Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

[tall73]

There are other passages that stand out more as potentially manipulative or coercive. Even then I wouldn't say it was outright abusive, given we only have the text to go by, and know nothing else of the relationship between the writer and recipients.

I am saying that there are some places where his text certainly could be taken that way, but at this distance it's a judgement call we can't make.

Why do you keep asking me this? I have made it clear. All Scripture is inspired.

I am asking because you are saying he may have been spiritually abusive, but you are saying it is inspired.

 

[Paidiske]

I am asking because you are saying he may have been spiritually abusive, but you are saying it is inspired.

These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

 

[tall73]

These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

So let's get even more clear.

Do you think that the Holy Spirit inspired the potentially abusive statements of Paul?

And if not, how were they "inspired?"

 

[Paidiske]

Do you think that the Holy Spirit inspired the potentially abusive statements of Paul?

I don't think inspiration means dictation.

And if not, how were they "inspired?"

God speaks through them.

 

[tall73]

I don't think inspiration means dictation.

God speaks through them.

So the Spirit didn't dictate Paul's potential spiritual abuse in your view, but He did speak through Paul when Paul was potentially spiritually abusing?

Perhaps I misunderstand your view entirely.

Are you saying it is fine for God to spiritually abuse, just not people?

 

[Paidiske]

So the Spirit didn't dictate Paul's potential spiritual abuse in your view, but He did speak through Paul when Paul was potentially spiritually abusing?

I wouldn't put it quite like that, but it's probably close enough.

Are you saying it is fine for God to spiritually abuse, just not people?

No. I'm saying that God didn't give these exact words, as if dictating them, but is still active in our receiving of them.

 

[tall73]

I wouldn't put it quite like that, but it's probably close enough.

No. I'm saying that God didn't give these exact words, as if dictating them, but is still active in our receiving of them.

So does God ever control people?

 

[Paidiske]

So does God ever control people?

That's a bit of a weird question, in that our entire existence is sustained only by the will of God. But in general, God - while interacting with us - allows us a degree of freedom in that relationship.

 

[tall73]

I wouldn't put it quite like that, but it's probably close enough.

No. I'm saying that God didn't give these exact words, as if dictating them, but is still active in our receiving of them.

To make things quicker, are you taking a view similar to Karl Barth?

 

[Paidiske]

To make things quicker, are you taking a view similar to Karl Barth?

I'm not familiar enough with Barth's view to be able to answer that.

 

[tall73]

That's a bit of a weird question, in that our entire existence is sustained only by the will of God. But in general, God - while interacting with us - allows us a degree of freedom in that relationship.

It is not a weird question at all. And it is an obvious one given your various statements on control in this thread.

Did God control Saul, and the ones he sent to take David?

1 Samuel 19:20-24 20 Then Saul sent messengers to take David. And when they saw the group of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as leader over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 21 And when Saul was told, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. Then Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. 22 Then he also went to Ramah, and came to the great well that is at Sechu. So he asked, and said, “Where are Samuel and David?”​

And someone said, “Indeed they are at Naioth in Ramah.” 23 So he went there to Naioth in Ramah. Then the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he also stripped off his clothes and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (NKJV)​

 

[Paidiske]

Did God control Saul, and the ones he sent to take David?

I am not a prophet, and do not have this kind of experience. But I see nothing in the text, and have heard or read nothing from those who do have this kind of gift, to make me believe that it is control without a degree of freedom in the human response/cooperation.

 

[Aaron112]

So does God ever control people?

Rather, His Sheep Hear His Voice and Follow Him. Other sheep, or those who listen to other voices, do not follow Him. His Sheep will not follow another voice.

 

[tall73]

But in general, God - while interacting with us - allows us a degree of freedom in that relationship.

Did God control Elymas, through Paul the apostle?

Acts 13

6 Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.”

And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

 

[Paidiske]

Did God control Elymas, through Paul the apostle?

We could play this game endlessly, of you coming up with this or that example of God's intervention and asking if it's control, as if that would somehow invalidate my whole argument. But it wouldn't change what I said earlier; in general God (despite sustaining our very being) allows us a degree of freedom.

 

[tall73]

We could play this game endlessly, of you coming up with this or that example of God's intervention and asking if it's control, as if that would somehow invalidate my whole argument. But it wouldn't change what I said earlier; in general God (despite sustaining our very being) allows us a degree of freedom.

It is not a game. You have introduced rules you place on interpretation which do not match the text.

I am pretty sure we can find a number of examples, though I doubt endlessly.

Is this act of God through an apostle spiritual abuse by your standard? It involved a professed believer.

Acts 5 1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things

 

[Tigran1245]

Unfortunately, having already rejected the Tradition of the Church, Protestants now reject the absolute authority of Holy Scripture...

It’s sad to see this

 

[tall73]

Within marriage, it can take any of the following common forms (as well as some not listed here, especially, for the purposes of our discussion, spiritual abuse; using religious beliefs to control)

Is Paul spiritually abusing by telling people they won't inherit the kingdom of God if they do the following?

​

Galatians 5:19-21 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (NKJV)​

 

[tall73]

Not at all. It fits with the overall context and the bigger picture we are given of Christian relationships and marriage.

You cut out various verses in the NT that all indicate submission, then say the bigger picture shows xyz.

You just ignored the specific advise given, in the NT, by the apostles. That is not looking at the bigger picture. That is reading in whatever you feel like.

No. I have a very robust, coherent, canonical hermeneutic, and a view of what is "truth" in these matters that takes in to account Scripture, tradition, the best of our secular academic disciplines, and lived experience.

You characterize reading what the text actually says as "shallow" proof texting. And then you say the Biblical reading can't be true because of your understanding of secular academics.

You are reading your view into the text, not what is in the text.

but I'm long past having patience with cherry picking a verse or two and building a theological anthropology on that basis, especially when that theological anthropology is demonstrably harmful.

Rather, you are done listening to the specific advice, given by two apostles, in the NT era, given to churches throughout the whole region. You talk about how Jesus restored the ideal. But the apostles do not state the same ideal as you. Did they miss a memo somewhere? This is AFTER Jesus, after the Spirit has come on the church, and they are still saying this, not in words of cultural concession, but in theological arguments.

Yes, the Scriptures talk about mutual submission. And the reason I focused on statements about church leaders is that they show the point. You can submit to each other, and still have leadership. You can submit to one another, yet there are still people God places in roles that are to give guidance. Mutual submission does not remove God-delegated authority to human beings.

You wouldn't even address the ruling authorities, because you have no argument against what the text says. God does delegate authority to people, and to resist the authorities in their legitimate God-given role is to invite judgment, go against conscience, and resist the ordinance of God. The text says it. It is not spiritual abuse. It is God stating what He has ordained.

Peter describes how overseers do not lord it over the flock. And that is true. But Peter does not say what you say. He does speak to how people ought to live, not just salvation, and he does so because God does speak to such issues.

And here again are the texts, from apostles, in the NT era, that you are ignoring and then calling it the "bigger picture".

Ephesians 5:21-33​

21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.​

​

We serve one another, and submit to one another, but we do so in the fear of God, because He is the one that all of us are serving.

But he then spells out specific advice in specific relationships, which God defines, not secular academics.

​

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.​

​

Submitting as to the Lord is not an argument about Roman culture. The same type of argument that is used in Romans 13 regarding the authorities is said here. Submitting to authorities God appoints IS a sign of submitting to God, because He is the one who established the authority.

​

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.​

​

Rome doesn't regard Christ at all. This is not about Roman culture. This is stating that the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church. This speaks to two aspects. Christ is in authority over the church. But Christ also gives Himself, and serves the church, which is mutual submission--but not a change of His authoritative role.

This argument of the husband being head, but as Christ is, is the most extensive treatment of what Christian marriage looks like in the NT, and it is not about Roman culture. It is about Christ. The comparison is spelled out at length. It is not talking about the fall, the OT, but about Christ, the ultimate revelation of God's will. And it compares God's headship of the church to the husband's headship. And it compares our submission to Christ to the wive's submission to husbands.

To ignore it is not to look "at the big picture".

​

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

​

This is straight-forward. It is not based on Roman culture, but is again speaking of the authority of Christ, and the delegated authority to the husband, which is legitimate. Therefore, wives should submit to that authority. And of course, the man must submit to the authority of Christ. It is delegated authority.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 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. (NKJV)​

​

Anyone who does what the text says is not abusing their spouse. Now you say, people are sinful, and don't always do it.

Yes, that is very true. Men don't always love. Women don't always submit. The same is true with parents and children. Yet, parents do have to inform their children of what the Lord requires. They have legitimate authority. They may at times fall short of Christian love. And they need to repent and correct that. But we don't throw out what the apostles say to do, because you don't think people will do it often enough. Because to throw it out is to not teach to do it at all.

Colossians 3:18-19​

​

18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. (NKJV)​

Again, the text does NOT say because of Roman culture. It says as is fitting, in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1-7

1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.​

7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. (NKJV)​

Peter upholds what holy women of old did. He shows continuity, NOT a break with what OT godly women did. This is NT, after the Spirit. And Peter says that they got it right previously. Appealing to OT godly examples is again going beyond Roman culture.

 

[tall73]

and a view of what is "truth" in these matters that takes in to account Scripture, tradition, the best of our secular academic disciplines, and lived experience.

You are only taking the Scriptures you feel support your view, and ignoring the most specific, spelled out Apostolic, NT doctrine on the topic.

And as to tradition, I think you would find a lot of things to disagree with in this homily that was sent out to be preached in the Anglican churches in the 16th century.

HOMILY ON THE STATE OF MATRIMONY

Anglican Library - Homilies, Book 2, Homily 18

Or in this far earlier one from Chrysostom:

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 20 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org