Rebellious Women

mkgal1 said:

If you'd have taken ANY time to look at any of the quotes I've shared, you'd know "my ideas" are hardly "new" or original (certainly not my own). It's what I've grown up learning (with the exception of my many years in the evangelical protestant churches--which rarely taught anything from early church history....definitely didn't share anything from those named as "saints").

Click to expand...

When I look at your quotes it seems you often use them to make a point they do not make, like the Tertullian quote. I suspect you were doing so with your recent quote of an RCC scholar who was opposed to Calvinist teachings in the Reformation, based on the portions you quoted, but I'd only be guessing at the point you were trying to make based on the context of the discussion and the parts you bolded.

It also seems to me that you are more into historical theology on the Trinity than you are into the specifics of the Bible on the issue. I pointed out a few things that showed up in Genesis 1:1 and you treated it as heretical. When I made reference to the Son submitting to God at some future date, you seemed to think that was theologically questionable, though I got it right out of I Corinthians 15.

For me, personally, I don't care that much about Nicea. I don't think new believers need to learn to recite the Nicean Creed or learn the canons, etc. I believe it is best to teach them about the nature of the Godhead right out of the text of scripture, and if you can't do it using scripture, don't bother with it. Many people were saved before the council of Nicea, learning from the Old Testament and the words of Jesus and the apostles, believing the Gospel without memorizing or reciting the Nicene Creed.

If one is going to emphasize the Nicene Creed, he should do so in a way that accounts for the actual teaching and statements in the New Testament, and not interpret it in such a way that if someone refers to a passage of scripture on the Son and the Father, that it is considered to be theologically suspect.

You also have certain ideas about the Trinity, and it seems almost as if you want the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the same in every aspect and function, as if symmetry in that diagram you posted is very important, rather than dealing with the specifics in scripture, where they have different roles, even now. You also treat the idea of eternal subjection of the Son as if it is a heresy addressed by the Nicene Creed, when it's an idea that many Trinitarian theologians hold to. You don't seem to allow for the idea of economic hierarchy as opposed to ontological hierarchy, or consider Trinitarian statements of belief taking this into account. If Any view of theology that accepts the Bible, including I Corinthians 15, has to allow for Christ submitting to God, even at a future date. You pepper me with questions even after I've commented on issues, over and over again, but I don't recall you once explaining how the subjection of the Son to the Father fits into your views.

And treating those who disagree with modern egalitarian views of the trinity as historical heretics is not fair either. The Nicene Creed doesn't touch on most of these issues except to refer to the Father as the Father and the Son as the Son, which bishops in that age may have considered a hierarchical relationship at least in terms of function, and to say that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Oh....it fits with my theology. I've shared something about that already (something from St. Tertullian....it may have even been YOUR quote, I can't recall now).

Click to expand...

St. Tertullian? I'm not saying you are wrong to say that, but in the RCC Tertullian isn't called 'St. Tertullian' probably because he embraced Montanism. Montanists apparently did not split with the main church in North Africa like they did in some of the eastern parts. Tertullian defended Montanist teachings including the idea of 'monogamy' -- that widows and widowers were not to remarry. Apparently Montanus or the Montanists had added this requirement.

ImaginaryDay said:

Never-mind. All I can assume is that you are unable, unwilling, or incapable of having a doctrinal discussion and defending your faith. You know what you know about 'headship' "because the bible teaches it", but when put to the test, your basic tenets are convoluted and incomprehensible. Unless and until you can form a coherent argument for why you believe as you do, I reiterate that one would do well to reject it outright.

Click to expand...

ImaginaryDay, You come in and make a few paragraph comments. Who are you to test me? You aren't my theology teacher? Why do I have to answer your questions, but you don't answer all of mine or comment on it. You gave a two-word answer to one of my questions, and complain if I don't go into detail over and over again after all the times I've responded to so many posters' posts on this forum.

And we are way away from the issue of headship in marriage. The relationship between husband and wife is to be like that of Christ and the church. Why would a Father-Son relationship be the same as a husband-wife relationship. The commonalty is the use of the word 'head.'

As far as 'defending my faith' is concerned, you are asking me to speculate. In the garden, Christ was able to desire something that may not have been the Father's ultimate will for Him. There may have been some desire or temptation not to die on the cross or not to bear the sins of the world. He said, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me."

I do not believe Christ ever opposed the Father's will, but as far as whether they have separate wills now when Christ is at the right hand of the Father, how can I know that? To Whom has that been revealed? Why should we speculate about such things? We know He makes intercession. If that is some core issue of faith we should defend, why isn't more written about it in the Bible?

Can you write up an explanation and defense of your own ideas that is comprehensible? If so, why don't you do it instead of these short paragraphs? Why criticize me for not doing what you aren't doing either?

Neiogaia777

Patriarchy refers to the characteristic of societies being led primarily by men. It literally means something like 'rule of the father.'

In modern feminist thought, the different parties in Marxist communist philosophy are replaced by women and 'the patriarchy.' So 'the patriarchy' is constantly oppressing women and keeping them down. Women are seen as perpetual victims of the patriarchy. Patriarchy is seen as an evil thing. Since 'the patriarchy' is closely associated with men, this type of thinking can lead to anti-male sentiments and a female-v.-male attitude.

A lot of societies are patriarchal. That doesn't mean they are evil. The Bible has some patriarchal commands. For example, God gave Israelite men the right to cancel the vows of their wives and daughters. That's a patriarchal command.

Link, you do realise that early feminist thought (eg. that of Jeremy Bentham, the Marquis do Condorcet, Mary Wallstonecraft, etc) predates Marx, don't you? Conceiving of modern feminism simply as a development of Marxism is historically false.

Paidiske said:

Link, you do realise that early feminist thought (eg. that of Jeremy Bentham, the Marquis do Condorcet, Mary Wallstonecraft, etc) predates Marx, don't you?

Click to expand...

Did they hold the theory of 'the patriarchy' oppressing all women?

I am not clear on when the term "patriarchy" entered the discussion, but given that much early feminist thought and writing was actually in French, I am not sure that is the relevant question. Similar ideas were also discussed under the terms of "male chauvinism" and the like. Certainly Wallstonecroft's ideas described the patriarchy of her day more or less as I would understand it, even if she did not use the term.

LinkH said:

In modern feminist thought, the different parties in Marxist communist philosophy

Click to expand...

I'm not going to counter the other nonsense in your post because it's nothing new, and you are free to propagate your opinion. But feminism isn't Marxist.

LinkH said:

Did they hold the theory of 'the patriarchy' oppressing all women?

Click to expand...

Feminists hold that women are oppressed, and that this is wrong. Some of this oppression may be from patriarchy. Many believe that patriarchy is part of the problem, but even if this is proved not to be true it would not make feminism any less necessary. Feminism isn't about patriarchy, it's about equality.

LinkH said:

When I look at your quotes it seems you often use them to make a point they do not make, like the Tertullian quote. I suspect you were doing so with your recent quote of an RCC scholar who was opposed to Calvinist teachings in the Reformation, based on the portions you quoted, but I'd only be guessing at the point you were trying to make based on the context of the discussion and the parts you bolded.

Click to expand...

Just because you misunderstand the points that are being made in the [many] statements I've quoted, doesn't mean they aren't supporting and emphasizing my point. Tertullian was aware of the fact that his quotes were misunderstood and wrote this:

Wiki said:

Tertullian (AD 165-225): professed that the Father, Son, and Spirit "are inseparable from each other." His "assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement," according to Tertullian, "is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated [...] a separation among the Father, [...] Son, and [...] Spirit." Tertullian said "it is not by [...] diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division [...] but by distinction; [...] they differ one from the other in the mode of their being

Click to expand...

Unity in distinction isn't an easy thing to grasp (words are inadequate). Jesus prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane actually is an example of how distinction doesn't mean division.

What's interesting, though, as I was digging for articles to read I came across the Jehovah's Witness library that uses Tertullian's writing as a support for their theology. I guess it confused them as well. They believe that Tertullian believed the Son was subordinate to the Father (when that was something Tertullian was fighting against---that false teaching). That's really what led me on a search of reading articles of faith (when this thread got going)....and it seems that this whole debate is more like a recycled debate that was settled (in orthodox Christianity) long ago.

LinkH said:

It also seems to me that you are more into historical theology on the Trinity than you are into the specifics of the Bible on the issue. I pointed out a few things that showed up in Genesis 1:1 and you treated it as heretical. When I made reference to the Son submitting to God at some future date, you seemed to think that was theologically questionable, though I got it right out of I Corinthians 15.

Click to expand...

I'm posting about historical (early church) theology that's *based on the specifics of the Bible* and I'm doing that based on your earlier accusation that I am following "modern theology". I'm actually thankful for that accusation, because now I am certain that I'm not "guilty" of that. What's "modern" is this resurrection of the false teaching [that was fought against in the 4th century] of a hierarchy in the Trinity. The conclusion you described of Gen 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 15 were declared heresies back in the fourth century (you've been a bit evasive....but it could be defined as Subordinationism or Tritheism....and/or Arianism). Just because something is in the Bible (and used by certain groups as their "theology") doesn't make it "Scriptural". I've gone back to the early church because, at least in that era, there was ecumenical agreement.

LinkH said:

As far as 'defending my faith' is concerned, you are asking me to speculate. In the garden, Christ was able to desire something that may not have been the Father's ultimate will for Him. There may have been some desire or temptation not to die on the cross or not to bear the sins of the world. He said, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me."

Click to expand...

We're all "speculating" as none of us were there---that's why it's called "faith". I don't believe that's what's being asked of you. There are defined parameters of different denominations and faith groups......I believe you're being asked to identify what group's confessions you affirm. I posted a confession earlier and asked if it aligned with your beliefs (I will got see if I can find it now).

ETA (found it):

The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Has Sent


Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice who has wondered regarding our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by His enemies as well. I testify that He had power over death because He was divine but that He willingly subjected Himself to death for our sake because for a period of time He was also mortal. I declare that in His willing submission to death He took upon Himself the sins of the world, paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache and unhappiness from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so He conquered both the grave physically and hell spiritually and set the human family free. I bear witness that He was literally resurrected from the tomb and, after ascending to His Father to complete the process of that Resurrection, He appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in the Old World and in the New. I know He is the Holy One of Israel, the Messiah who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings. I know that there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace can we gain eternal life.

Click to expand...

LinkH said:

And treating those who disagree with modern egalitarian views of the trinity as historical heretics is not fair either.

Click to expand...

"Treating those who disagree with egalitarian views of the Trinity"? It's not a matter of "treatment". The definitions of heresies were formed long ago.....if one doesn't agree with that theology, they don't "have to" agree (we're in a different age---thankfully---where people have their own freedom to choose what they believe). The thing is.....one can't claim that their theology is "traditional" and "orthodox" when it's completely contradictory. I don't even understand the motivation to do that. If someone doesn't believe the Son was God.....and/or the Holy Spirit was God....and the Father was God....but they were also "one substance"---just say so.

LinkH said:

The commonalty is the use of the word 'head.'

Click to expand...

True....but that then led into discussion of the other relationships in that passage and how "head" can't mean "authority" if it's used in reference to the Godhead ( the Trinity being one substance/3 distinct persons/one will....one spirit--for those that are of that belief).

We can circle back around and look at previous posts:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/rebellious-women.7950822/page-163#post-69974703

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/rebellious-women.7950822/page-178#post-70026093

LinkH said:

St. Tertullian?

Click to expand...

You're correct. I was getting my authors mixed up. Tertullian was never declared a saint.

LinkH said:

For me, personally, I don't care that much about Nicea. I don't think new believers need to learn to recite the Nicean Creed or learn the canons, etc. I believe it is best to teach them about the nature of the Godhead right out of the text of scripture, and if you can't do it using scripture, don't bother with it. Many people were saved before the council of Nicea, learning from the Old Testament and the words of Jesus and the apostles, believing the Gospel without memorizing or reciting the Nicene Creed.

Click to expand...

I think you're confused as to the purpose of the creed (and maybe even on the purpose of confessions?). They aren't for the purpose of salvation---they are to clarify and profess beliefs. To say "if you can't do it using Scripture, don't bother with it"? Why do you think we have so many Christian denominations? Because different factions interpret specific Scripture differently and can't worship together peacefully in harmony with that divide. For an example? This verse here:

The Bible said:

Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you…. This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:1,3

Click to expand...

....some take this one verse to support the idea/belief that God, the Father, is the "only true God" (as it's written right there). But, if one were of the orthodox and traditional faith, that conclusion would be rejected (as we believe in a Triune God of 3 distinct and co-equal persons of one substance). Illustrated like this:



Clarifying beliefs is so like-minded people can congregate. Does your church not have a "what we believe" page on their web site? The only faction I'm aware of that doesn't state their doctrine is the "Christian Witnesses of Jehovah God":

That is one great difference between most Christian organizations and the "Christian Witnesses of Jehovah God" that we do not have "doctrines" such as the Trinity or traditional teachings. The Bible is the Word of the only true God and as John says "add nothing else."Jan 13, 2015

Click to expand...

...but the Bible isn't written with certainty---there's a need to deduce and form conclusions....form our faith (which is opposite of certainty).

mkgal1 said:

I think you're confused as to the purpose of the creed (and maybe even on the purpose of confessions?). They aren't for the purpose of salvation---they are to clarify and profess beliefs. To say "if you can't do it using Scripture, don't bother with it"? Why do you think we have so many Christian denominations?

Click to expand...

One could ask why are there so many denominations that cite the Nicene Creed or Apostles' Creed or teach it?

If the apostles didn't use a particular creed when they taught the faith, why should we have to do so?

Clarifying beliefs is so like-minded people can congregate. Does your church not have a "what we believe" page on their web site? The only faction I'm aware of that doesn't state their doctrine is the "Christian Witnesses of Jehovah God":

Click to expand...

I've just moved. I've been to churches with 'what we believe' pages, and some of them use scripture to piont that out.

...but the Bible isn't written with certainty---there's a need to deduce and form conclusions....form our faith (which is opposite of certainty).

Click to expand...

I don't get what you are saying or I don't think about faith the same was as you. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Biblical writers were very confident of their faith, not uncertain about it.

LinkH said:

One could ask why are there so many denominations that cite the Nicene Creed or Apostles' Creed or teach it?

If the apostles didn't use a particular creed when they taught the faith, why should we have to do so?

Click to expand...

I first learnt about the creeds over three decades ago not long after I became a Christian, and I asked the same question. More recently I studied some of the creeds again under the teaching of a lecturer from the main Baptist theology college here in Sydney.

The answer is that the creeds are to guard against heresy and false teaching. It is to clearly identify the orthodox teaching of the church. Therefore to clearly identify heresy, and to stop the church from unintentionally drifting into false teaching. Even if one is unfamiliar with a creed, they are designed to be unambiguous and fairly easily understood. Which makes them very useful.

Scriptures, by themselves, are so easy to twist. The creeds are tools to make scripture-twisting much more difficult.

This is the reason that some of us have (repeatedly) asked you to affirm (or not) one creed or another. Even if you are not familiar with a creed, it would not take much work for you to understand and decide. It would clear up things a lot.

Actually you obfuscate your beliefs so well that I have pretty much lost interest in where you are coming from. But every now and then you post something sufficiently annoying to get my attention. So I'll still comment on any points I find interesting for my own enjoyment. I don't expect you to reply.

greenguzzi,

What I find annoying is when people interpret the wording of a creed in such a way that they find certain beliefs in the Bible difficult to accept. I find that to be more dangerous.

Another big question is 'What has God revealed?' Did God reveal the Bible? Did God reveal the creeds?

Link said:

Another big question is 'What has God revealed?' Did God reveal the Bible? Did God reveal the creeds?

Click to expand...

You don't know a whole lot about church history do you?

@LinkH Would you agree with this statement?

Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father with . . . truth.” (John 4:23) That truth has been recorded in the Bible. (John 17:17) Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God?

For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44) A third line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10) Were they brothers of Almighty God? Of course not! But through their faith in Christ—God’s preeminent Son—they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26)