The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

[Philip_B]

The only immorality associated with it is the 8th commandment--stealing someone's slave, because that is stealing someone's property which is immoral.

Leviticus 25:39-46
If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. They shall remain with you as hired or bound labourers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.​

This really is a George Orwell Animal Farm the Pig's Poster argument: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Leviticus appears to be arguing a special case for children of the Israel, who can have slaves but can not be made slaves. Note that there is to be a jubilee, and they are returned to ancestral homes. The passage is permissive of slavery but essentially with some limitations.

So far your argument has been, it is in the Bible so God said it is OK, and because God said it is OK then it is moral. I follow the argument, but I do not accept it. Indeed as you by now realise I utterly reject it absolutely.

1. I believe that all people are equal before God, regardless of race, gender, language, social status or anything else.
2. God has called all that is, including each of us, into existence, and each of us bears something of the image and likeness of God.
3. It is only in a fallen world that one sees oneself as better than another, as having some intrinsic right to possess another person, to fail to recognise that image and likeness, or to see that as less worthy of respect and honour.
4. Seeking to own another person is dishonouring to the Image and the Likeness that they carry in their being, and as such is an act that falls short of the glory of God.

Isaiah 61
The Good News of Deliverance
The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners;
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour, and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn; to provide for those who mourn in Zion
to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.​

 

[Ohorseman]

That last line really takes the cake. Are you dishonest? Or are you simply unable to follow the conversation?

It's a lot of work talking to you, because when you are countered, you deflect and change topics. This is a classic example.

You said: "The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?"

I responded: "No, because as I pointed out, patriarchy is a result of the fallen condition of mankind as described in Genesis 3:16. It is in the same category with sickness, death, poverty, envy, greed, and murder."

You replied: "By that logic, we should also place motherhood in the same category with sickness, death, poverty, envy, greed, and murder... and we should even strive to grow babies in artificial wombs."

I answered: "Why would that be? Motherhood wasn't established at the fall. God established that in Genesis 1:28. Motherhood isn't a fallen condition. Patriarchy is."

Caught in a clear error, you acknowledge my point that motherhood began before the fall, but you ignore how that point refutes your earlier point that motherhood is comparable to a fallen condition. And you deflect to attempt to switch the topic to when work began and a discussion of when the animals were named. This is a debate tactic intended to bypass the error in your own logic and continue the debate without addressing your own error. Please stop it. Let's have an honest conversation or just be done with it.

No, I am not dishonest. Are you? Yes, I follow the conversation.

It's not a debate tactic. I was NOT acknowledging error. I was agreeing with you that motherhood started before the Fall (per God's words but not yet realized). ADDITIONALLY, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that an aspect of the curse is associated with motherhood and this came after the Fall. I used "work" as a parallel, hoping this would help you see it. And the same is true with patriarchy. Look at it in this simplified way:

BEFORE FALL
> motherhood existed (in word)
> work existed
> patriarchy existed

AFTER FALL
> motherhood (sorrowful)becomes part of the curse
> work (toilsome) becomes part of the curse
> patriarchy (rule over) becomes part of the curse

We do not say motherhood is a sin. We do not say that work is a sin. We do not say that patriarchy is a sin. You cannot put patriarchy in the "same category" as "murder". Surely you can see that.

It is not deflection. It is not a change of topics. This all has to do with the human condition before the Fall compared to the human condition after the Fall. What is sin. What is not. That said, you ask questions and want answers... but then ignore my questions. You have done this for pages and pages. Respectfully, my questions are meant to break you out of the box that you think in. And, your "classic example" that you provide is cherry picked to your liking and does not reflect the whole.

Maybe you find this toilsome because it challenges your strongly held egalitarian mindset. I'm sorry if the way I think and express myself frustrates you. I do the best that I can and it is not my intention to irritate you, honestly. Again, I'm sorry.

But, please answer my questions. Thanks.

 

[Clare73]

So far your argument has been. . .God said it is OK, and because God said it is OK then it is moral. . .I do not accept it. . .I utterly reject it absolutely.

Pretty close. . .for me, it can be described as
"God said it, that settles it, I believe it."

You are the authority for your religion. That is your prerogative.

The authority for mine is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16), all of them, not just the ones that I like, understood in the light of the NT.

I don't judge God's word written, it judges me.

 

[Philip_B]

Pretty close. . .for me, it can be described as
"God said it, that settles it, I believe it."

You are the authority for your religion. That is your prerogative.

The authority for mine is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16), all of them, not just the ones that I like, understood in the light of the NT.

I don't judge God's word written, it judges me.

As you would understand I am neither a fundamentalist, nor am I a biblical literalist. Like like many are forced to wrestle with Pilate's Question - what is truth?

As for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work'. I don't have any problem with it, however I am prepared to ask some questions. The use of graphos here could well mean writing, though the suggestion and the context does leave this open to something of a specific collection of writings. That then leads to the question, which specific collection of writings, given that the canon of neither Old or New Testament had not been closed at that time. Does Paul intend it to refer to the New Testament, or the Old Testament, and one would probably conclude at that time he was speaking of the Old Testament, and then one needs to ask was this the LXX (Septuagint), which Paul (and Jesus) clearly used, or the Masoretic canon.

I make no claim to be the authority or my own religion, but rather seek my authority in Scripture, Tradition and Reason. I do take responsibility to know and understand (as far as is possible) what I believe and to give an account of the hope that is in me. Your assertion here I take it was intended to offend. I am more than ready to accept that the scriptures can challenge and comfort, and so they should, for I am not wiser than the ages.

Now we gaze in a glass darkly, but them face to face.

 

[Eloy Craft]

A distinction without relevance.
The issue is morality. God himself authorized slavery, and it is nowhere presented as immoral in the NT.

Are you thinking that it's a moral good for one person to buy another for money? Did God will that or permit it?

 

[Clare73]

Are you thinking that it's a moral good for one person to buy another for money?
Did God will that or permit it?

He authorized it for his purposes. . .as with everything that occurs.

I don't have to know or understand his purposes to trust him.

 

[Clare73]

As you would understand I am neither a fundamentalist, not am I a biblical literalist. Like like many are forced to wrestle with Pilate's Question - what is truth?

I'll bet you are a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists believe in the fundamentals:
1) inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
2) deity of Christ, his virgin birth and miracles,
3) his penal substitutionary death for our sin,
4) his physical resurrection,
5) his personal return.

As for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work'. I don't have any problem with it, however I am prepared to ask some questions. The use of graphos here could well mean writing, though the suggestion and the context does leave this open to something of a specific collection of writings.

That then leads to the question, which specific collection of writings, given that the canon of neither Old or New Testament had not been closed at that time. Does Paul intend it to refer to the New Testament, or the Old Testament, and one would probably conclude at that time he was speaking of the Old Testament, and then one needs to ask was this the LXX (Septuagint), which Paul (and Jesus) clearly used, or the Masoretic canon.

Having received his doctrine from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-5), I'm pretty sure Paul considered his own writings to be Scripture, as were Moses and the Prophets.

However, we have a couple of hints in the NT that some writings were already considered to be Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - where Paul's writings are grouped with "the other Scriptures"

1 Timothy 5:18 - where Paul gives the same authority to Luke's writing (Luke 10:7) as he does to the OT Scriptures. (The wording of Lk 10:7 is unique to Luke's writing.)

I make no claim to be the authority or my own religion, but rather seek my authority in Scripture, Tradition and Reason. I do take responsibility to know and understand (as far as is possible) what I believe and to give an account of the hope that is in me. Your assertion here I take it was intended to offend. I am more than ready to accept that the scriptures can challenge and comfort, and so they should, for I am not wiser than the ages.

Now we gaze in a glass darkly, but them face to face.

 

[Eloy Craft]

He authorized it for his purposes. . .as with everything that occurs.

God turns the works of evil to His own purposes.

 

[Philip_B]

I'll bet you are a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists believe in the fundamentals:

1) inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
2) deity of Christ, his virgin birth and miracles,
3) his penal death for our sin,
4) his physical resurrection,
5) his personal return.​

1. Yes I do believe in the inspiration of scripture, however I am very unlikely to subscribe to the infallibility of Scripture. What I believe about Scripture has been hammered out. I believe in Scripture we have in many and varied ways a record of revelation, written by folk who were inspired (and not robots where they just held the pen and God wrote) and fallible, who had a place in their own age and were not unaffected by it. Culture Context and Tradition all have a bearing on scripture, and it is the richer for it.
2. Yes. And I believe, like Moses, Jesus came to set his people free, for God so loved the world.
3. This could be a semantic problem, however as I do not warmly embrace a doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, but find more helpful notions of Christus Victor where death is swallowed up in victory.
4. Yes
5. Yes, however my views of eschatology are more profound than this. I believe that the Incarnation is eschatological, I believe that the Eucharist is Eschatological, and I really get the ancient Celtic understanding of the border lands and thin places, which makes eschatology realised and yet to come.

The Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism expresses the position a little differently to your list, and I find that list easier, save obviously the question of the infallibility of scripture which I have already discussed.

Fundamentalism
In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church identified what became known as the five fundamentals:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

In 1920, the word "fundamentalist" was first used in print by Curtis Lee Laws, editor of "The Watchman Examiner," a Baptist newspaper. Laws proposed that those Christians who were fighting for the fundamentals of the faith should be called "fundamentalists."
Theological conservatives who rallied around the five fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They rejected the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions. By contrast, while Evangelical groups (such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) typically agree with the "fundamentals" as they are expressed in The Fundamentals, they are often willing to participate in events with religious groups which do not hold to the essential doctrines.
Fundamentalism - WikipediaFundamentalism - Wikipedia​

This of course is now way off topic, save for the truth that Patriarchy was part of the dominant culture in the milieu in which the scriptures were written, so it was just what it was and needed no explanation or justification, and just got written into the text. They didn't hang a question mark over it and ask why, it was just the accepted order of things. When I got married, I suddenly discovered that not everything was as I thought it should be, and that really revolved around the cultural and family tradition in which I was brought up was not exactly the same as my wife. That didn't mean we didn't work it out, however we did have to ask some questions.

So is Patriarchy part of the plan, or is it simply part of the backdrop to the stage where God's plan for our salvation was worked out?

 

[Clare73]

1. Yes I do believe in the inspiration of scripture, however I am very unlikely to subscribe to the infallibility of Scripture. What I believe about Scripture has been hammered out. I believe in Scripture we have in many and varied ways a record of revelation, written by folk who were inspired (and not robots where they just held the pen and God wrote) and fallible, who had a place in their own age and were not unaffected by it. Culture Context and Tradition all have a bearing on scripture, and it is the richer for it.

However, where Scripture is explicit regarding a matter, it is not a product of the culture, but the command of God.

2.Yes. And I believe, like Moses, Jesus came to set his people free, for God so loved the world.
3. This could be a semantic problem, however as I do not warmly embrace a doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, but find more helpful notions of Christus Victor where death is swallowed up in victory.

That is established in the OT sacrificial system, where the sacrifices, which were prefigures of Christ's atoning work, were substitutes paying the penalty of death which atoned for the sin of the Israelite (Leviticus 5:6-7, Leviticus 5:14, Leviticus 6:6, Leviticus 26:41-43).
Hence, penal substitutionary atonement.

4. Yes
5.Yes, however my views of eschatology are more profound than this. I believe that the Incarnation is eschatological, I believe that the Eucharist is Eschatological, and I really get the ancient Celtic understanding of the border lands and thin places, which makes eschatology realised and yet to come.

Agreed.

The Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism expresses the position a little differently to your list, and I find that list easier, save obviously the question of the infallibility of scripture which I have already discussed.

Fundamentalism
In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church identified what became known as the five fundamentals:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

In 1920, the word "fundamentalist" was first used in print by Curtis Lee Laws, editor of "The Watchman Examiner," a Baptist newspaper. Laws proposed that those Christians who were fighting for the fundamentals of the faith should be called "fundamentalists."
Theological conservatives who rallied around the five fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They rejected the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions. By contrast, while Evangelical groups (such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) typically agree with the "fundamentals" as they are expressed in The Fundamentals, they are often willing to participate in events with religious groups which do not hold to the essential doctrines.
Fundamentalism - WikipediaFundamentalism - Wikipedia​

The list I presented is from the Deliverance which the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church issued in 1910, not from Wikipedia.

This of course is now way off topic, save for the truth that Patriarchy was part of the dominant culture in the milieu in which the scriptures were written, so it was just what it was and needed no explanation or justification, and just got written into the text.

A rather loose view, don't you think, of what the word of God written states are the God-breathed writings.
You're treating them like human literature whose authors are human, not divine.
Perhaps a review of Jesus' view of Scripture would be helpful, in
post #66, Is Christianity an umbrella religion?

They didn't hang a question mark over it and ask why, it was just the accepted order of things. When I got married, I suddenly discovered that not everything was as I thought it should be, and that really revolved around the

cultural and family tradition in which I was brought up was not exactly the same as my wife. That didn't mean we didn't work it out, however we did have to ask some questions.
(So is Patriarchy part of the plan, or is it simply part of the backdrop to the stage where God's plan for our salvation was worked out?

The NT presents it as emphatically part of the plan, and for specific divine purposes of God
(1 Corinthians 11:7-12; Ephesians 5:12-31).

 

[Philip_B]

A rather loose view, don't you think, of what the word of God written states are the God-breathed writings. You're treating them like human literature whose authors are human, not divine.

Yes and No. I believe that the Canon of Scripture contains many different writings, and that historical fact is not the only way of conveying truth. I believe that the canon of scripture was written by a wide assortment of people, all inspired by God to write, however I don't accept that we understand the canon of scripture in the way that a follower of Islam would understand the Noble Quran.
Numbers 22:22-20 is quite different to Wisdom 16:10-14. Both passages carry truth yet in very different ways. Both have a valid place in the canon of scripture.

"the word of God written states are the God-breathed writings" is a circumlocutious argument, and I don't think we help the situation by creating a house of cards.

God is Prisoner of neither Book, nor Tabernacle, nor Institution.

 

[Clare73]

Yes and No. I believe that the Canon of Scripture contains many different writings, and that historical fact is not the only way of conveying truth. I believe that the canon of scripture was written by a wide assortment of people, all inspired by God to write, however I don't accept that we understand the canon of scripture in the way that a follower of Islam would understand the Noble Quran.

Do we understand the Jewish Canon the way Jesus understood it?

I gave you a link to the answer to that question in post #490.
What thinketh ye?

Numbers 22:22-20 is quite different to Wisdom 16:10-14. Both passages carry truth yet in very different ways. Both have a valid place in the canon of scripture.

The issue isn't various forms, the issue is truth, all in accord with the truth of God.

"the word of God written states are the God-breathed writings" is a circumlocutious argument, and I don't think we help the situation by creating a house of cards.

Then Scripture is "circumlocutious," because
Jesus said Scripture is the word of God, (Mark 7:13, Matthew 19:4-6), and
and the NT states Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

God is Prisoner of neither Book, nor Tabernacle, nor Institution.

Or is it we, not God, who don't want to be subject to or bound by the word of God written?
(Mark 7:13; Matthew 19:4-6)

 

[Philip_B]

Do we understand the Jewish Canon the way Jesus understood it?

No: Not the least because the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not that clear in Jesus Day. They clearly distinguished between Torah, Prophets, Writings, Psalms and Histories. Then of course the difficulty that Jesus appears to have relied on the Septuagint whereas most advocates for Sola Scriptura would limit their understanding to the Masoretic Canon, which was essential defined to ensure that Christian writings did not make their way into the canon.

What thinketh ye?

Not much. The reformers affirmation of Sola Scriptura is awkward and often not fully understood in our generation, because they certainly did not mean 'me and my bible' (only scripture).

The issue isn't various forms, the issue is truth, all in accord with the truth of God.

Myth can be true without being history.

Then Scripture is "circumlocutious," because
Jesus said Scripture is the word of God, (Mark 7:13, Matthew 19:4-6), and and the NT states Scripture is God-breathed (2Timothy 3:16).

No, because simply it is not one book. The word Bible, means 'the books' or 'library'

Or is it we, not God, who don't want to be subject to or bound by the word of God written (Mark 7:13; Matthew 19:4-6)?

Jesus came to set us free from that kind of religion.

Specifically, for the benefit of readers, and with respect to the OP I think we should stop discussing my view of scripture and return to the matter of Patriarchy. I acknowledge that you and I have polar opposite views on that subject.

 

[Clare73]

No: Not the least because the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not that clear in Jesus Day.

My question relates to the link in post #490 on Jesus' view of Scripture.

Non-responsive.

They clearly distinguished between Torah, Prophets, Writings, Psalms and Histories. Then of course the difficulty that Jesus appears to have relied on the Septuagint whereas most advocates for Sola Scriptura would limit their understanding to the Masoretic Canon, which was essential defined to ensure that Christian writings did not make their way into the canon.

Not much. The reformers affirmation of Sola Scriptura is awkward and often not fully understood in our generation, because they certainly did not mean 'me and my bible' (only scripture).

Myth can be true without being history.

No, because simply it is not one book. The word Bible, means 'the books' or 'library'

Jesus came to set us free from that kind of religion.

Specifically, for the benefit of readers, and with respect to the OP I think we should stop discussing my view of scripture and return to the matter of Patriarchy. I acknowledge that you and I have polar opposite views on that subject.

 

[Philip_B]

Non-responsive.

Largely because I have no wish to hijack this thread. Suffice to say I do not accept all the arguments that are presented there, and I have not intent to rehearse that here. You post there begins "The doctrine of the Reformers' is the doctrine of Jesus, seen in how Jesus related to the Scriptures." Bold and confident statement, however I am not convinced by it, and I have made that clear.

You asked what I thought about that post, and because I said 'not much' you choose to declare me unresponsive. I have been very fair and quite clear. There is more than one view of scripture held by Christians, and I have the decency to allow you yours, whilst having been clear about what I think is different, trying not to loose track of this thread which is about Patriarchy.

Please return to Patriarchy

 

[Paidiske]

The NT presents it as emphatically part of the plan, and for specific divine purposes of God

And yet I read the same NT and say that it is emphatically part of the backdrop. Christ disregarded patriarchal norms. The early church, in many ways, disregarded patriarchal norms. Some of the epistles subverted and relativised patriarchal norms (eg. "there is not male and female," or telling husbands and wives to submit to one another).

Too often patriarchy has been treated as a necessary part of the gospel package, but that is highly questionable.

 

[Clare73]

And yet I read the same NT and say that it is emphatically part of the backdrop. Christ disregarded patriarchal norms. The early church, in many ways, disregarded patriarchal norms. Some of the epistles subverted and relativised patriarchal norms (eg. "there is not male and female," or telling husbands and wives to submit to one another).

Too often patriarchy has been treated as a necessary part of the gospel package, but that is highly questionable.

I'm familiar with that point of view, where Christ disregards what Paul prescribes, etc., setting Scripture against itself, thereby exposing in this view the very misappropriation it assigns to others.

 

[Ohorseman]

Specifically, for the benefit of readers, and with respect to the OP I think we should stop discussing my view of scripture and return to the matter of Patriarchy. I acknowledge that you and I have polar opposite views on that subject.

It is good that you guys put this on the table. It explains why some see the sacred texts as malleable while others do not. Positions on the infallibility of scripture matter. Sometimes a disagreement may be more about that than the actual subject being discussed.

 

[Eloy Craft]

He authorized it for his purposes. . .as with everything that occurs.

I don't have to know or understand his purposes to trust him.

What's the difference between an act permitted and an act authorized?

 

[Clare73]

What's the difference between an act permitted and an act authorized?

God doesn't authorize/sanction sin, but he permits it.