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

Paidiske said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Paidiske said:

These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Click to expand...

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 said:

I don't think inspiration means dictation.

God speaks through them.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So does God ever control people?

Paidiske said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Paidiske said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Paidiske said:

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

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Paidiske said:

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)

Click to expand...

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

Paidiske said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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".

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.
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.
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".
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.


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.


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

1 Peter 3:1-7

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.

Paidiske said:

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.

Click to expand...

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


Or in this far earlier one from Chrysostom: