GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism  (Read 18357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #35 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 10:35:48 »
::eatingpopcorn: - Keeping Volkmar company...

What if - this whole discussion were to start at the other end and work backwards? What if we were to start with the church as the Bride of Christ, something created for the pleasure and glory of God, as something that glorifies God and enjoys Him forever, and extrapolate backwards to better comprehend the male/female relationship? Just a thought...



The Bride of Christ is one of several great metaphors Jesus uses to describe the relationship He has brought us into.

V

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #35 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 10:35:48 »

Offline phoebe

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 344
  • Gender: Female
  • FlowerFarmer
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #36 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 10:49:28 »
::eatingpopcorn: - Keeping Volkmar company...

What if - this whole discussion were to start at the other end and work backwards? What if we were to start with the church as the Bride of Christ, something created for the pleasure and glory of God, as something that glorifies God and enjoys Him forever, and extrapolate backwards to better comprehend the male/female relationship? Just a thought...


 ::eatingpopcorn:
(we gotta get some new snacks...)


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #36 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 10:49:28 »

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #37 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 10:53:10 »
In Genesis 1 and 2, we find a bride and a bridegroom. In the New Testament, the Gospel opens with a bride and a bridegroom. John the Baptist announces that the bridegroom has come to find His bride. And in Revelation 21 and 22 the bride and the bridegroom appear again, only now they have become one.



V

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #37 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 10:53:10 »

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #38 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 11:21:29 »
Is there a BBQ tater chip smiley?

V

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #38 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 11:21:29 »

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #39 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 11:28:48 »
...I think the story about the Bride of Christ begins well before what we call "the Church".... 


V

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #39 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 11:28:48 »



Offline phoebe

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 344
  • Gender: Female
  • FlowerFarmer
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #40 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 12:54:04 »
Is there a BBQ tater chip smiley?

V

How 'bout honey-roasted peanuts?

Or chocolate chip cookies?

 ::shrug::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #40 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 12:54:04 »

Offline phoebe

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 344
  • Gender: Female
  • FlowerFarmer
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #41 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 12:56:42 »
 ::idea::  OH! OH ! I know:  ice cream!

Maybe we have one... I'll go look...

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #42 on: Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 17:12:06 »
::idea::  OH! OH ! I know:  ice cream!

Maybe we have one... I'll go look...




That's the one!!!


V

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #43 on: Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 07:23:01 »
This was the passage I alluded to a while back:

Galatians 1:14 I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

The tune of Galatians 1, from Paul, is: without any man's approval did he learn about God. Without any man's approval did he preach the Gospel--not even the other apostles; without any man's permission did he restore the truth even with trembling and without eloquence or training. The traditions of man that he followed previously disappeared into rubbish.

That's how he fed the Body of Christ that began with Christ, and how it became different from the usual mutual admiration society where people try to hide from God using each other and getting lost in a crowd with its own rules. It's a good thing to keep on doing for the body's sake.
« Last Edit: Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 07:44:29 by Cally »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #43 on: Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 07:23:01 »

Offline Krizo

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Manna: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #44 on: Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 19:33:18 »
Yes, but none of us is Paul (although I suspect that many think they are) and we do not have the insight he had. Either the canon was closed in the first century, and hence the Holy Spirit no longer guides us as He did the apostles in the first, or it is still open and all the self-proclaimed prophets throughout the centuries have been right in that they are taught by God alone and in no need of any external teaching by the church. If the latter is true, all the teachers appointed by the apostles were superfluous and actually harmful for the Christians, who were supposed to learn straight from God, just as Paul did.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #45 on: Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 03:14:26 »
Yes, but none of us is Paul (although I suspect that many think they are) and we do not have the insight he had. Either the canon was closed in the first century, and hence the Holy Spirit no longer guides us as He did the apostles in the first, or it is still open and all the self-proclaimed prophets throughout the centuries have been right in that they are taught by God alone and in no need of any external teaching by the church. If the latter is true, all the teachers appointed by the apostles were superfluous and actually harmful for the Christians, who were supposed to learn straight from God, just as Paul did.

Nope. That attitude is totally a repeat of what happened in Jewish culture, which was anticipated by Christ (that people would again and again repeat that teaching as you are putting forth), hence the universal meaning of "be on your guard against the Pharisees".

Furthermore, I can't see how it is you effectively consider yourself exempt from your own rule when you proceed to revolutionize tradition. How dare you oppose Aquinas or tradition? (I am speaking from your own attitude) On what basis? "God alone" is the one who speaks even when it is people through whom he speaks, and that's why what they say will yield and align to the word of God. Paul would constantly "proof-text" himself with the Old Testament.

Clearly you are saying to me "examine your inevitable tradition" when it disagrees with you.

And clearly, you are saying to me "don't oppose tradition" when it disagrees with you.

Every ideology out there pulls those tricks, I've seen it come from Atheists, who would defend the sanctity of their values and accuse religious tradition. The answer is always: truth. And they all have the same reaction to that. Speaking of which, I am most accustomed to your attitude coming from atheists, so you can consider my beliefs examined. Sacred buzzwords, "equality, sexism" and such. If you consider church tradition so sacred, how does it not bother you that egalitarianism did NOT start as a movement within the church and to this day is mostly promoted by the secular atheist world? How is it--according to your proposed need for intellectual dependency on the church--that they managed to see the light about egalitarianism, equality, and sexism, while managing to completely HATE God, AND the church, AND the Bible? How did THEY manage to pull that off, Krizo?

And yes, atheists are the source of the buzzwords "religious tradition" also.

So what happens when we examine the origins of your influences? (i.e. belief systems similar to yours, as you claimed mine were similar to Aquinas?)
« Last Edit: Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 03:39:17 by Cally »

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #46 on: Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 14:16:25 »
This was the passage I alluded to a while back:

Galatians 1:14 I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

The tune of Galatians 1, from Paul, is: without any man's approval did he learn about God. Without any man's approval did he preach the Gospel--not even the other apostles; without any man's permission did he restore the truth even with trembling and without eloquence or training. The traditions of man that he followed previously disappeared into rubbish.

That's how he fed the Body of Christ that began with Christ, and how it became different from the usual mutual admiration society where people try to hide from God using each other and getting lost in a crowd with its own rules. It's a good thing to keep on doing for the body's sake.



You're missing Paul's point by trying to use Gal. 1 to prove your tradition.

If you'll review Acts 9 and 11 and the first of 13 you'll see that what Paul wrote to the Galatians wasn't a complete account.  You can tease out the details for yourself, but it's apparent that Paul was mentored by Barnabas, and, at least till the split between P and B when the two are mentioned in the text it's in terms of "the apostles Barnabas and Paul".

Paul received a personal revelation of the risen Christ.  The context of his encounter with the Lord is not the norm.  However, that does not preclude the reality that Paul did learn from others.  It's also necessary to note that Paul wasn't ALWAYS right about everything--even though he thought he was.  The rift between P and B over John Mark is indicative of Paul's personality foibles, and, when Paul "strongly urge" Apollos to go to Corinth (I Cor. 16:12) Apollos had to stand his ground and say, "No, I'm not doing that right now, thank you."  I could note a couple of other instances where Paul played lone ranger, and once where he laid aside an agreement he entered into with the council in Jerusalem Acts 15).

Paul's point in Gal. 1 and 2 is that the validity of the Gospel is not dependant upon the stature of the person presenting it.  Gal. 2:2 indicates that Paul had at least some doubt in his own mind about the purity of the Good News he had been proclaiming.


V

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #47 on: Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 16:56:39 »
This was the passage I alluded to a while back:

Galatians 1:14 I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

The tune of Galatians 1, from Paul, is: without any man's approval did he learn about God. Without any man's approval did he preach the Gospel--not even the other apostles; without any man's permission did he restore the truth even with trembling and without eloquence or training. The traditions of man that he followed previously disappeared into rubbish.

That's how he fed the Body of Christ that began with Christ, and how it became different from the usual mutual admiration society where people try to hide from God using each other and getting lost in a crowd with its own rules. It's a good thing to keep on doing for the body's sake.



You're missing Paul's point by trying to use Gal. 1 to prove your tradition.

If you'll review Acts 9 and 11 and the first of 13 you'll see that what Paul wrote to the Galatians wasn't a complete account.  You can tease out the details for yourself, but it's apparent that Paul was mentored by Barnabas, and, at least till the split between P and B when the two are mentioned in the text it's in terms of "the apostles Barnabas and Paul".

Paul received a personal revelation of the risen Christ.  The context of his encounter with the Lord is not the norm.  However, that does not preclude the reality that Paul did learn from others.  It's also necessary to note that Paul wasn't ALWAYS right about everything--even though he thought he was.  The rift between P and B over John Mark is indicative of Paul's personality foibles, and, when Paul "strongly urge" Apollos to go to Corinth (I Cor. 16:12) Apollos had to stand his ground and say, "No, I'm not doing that right now, thank you."  I could note a couple of other instances where Paul played lone ranger, and once where he laid aside an agreement he entered into with the council in Jerusalem Acts 15).

Paul's point in Gal. 1 and 2 is that the validity of the Gospel is not dependant upon the stature of the person presenting it.  Gal. 2:2 indicates that Paul had at least some doubt in his own mind about the purity of the Good News he had been proclaiming.


V

Oh wow.

So on the one hand, you're going up against the group and telling it how wrong they are tradition-wise, and simultaneously telling people to be dependent on a group?

That's called being pretty far gone in the logic department. And no, there is no possible way to interpret Galatians 1 that way. He was specifically pointing out to the Galatians that he avoided people (such as the statement referring to seeing "only James"), to emphasize that his knowledge didn't come from men, unlike the garbage he grew up on.

I said: it is possible to hear from God, THROUGH others.

And I don't have a tradition. If people hear from God in a church, good! There were even a few good Pharisees (to whom one Jesus said "you are not far from the kindgom of heaven"). But being DEPENDENT on men is what causes "Saul" and the contrast in his change of pace is clear: beforehand, he learned from TEACHERS as well as anyone, and the teachings of his Fathers. Galatians 1 shows a man who goes about things quite a bit differently.

Yeah, again . . . "stature," you say? The apostles had "stature" to whom? The Galatians, whom they knew at the time he was writing the Paul himself was an apostle? What would have been the point in avoiding the "stature" of the other apostles to the Galatians while he was a professed apostle himself (the other real apostles acknowledged him as such also, of course)?

Finally, you disagree with Paul, who I am convinced agreed with Christ who agreed with God. Enough said. Besides, if you feel that way about Paul by being a "long ranger", isn't it possible that he was full of it in Galatians 1 anyway?

And I agree with his choices. He urged Apollos (not that either of us know ANYTHING about what that was about) and Apollos says "nah, don't feel like it." And Paul may have changed his mind later.
« Last Edit: Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 17:33:35 by Cally »

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #48 on: Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 22:11:57 »
This was the passage I alluded to a while back:

Galatians 1:14 I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

The tune of Galatians 1, from Paul, is: without any man's approval did he learn about God. Without any man's approval did he preach the Gospel--not even the other apostles; without any man's permission did he restore the truth even with trembling and without eloquence or training. The traditions of man that he followed previously disappeared into rubbish.

That's how he fed the Body of Christ that began with Christ, and how it became different from the usual mutual admiration society where people try to hide from God using each other and getting lost in a crowd with its own rules. It's a good thing to keep on doing for the body's sake.



You're missing Paul's point by trying to use Gal. 1 to prove your tradition.

If you'll review Acts 9 and 11 and the first of 13 you'll see that what Paul wrote to the Galatians wasn't a complete account.  You can tease out the details for yourself, but it's apparent that Paul was mentored by Barnabas, and, at least till the split between P and B when the two are mentioned in the text it's in terms of "the apostles Barnabas and Paul".

Paul received a personal revelation of the risen Christ.  The context of his encounter with the Lord is not the norm.  However, that does not preclude the reality that Paul did learn from others.  It's also necessary to note that Paul wasn't ALWAYS right about everything--even though he thought he was.  The rift between P and B over John Mark is indicative of Paul's personality foibles, and, when Paul "strongly urge" Apollos to go to Corinth (I Cor. 16:12) Apollos had to stand his ground and say, "No, I'm not doing that right now, thank you."  I could note a couple of other instances where Paul played lone ranger, and once where he laid aside an agreement he entered into with the council in Jerusalem Acts 15).

Paul's point in Gal. 1 and 2 is that the validity of the Gospel is not dependant upon the stature of the person presenting it.  Gal. 2:2 indicates that Paul had at least some doubt in his own mind about the purity of the Good News he had been proclaiming.


V

Oh wow.

So on the one hand, you're going up against the group and telling it how wrong they are tradition-wise, and simultaneously telling people to be dependent on a group?

That's called being pretty far gone in the logic department. And no, there is no possible way to interpret Galatians 1 that way. He was specifically pointing out to the Galatians that he avoided people (such as the statement referring to seeing "only James"), to emphasize that his knowledge didn't come from men, unlike the garbage he grew up on.

I said: it is possible to hear from God, THROUGH others.

And I don't have a tradition. If people hear from God in a church, good! There were even a few good Pharisees (to whom one Jesus said "you are not far from the kindgom of heaven"). But being DEPENDENT on men is what causes "Saul" and the contrast in his change of pace is clear: beforehand, he learned from TEACHERS as well as anyone, and the teachings of his Fathers. Galatians 1 shows a man who goes about things quite a bit differently.

Yeah, again . . . "stature," you say? The apostles had "stature" to whom? The Galatians, whom they knew at the time he was writing the Paul himself was an apostle? What would have been the point in avoiding the "stature" of the other apostles to the Galatians while he was a professed apostle himself (the other real apostles acknowledged him as such also, of course)?

Finally, you disagree with Paul, who I am convinced agreed with Christ who agreed with God. Enough said. Besides, if you feel that way about Paul by being a "long ranger", isn't it possible that he was full of it in Galatians 1 anyway?

And I agree with his choices. He urged Apollos (not that either of us know ANYTHING about what that was about) and Apollos says "nah, don't feel like it." And Paul may have changed his mind later.




Really, Cally, I'm quite literate...but your reply is a specimen of uber-stultiloquence.  Try and get some rest tonight, then, after you've taken your meds tomorrow, try again to make an answer.


V

Offline gotagoodwife

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #49 on: Sun Nov 22, 2009 - 07:29:50 »
<snip>
Gal. 2:2 indicates that Paul had at least some doubt in his own mind about the purity of the Good News he had been proclaiming.

V

Or more likely (at least IMO) he was aware that he was in amongst the denomination of law-keeping Christian Jews (Acts 21:20) and was aware that he would be able to say one thing among the elders (those who were of reputation) of that congregation - who would at least listen to him and ponder his words - as opposed to what he could say amongst the congregation at large, who would go ballistic. And then all the work he had done among the gentiles would be in vain because if he was inept in how he did things among the Jews, it could cause a schism within the faith.

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #50 on: Sun Nov 22, 2009 - 09:33:54 »
<snip>
Gal. 2:2 indicates that Paul had at least some doubt in his own mind about the purity of the Good News he had been proclaiming.

V

Or more likely (at least IMO) he was aware that he was in amongst the denomination of law-keeping Christian Jews (Acts 21:20) and was aware that he would be able to say one thing among the elders (those who were of reputation) of that congregation - who would at least listen to him and ponder his words - as opposed to what he could say amongst the congregation at large, who would go ballistic. And then all the work he had done among the gentiles would be in vain because if he was inept in how he did things among the Jews, it could cause a schism within the faith.


Yes, I can see that.  And, the context would seem to support it.

Both of our takes on this are an attempt to look into Paul's motives based on an unexpanded statement in Gal. 1.  For whatever the inner thoughts of Paul, he had some "check" in his heart.  That's not a bad thing.


V

Memphis Dwight

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #51 on: Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 19:28:10 »
I've taken the time to read through the new poster's writings.  Then I made my way past all of the inane chatter regarding popcorn, chips and other various snacks.  I've also looked at Cally's responses. 

One thing that jumps out is that Cally stays on point.  His interpretations are harmonious with the entirety of the bible. 

It is telling that so-called Christian feminists are less honest with the bible than Atheist Feminists.  You ask an atheist feminist what the bible says about wives in relation to their husbands and you'll get a straightforward answer.  They affirm that the bibles teaches authority of the husband over the wife.  You ask an Egalitarian and
after the first thousand words, well, you're more confused than ever. 
But I guess its just like whathisname said, we are just uber-stultiloquence.

Memphis Dwight

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #52 on: Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 19:36:24 »
There was a natural and unstated understanding that Adam was to be the leader even before the fall. Notice a few things:
1.  God doesn't chastise the woman for being deceived.
2.  When God gets to the man, He speaks not just to his eating of the tree, but for also following the lead of his wife.  He was to know better. 

Just think what could have been if the first man had chosen to be a leader to his wife and not putting her into the leadership position. 

God doesn't just chastise him for eating.... but for hearkening unto the voice of his wife as well. 

But also think of this:  Christ's entrance into this world was dependent upon the  wife being submissive to her husband.  Thank God for holy women. 

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #53 on: Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 19:50:24 »
I had something else to add in case the question didn't seem answered. Earlier Krizo somehow disputed what "exousias" applied to, and perhaps emboldening the words to show who exactly it applies to should do the trick to answer her earlier question:

Ephesians 1:21 far above all rule, and authority (exousias), and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.
1:22 He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things for the assembly,

Anyway, again, this passage proves that the Kephale metaphor includes authority.

"In the age to come"? Surely one wouldn't think that is referring to beings burning in hell?

Offline gotagoodwife

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #54 on: Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 21:25:07 »
I had something else to add in case the question didn't seem answered. Earlier Krizo somehow disputed what "exousias" applied to, and perhaps emboldening the words to show who exactly it applies to should do the trick to answer her earlier question:

Ephesians 1:21 far above all rule, and authority (exousias), and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.
1:22 He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things for the assembly,

Anyway, again, this passage proves that the Kephale metaphor includes authority.

"In the age to come"? Surely one wouldn't think that is referring to beings burning in hell?

Referring to your last line ""In the age to come"? Surely one wouldn't think that is referring to beings burning in hell?"

Because...?

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #55 on: Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 21:51:39 »
^Because they aren't "dominions" or "rules" or "authority" "in the age to come" when they're toasting in hell.

Surely when he's talking about "in this age" he's referring to a lot of those that WILL be destroyed, so then why make a distinction? (meaning, there won't BECOME new "authorities" in hell, so what would be the point of also saying "and in the age to come"?)

What's your alternative explanation?  ::shrug::

There were "kingdoms" on Earth in the Bible and Jesus was also higher than those, such as David, "And the Lord said to my Lord." (an emphasis that David, although a king, knew that there was one higher than he.) The saints will also "rule the Earth" at some point, as I understand it, as Jesus rules with the iron scepter.

Jesus does also make reference to "greatest" and "least" in heaven (such as the "least" in the kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist). There is also implication that there will be one on Jesus' right and another on his left in heaven by Jesus not correcting the woman who suggested that there was such a place for two people, apparently.
« Last Edit: Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 22:09:17 by Cally »

Offline gotagoodwife

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #56 on: Thu Nov 26, 2009 - 09:23:13 »
^Because they aren't "dominions" or "rules" or "authority" "in the age to come" when they're toasting in hell.

Surely when he's talking about "in this age" he's referring to a lot of those that WILL be destroyed, so then why make a distinction? (meaning, there won't BECOME new "authorities" in hell, so what would be the point of also saying "and in the age to come"?)

What's your alternative explanation?  ::shrug::

There were "kingdoms" on Earth in the Bible and Jesus was also higher than those, such as David, "And the Lord said to my Lord." (an emphasis that David, although a king, knew that there was one higher than he.) The saints will also "rule the Earth" at some point, as I understand it, as Jesus rules with the iron scepter.

Jesus does also make reference to "greatest" and "least" in heaven (such as the "least" in the kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist). There is also implication that there will be one on Jesus' right and another on his left in heaven by Jesus not correcting the woman who suggested that there was such a place for two people, apparently.

I was thinking of Philippians 2:9  "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, :10  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, :11  and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

All those under the earth will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and for those who are not found written in the Lamb's book of life, I would agree that there are no dominions or rules or rulers in the lake of fire, but obviously they are there under the authority of Christ. His authority must of necessity extends there also.

Otherwise we would need to say that His authority extends over heaven, or over the new heavens and the new earth, but not over the lake of fire.

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #57 on: Thu Nov 26, 2009 - 09:40:19 »
I've taken the time to read through the new poster's writings.  Then I made my way past all of the inane chatter regarding popcorn, chips and other various snacks.  I've also looked at Cally's responses. 

One thing that jumps out is that Cally stays on point.  His interpretations are harmonious with the entirety of the bible. 

It is telling that so-called Christian feminists are less honest with the bible than Atheist Feminists.  You ask an atheist feminist what the bible says about wives in relation to their husbands and you'll get a straightforward answer.  They affirm that the bibles teaches authority of the husband over the wife.  You ask an Egalitarian and
after the first thousand words, well, you're more confused than ever. 
But I guess its just like whathisname said, we are just uber-stultiloquence.


The correct tense for the way in which you use the word is uber-stultiloquent,


Quote
One thing that jumps out is that Cally stays on point.

Yes he does, and that's because if he budges ever so slightly from the party line his whole house of cards collapses.


Quote
His interpretations are harmonious with the entirety of the bible. 

No they are not, but I'll accept that as your opinion.


Do you have a preferred snack food which is more suitable to your refined pallet?   ::playingguitar::


V

Memphis Dwight

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #58 on: Fri Nov 27, 2009 - 05:43:18 »
Volkmar,
You deny that Cally's interpretation are harmonious with all that is revealed
concerning man and woman functions in the bible?  Please show us where he is off base. 
The Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New are given specific directives and principles in regards to the functions of men and women in the spheres of family, church, and government.  All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders. 
Men serve by leading and women lead by serving. 
Heads of families, priests, military leaders, elders, apostles -- men.  Genealogical records in the bible-- list the men. 

The bible reflects a certain chauvenism on God's part.  The atheists are more honest with the bible than so-called christian feminists.  It is not my problem that you refuse to accept that. 

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #59 on: Fri Nov 27, 2009 - 10:14:03 »
Volkmar,
You deny that Cally's interpretation are harmonious with all that is revealed
concerning man and woman functions in the bible?  Please show us where he is off base.  
The Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New are given specific directives and principles in regards to the functions of men and women in the spheres of family, church, and government.  All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders.  
Men serve by leading and women lead by serving.  
Heads of families, priests, military leaders, elders, apostles -- men.  Genealogical records in the bible-- list the men.  

The bible reflects a certain chauvenism on God's part.  The atheists are more honest with the bible than so-called christian feminists.  It is not my problem that you refuse to accept that.  




MD,

 I know for a fact that I and others have posted more than ample refutation as to "Cally's interpretation(s) (being) harmonious with all that is revealed" in the Bible concerning roles/functions/differences/similarities/value/worth relative to God, women, and men.  It's there for all to peruse.  (see these threads...Why the Bible says no women preachers.; Can women be elders? )  I do not say that Cally is totally and entirely wrong on every issue and point--all error contains some truth.  Neither am I saying that I am the repostory of ALL truth, and, without doubt I know that you and Cally are not devoid of fault.  


The Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New are given specific directives and principles in regards to the functions of men and women in the spheres of family, church, and government.  All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders.  
Men serve by leading and women lead by serving.  


True, there are "specific directives and principles" given. At issue is the interpretation and application of such.  Also, you and Cally make much too fine a dichotomy between male/female when it comes to "directives and principles"...you see sex in every "d & p".

You say, "All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders."  That idea is very interpretive, whereas the bulk of scripture actually demonstrates otherwise.  Men, "by nature" (to use your terms) tend to exercise power and authority inappropriately.  Women, "by nature"  tend to attempt control by subtle manipulation.  All of that is a reflection of the Fall, which is the tendency most often illustrated in the Old Testament and said "nature" is what the salvation from God is intended to deliver us from.  Paul said in II Cor. 5:17 that we who are in Christ are a "new creation".  Because of that I would not use OT negative examples as authorization to operate "in the flesh".

Much of the argument in this thread (and elsewhere) has been definitional.  Words such as "head", "submit", "rule", "leader", etc. have been infused with meanings by our traditional English translators, meanings which were either absent or marginal in the original language.  Those traditionally infused meanings become more apparent in view of recent manuscript evidence and the reality of starting with the Jesus and Paul and Peter et. al. paradigm of "new creation."  

Your ideas about polygyny are rooted in an OT accomodation that YHWH made to fallen humans, not His image of New Creatures.



V
« Last Edit: Fri Nov 27, 2009 - 11:07:28 by Volkmar »

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #60 on: Fri Nov 27, 2009 - 11:13:00 »
Quote
I know for a fact that I and others have posted more than ample refutation as to "Cally's interpretation(s) (being) harmonious with all  that is revealed" in the Bible concerning roles/functions/differences/similarities/value/worth relative to God, women, and men.

First of all, where was it exactly that I disputed the "value" and "worth" as in the above quote? Would you care to remind me, exactly?

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #61 on: Fri Nov 27, 2009 - 13:19:50 »
Quote
I know for a fact that I and others have posted more than ample refutation as to "Cally's interpretation(s) (being) harmonious with all  that is revealed" in the Bible concerning roles/functions/differences/similarities/value/worth relative to God, women, and men.

First of all, where was it exactly that I disputed the "value" and "worth" as in the above quote? Would you care to remind me, exactly?


I would seem that "value" and "worth" are subjective relative to the person doing the evaluating...

In numerous instances in more than one thread you've made statements that have amply indicated your relative distain of women.  Phoebe has been your most frequent reciepient of such, though you usually couch it in general terms.  To give you the benefit of the doubt, it may be that such is not your usual intention, but, none the less, perhaps because of age or cultural blind spots and despite your assertions of ontological equality, you often make the most of an opportunity to belittle.

How far would you like me to go in demonstrating examples?  And, BTW, "value" and "worth" were only 2 of 5 areas of concern relative to what MD indicated the Bible is "clear" on concerning women.  I listed such so as to cover as much of the bases I could think of.


V

Offline Volkmar

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3268
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #62 on: Fri Nov 27, 2009 - 15:23:12 »
Volkmar,
You deny that Cally's interpretation are harmonious with all that is revealed
concerning man and woman functions in the bible?  Please show us where he is off base. 
The Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New are given specific directives and principles in regards to the functions of men and women in the spheres of family, church, and government.  All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders. 
Men serve by leading and women lead by serving. 
Heads of families, priests, military leaders, elders, apostles -- men.  Genealogical records in the bible-- list the men. 

The bible reflects a certain chauvenism on God's part.  The atheists are more honest with the bible than so-called christian feminists.  It is not my problem that you refuse to accept that. 




MD,

 I know for a fact that I and others have posted more than ample refutation as to "Cally's interpretation(s) (being) harmonious with all that is revealed" in the Bible concerning roles/functions/differences/similarities/value/worth relative to God, women, and men.  It's there for all to peruse.  (see these threads...Why the Bible says no women preachers.; Can women be elders? )  I do not say that Cally is totally and entirely wrong on every issue and point--all error contains some truth.  Neither am I saying that I am the repostory of ALL truth, and, without doubt I know that you and Cally are not devoid of fault. 


The Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New are given specific directives and principles in regards to the functions of men and women in the spheres of family, church, and government.  All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders. 
Men serve by leading and women lead by serving. 


True, there are "specific directives and principles" given. At issue is the interpretation and application of such.  Also, you and Cally make much too fine a dichotomy between male/female when it comes to "directives and principles"...you see sex in every "d & p".

You say, "All of these point to the general idea of men being naturally leaders."  That idea is very interpretive, whereas the bulk of scripture actually demonstrates otherwise.  Men, "by nature" (to use your terms) tend to exercise power and authority inappropriately.  Women, "by nature"  tend to attempt control by subtle manipulation.  All of that is a reflection of the Fall, which is the tendency most often illustrated in the Old Testament and said "nature" is what the salvation from God is intended to deliver us from.  Paul said in II Cor. 5:17 that we who are in Christ are a "new creation".  Because of that I would not use OT negative examples as authorization to operate "in the flesh".

Much of the argument in this thread (and elsewhere) has been definitional.  Words such as "head", "submit", "rule", "leader", etc. have been infused with meanings by our traditional English translators, meanings which were either absent or marginal in the original language.  Those traditionally infused meanings become more apparent in view of recent manuscript evidence and the reality of starting with the Jesus and Paul and Peter et. al. paradigm of "new creation." 

Your ideas about polygyny are rooted in an OT accomodation that YHWH made to fallen humans, not His image of New Creatures.



V




Oh, almost forgot about this old and recent 30 page thread;Should women cover their head(s) in church?


V

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #63 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 10:49:31 »
Quote
I know for a fact that I and others have posted more than ample refutation as to "Cally's interpretation(s) (being) harmonious with all  that is revealed" in the Bible concerning roles/functions/differences/similarities/value/worth relative to God, women, and men.

First of all, where was it exactly that I disputed the "value" and "worth" as in the above quote? Would you care to remind me, exactly?


I would seem that "value" and "worth" are subjective relative to the person doing the evaluating...

In numerous instances in more than one thread you've made statements that have amply indicated your relative distain of women.  Phoebe has been your most frequent reciepient of such, though you usually couch it in general terms.  To give you the benefit of the doubt, it may be that such is not your usual intention, but, none the less, perhaps because of age or cultural blind spots and despite your assertions of ontological equality, you often make the most of an opportunity to belittle.

How far would you like me to go in demonstrating examples?  And, BTW, "value" and "worth" were only 2 of 5 areas of concern relative to what MD indicated the Bible is "clear" on concerning women.  I listed such so as to cover as much of the bases I could think of.


V

Nope. As I recall, I stuck to scripture.

son of God

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #64 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 14:02:35 »
I have refrained from getting onto this thread from the very start of it.  However.....

I find that few Christians understand what the Word teaches regarding humans being created in the image of God, and what the image is, and flesh of my flesh, and the Father and the Son being one, the latter being the express image of the former, head covering, authority, submission, coming out of, being one in spirit, etc., which are all hingent upon understanding what it is to be born of God.  "Ye are gods".  If the very foundation isn't understood, then how on earth are the subsequent issues to be understood, such as the content of this thread?  

I can't help but think of the line "class!  CLASS!  CLAAASSS!!!!  SHUT UP!"

No, I'm not here calling everyone idiots, but you know what?  "even a fool when they are silent, others will think are wise."  O well.

Each will do what they think is right in their own eyes.  Sometimes scripture is used for that, and sometimes not.  As to where this thread has gone and seems to be going, is there any profit at this point?  Is anyone learning from the others?  Are we growing in our understanding of the Word and in grace and wisdom through it?  Like some other threads, this one doesn't seem to be very profitable for the participants.  Every wonder why?

So, I could no longer hold my tongue on it.  Now you all know that I'm an arrogant jerk, right?  As the line from Princess Bride: "Aaaaaas youuuuuuuu wiiiiiiish."  If you don't know that line's meaning, then go rent the video -- it'll be worth it for that reason.

(One of you needs to look at your PM.)

Offline gotagoodwife

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #65 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 14:55:51 »
I have refrained from getting onto this thread from the very start of it.  However.....

I find that few Christians understand what the Word teaches regarding humans being created in the image of God, and what the image is, and flesh of my flesh, and the Father and the Son being one, the latter being the express image of the former, head covering, authority, submission, coming out of, being one in spirit, etc., which are all hingent upon understanding what it is to be born of God.  "Ye are gods".  If the very foundation isn't understood, then how on earth are the subsequent issues to be understood, such as the content of this thread?  

I can't help but think of the line "class!  CLASS!  CLAAASSS!!!!  SHUT UP!"

No, I'm not here calling everyone idiots, but you know what?  "even a fool when they are silent, others will think are wise."  O well.

Each will do what they think is right in their own eyes.  Sometimes scripture is used for that, and sometimes not.  As to where this thread has gone and seems to be going, is there any profit at this point?  Is anyone learning from the others?  Are we growing in our understanding of the Word and in grace and wisdom through it?  Like some other threads, this one doesn't seem to be very profitable for the participants.  Every wonder why?

So, I could no longer hold my tongue on it.  Now you all know that I'm an arrogant jerk, right?  As the line from Princess Bride: "Aaaaaas youuuuuuuu wiiiiiiish."  If you don't know that line's meaning, then go rent the video -- it'll be worth it for that reason.

(One of you needs to look at your PM.)

Wow... the Dread Pirate Roberts and Sister Mary Elephant all in the same post.  ::eatingpopcorn:
I for one certainly feel all edified...

son of God

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #66 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 15:14:19 »
"The Dread Pirate Roberts isn't really the Dread Pirate Roberts at all."  "But how is that possible, Wesley?"  "Well you see, it's like this...." ::noworries::

son of God

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #67 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 15:17:13 »
There's a big difference between mostly wrong and all wrong.  If they're all wrong, the only thing you can do is go through their pockets for change.   rofl

Offline phoebe

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 344
  • Gender: Female
  • FlowerFarmer
    • View Profile
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #68 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 16:02:44 »
....

So, I could no longer hold my tongue on it.  Now you all know that I'm an arrogant jerk, right? ...


Yes.




son of God

  • Guest
Re: Egalitarianism vs. Complementarism
« Reply #69 on: Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 17:12:25 »
....

So, I could no longer hold my tongue on it.  Now you all know that I'm an arrogant jerk, right? ...


Yes.





Thanks for being honest about it.

After I had typed it, then went and worked on a puzzle, I thought that I had sure written it poorly.  But nevertheless, the thrust I yet hold to.  There is so, so much for me to learn.  Also in how to say it.  I'm sooooo often way off in how to say something.  I looked back on what I had typed in that thread, and boy, did it come across poorly!  Oops.  I realize that there is so much that I am also in error on, I prefer to sit back and read/watch and learn from others.  Sometimes, though, I speak up, either right or wrong.  I just think that the church, generally speaking, doesn't understand scriptural born again, in the image of God, the spiritual significance of Eve coming out of Adam regarding the Father and Son and being flesh of flesh, bone of bone, the express image of the Father, etc.; "sin not", "cannot sin because God's seed remains in him", "ye are gods", "sons of the most high God", etc..  From the basics come all the rest.  Perhaps all the years "deprogramming" and then relearning the very basics, and going from there, has been in error on my part.  I realize that I, too, might very well be self deluded, although by what I read in the Word and from what others say in that regard, that is not evidenced within me, but yet it may be "how great is that darkness."  But one day, face to face!!!! 

"And if your heart condemn you, God is greater than your heart."