to cast aside the heavy burdens and eisegesis laid on it by others. As for feminism ... in U.S. history, it was the Chrisitians who were among the original feminists; without Christian influence, for example, women would not have the vote today.

Kevin


Amen....[sm=thumbsup.gif]



Exegetist -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 4:08:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Memaw.

Well,
I don't use fancy words, and I don't have a whole lot of intelligence, BUT I do have some smarts.[;)]

I figure if I love my husband the way I love myself, and he loves me the way he loves himself and we submit to one another BOTH UNDER THE COVERING OF CHRIST, hey, we got it whupped![:)]



You are so right. And I believe it takes a good deal of intelligence to figure that out. [:D]



laura... -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 4:10:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Exegetist

quote:

ORIGINAL: Memaw.

Well,
I don't use fancy words, and I don't have a whole lot of intelligence, BUT I do have some smarts.[;)]

I figure if I love my husband the way I love myself, and he loves me the way he loves himself and we submit to one another BOTH UNDER THE COVERING OF CHRIST, hey, we got it whupped![:)]



You are so right. And I believe it takes a good deal of intelligence to figure that out. [:D]


The Golden Rule works really well in marriages too.



PDChaplain -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 4:18:18 PM)

The Golden Rule combined with complementarianism is a recipe for success![sm=funny.gif]



mbxright -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 5:15:23 PM)

I see that PDChaplain still has not addressed my response to his challenge.

So let me use a concrete example.

In the light of I Corinthians 7, if a man would like to have a vasectomy does he Biblically have to submit to his wife's desire that he not do so? I would argue that he does, because:
"4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."



mbxright -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 5:17:19 PM)

PDChaplain,

In what conceivable way could a husband demonstrate a Christlike attitude towards his wife while *breaking the golden rule* towards her? Or in other words, in what way is the golden rule insufficient to summarize the way a husband should treat his wife? What does complementarianism demand that would require not following the golden rule towards one's wife?



Exegetist -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 5:43:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbxright

PDChaplain,

In what conceivable way could a husband demonstrate a Christlike attitude towards his wife while *breaking the golden rule* towards her? Or in other words, in what way is the golden rule insufficient to summarize the way a husband should treat his wife? What does complementarianism demand that would require not following the golden rule towards one's wife?


I can answer that. Hierarchalism privileges husbands to make up our own rules and wives have to obey. And if these rules should violate the golden rule, the wives still must submit. [8D]



KHutcheson -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 8:05:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDChaplain
Kevin, are you purporting to say that ALL these men and women of God ..... their ministries established for decades, in the case of most of em' .... are WRONG and that this "new revelation" of pro-fem thought is correct .... and that only within it's uprising in the last 40 years????

First off, read church history. The movement we label "egalitarian" today has been around since the beginning in one form or another. And as for as a "new revelation" ... well, let's see ... it took a millennium and a half until we got to sola scriptura ... all those men and women of God,their ministries established for decades and most of 'em were wrong, and it took one courageous man called Luther to get things moving in the right direction. It took 1860 years, with men and women of God, their ministries established for decades, and in the case of most of 'em ... they were wrong ... it took courageous men and women to help most people understand how wrong it was to own people like property. We humans are pretty thickheaded at times. For centuries, in fact. It's a wonder God puts up with us. [:)]

Kevin



Memaw. -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/21/2007 8:09:20 PM)

quote:

We humans are pretty thickheaded at times. For centuries, in fact. It's a wonder God puts up with us.


I hereby nominate this as the best quote of the day![sm=thumbsup.gif]



blessednw -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/22/2007 3:07:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Exegetist

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbxright

PDChaplain,

In what conceivable way could a husband demonstrate a Christlike attitude towards his wife while *breaking the golden rule* towards her? Or in other words, in what way is the golden rule insufficient to summarize the way a husband should treat his wife? What does complementarianism demand that would require not following the golden rule towards one's wife?


I can answer that. Hierarchalism privileges husbands to make up our own rules and wives have to obey. And if these rules should violate the golden rule, the wives still must submit. [8D]


Word. Isn't that male privilege?



Exegetist -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/22/2007 3:12:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessednw

Word. Isn't that male privilege?


I don't understand. Are you saying that words are male privilege?



blessednw -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/22/2007 3:22:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Exegetist

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessednw

Word. Isn't that male privilege?


I don't understand. Are you saying that words are male privilege?


Oops, no. Word is the equivalent to "yes, that's true" in the vernacular.



Exegetist -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (8/22/2007 2:02:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessednw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Exegetist

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessednw

Word. Isn't that male privilege?


I don't understand. Are you saying that words are male privilege?


Oops, no. Word is the equivalent to "yes, that's true" in the vernacular.



AAAAh. Must be a youth thing. LOL

In response, that is what gender hierarchalists teach but it is not Scriptural. Males don't get special privileges just because we are male. Actually, what we should acknowledge is that we have different responsibilities to use our particular strengths for the good of others. If you are strong, use that strength for others benefit. That's why historically men have been the warriors and hunters, because more men than women tend to have strengths that fit that use. Whatever skills we have should be used for the benefit of others, even while we enjoy them ourselves.

God's way is to serve, not be served.



Page: <<   < prev  73 74 [75] 76 77   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI