Keep reading my posts VV. You haven't gotten to the heart of the matter yet and I don't want to get distracted on a side issue.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Fear of God
- Thread starter Sean Miller
- Start date
Keep reading my posts VV. You haven't gotten to the heart of the matter yet and I don't want to get distracted on a side issue.
Ezekiel 16 paints a little bit different picture of a holy righteous God as a husband of a less than perfect wife, yet He loves her perfectly. True, He puts her away, but its only to bring about repentance/chastening and then He calls her back to himself. No biblically defined wrath there
We aren't playing dodgeball here sir. The question is what does I John 4:17-18 say? Ezekiel 16 is good circumstantial evidence that I'm right, notice what kind of judgement God visits on His wife and remember she was a wife so at one point she was some form of acceptable to Him. Especially when you take Romans 11: 20 and surrounding verses in to account it becomes even clearer that all we can be debating is a matter of degrees here, how bad is wrath and how much are we to fear Him. Because it's clear there is fear and wrath aplenty.
Last edited:
@ZecAustin I think you’ve kinda jumped mid stream without really looking at what’s been posted, or you got started before I had a chance to get home and post more than just a quick blurb.
The original focus of the posts was Eph 5 about a woman reverencing her husband and whether or not the word it was translated from should be understood as fear/terror or filial fear.
Wrath comes from the Greek word orge which means a violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence) by implication, punishment; — anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.
Biblically the inference is always a passion that is on the level of rage and the purpose is vengeance and destruction of the perpetrator, not the chastening with the rod that is painful, but is never intended to kill or maim or disfigure the child.
Is it a matter of degrees? Sure. That’s where rightly dividing comes in. Conflating filial fear with terror falls far short of the example given us of how God interacts with us.
Is there fear associated with God? Of course. Two kinds. The son of the judge who’s done something wrong has a different kind of fear of the man than the murderer who stands in his courtroom. One is the fear of chastening, the other is the fear of wrath. Both are righteous fears but are vastly different.
There are many places in scripture where the fear of God’s wrath and destruction are exemplified. There are also many instances where the filial fear of God is exemplified as I’ve shown above. They are not one and the same “fear” even if the single English word is incapable of differentiating between the two. The context always determines which one it is. In this case, (Eph 5) the usage of the word clearly differentiates it as a filial fear or reverence or respect, not the fear of being destroyed or terrorized.
@Sean Miller it seems I may have misunderstood your intent re the beginning of this thread after reading the pm’s If so, my apologies. I do think this has turned into a good iron sharpening session though so we’ll see where it goes.
The original focus of the posts was Eph 5 about a woman reverencing her husband and whether or not the word it was translated from should be understood as fear/terror or filial fear.
Wrath comes from the Greek word orge which means a violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence) by implication, punishment; — anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.
Biblically the inference is always a passion that is on the level of rage and the purpose is vengeance and destruction of the perpetrator, not the chastening with the rod that is painful, but is never intended to kill or maim or disfigure the child.
Is it a matter of degrees? Sure. That’s where rightly dividing comes in. Conflating filial fear with terror falls far short of the example given us of how God interacts with us.
Is there fear associated with God? Of course. Two kinds. The son of the judge who’s done something wrong has a different kind of fear of the man than the murderer who stands in his courtroom. One is the fear of chastening, the other is the fear of wrath. Both are righteous fears but are vastly different.
There are many places in scripture where the fear of God’s wrath and destruction are exemplified. There are also many instances where the filial fear of God is exemplified as I’ve shown above. They are not one and the same “fear” even if the single English word is incapable of differentiating between the two. The context always determines which one it is. In this case, (Eph 5) the usage of the word clearly differentiates it as a filial fear or reverence or respect, not the fear of being destroyed or terrorized.
@Sean Miller it seems I may have misunderstood your intent re the beginning of this thread after reading the pm’s If so, my apologies. I do think this has turned into a good iron sharpening session though so we’ll see where it goes.
BTW, I’m assuming that everyone engaging in the thread agrees that a wife should not have to fear her husband striking her under the guise of discipline.
If that’s not the case, please cite chapter and verse. I’m aware of scripture regarding children being chastened this way but all I’ve seen regarding a wife is cutting off her hair and shalaking her (putting away) not shellacking her
If that’s not the case, please cite chapter and verse. I’m aware of scripture regarding children being chastened this way but all I’ve seen regarding a wife is cutting off her hair and shalaking her (putting away) not shellacking her
BTW, I’m assuming that everyone engaging in the thread agrees that a wife should not have to fear her husband striking her under the guise of discipline.
If that’s not the case, please cite chapter and verse. I’m aware of scripture regarding children being chastened this way but all I’ve seen regarding a wife is cutting off her hair and shalaking her (putting away) not shellacking her
Lol, I think I perfectly understood the debate. 1 John 4:18 was being used to prove that women weren't supposed to fear their husbands because God doesn't want us to fear Him. That debate has been completely burned to the ground. 1 John 4:18 isn't speaking about God's love at all but rather our love of Him. All of the evidence we have at our disposal now is that Ephesians 5 is saying that women should fear their husbands and thusly their husbands should be terrified of God.
This whole filial fear thing and separating out reverence from terror is sophistry. Scripture doesn't make the distinction. Our modernized minds do. And I don't think that the very long and very contentious march through the "domestic discipline" minefield is profitable to the debate at all. That's just an extension of the whole "patriarchy enables abuse" defense.
The question before us is whether or not women are to be terrified of their husbands and whether men should be terrified of God, from which ever angle you want to come from. All of the evidence I've seen says that yes they are. And all of the dissenting evidence I've seen (except for Webster who seemed to me to be pretty unengaged on the topic) seems to actually support the idea that fear is to incorporate both terror and reverence and so is an even more all-encompassing concept than was being argued against.
@ZecAustin read the passage. It is about the love of God for us, it is about us dwelling in God, its not about us having an impossibly perfect love but rather about us being perfected in/through love, and its all so that we can have boldness in the day of judgement, not terror. The whole passage is about filial fear/love as it plainly depicts and contrasts one who dwells in God versus one who does not. The whole passage is about our relationship to God through our Lord/Adonai Jesus Christ who loved us first. Ephesians makes it pretty clear that our earthly Adown relationship is to mimic the spiritual relationship between us and our heavenly “husband”.
I think the Phoenix just rose from the ashes.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Herein is our† love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.†. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We love him, because he first loved us.
The standard is not”perfect” love, only that His love is perfected in us.
1John 4:11, 12
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
I think the Phoenix just rose from the ashes.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Herein is our† love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.†. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We love him, because he first loved us.
The standard is not”perfect” love, only that His love is perfected in us.
1John 4:11, 12
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
B.S. English doesn’t make the distinction
Case in point: 1 Peter 3:6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham calling him lord: whose daughters yea are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid (Phobeo, same as Eph 5) with any amazement (Ptoesis, To be afraid of with Terror).
Eph. 5 is all about a positive filial fear, not a negative fear or terror. That’s exactly why the translators translated it as reverence instead of fear.
What am I missing here sir? Herein is our love made perfect. How is this about God's love for us? It's our love being made perfect. Are you implying that God's love is somehow imperfect and in need of perfecting? That phoenix is completely buried in ashes. He that feareth is not made perfect love. So again, there is an imperfect love here that needs to be perfected. Are you saying that is God's love? I John 4:17-18 is about us not needing to fear judgement if we love God perfectly. "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgement." I don't how it could be any clearer. It's not God's love driving out our somehow wrong headed fear of Him, it's our love of God (which is expressed through obedience) driving out our need of fear of judgement.
With I John 4 in it's proper place all you have is some pretty sketchy attempts at claiming that the Greek is more nuanced than English can express but that pretty much falls apart in Romans 11:20 when we are told that God will cut us out with severity and that we are to fear this possibility. It's hard to read reverence in to that.
I'm sorry. I know we all want to be nice guys and there's nothing saying we can't be. But we have to take the Bible at face value and adapt our culture to it, not it to our culture. You have to ignore a lot and frankly make some pretty unsupportable leaps of logic to say that the word phobos had two different meanings that were able to be comprehended at the time but couldn't be expressed in the text until Daniel Webster hinted at them 1,800 years later.
It makes a lot more sense to say that while our modern minds recoil from it, and we recognize that it is as countercultural as anything can be, the text makes it clear that women are to be terrified and reverential of their husbands and we are all to be terrified and reverential of God. Now there is a caveat that love can incorporate this fear and transcend it into a beautiful and even mystical relationship, but it has to start with fear.
The Biblical Hebrew language does. Our modern English doesnt.
Our modern culture is all about fear mongering, self justification, and intolerance.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Let's not do what our culture does and make everything about fear. Let's not justify the easy path for us and say realationships should start with fear of punishment. Here's the thing if you only take scripture at face value you know what you end up throwing out. Messianic prophecies and grace.
If all you are looking at is verse 17 then perhaps you can make those claims. The passage is much more detailed than that and disprove what your saying within the passage.
I’ll break it down.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
17. Herein is our† love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.†. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We love him, because he first loved us. Eph. 5:25 Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the church.
So he that feareth is not made perfect in love, and yet under your perspective, you think your wife has to fear so that she can be made perfect in love? These concepts are contradictory and illogical.
Your assertion that terror and reverence are symbiotic and intricately intertwined have been based solely on your own predisposition. Where is your reference that the one who is in Christ should be in terror of God. The Romans passage only supports this if you ignore the part about the contrast between the severity and the goodness of God. Only if you fall away do you have to be worried about being cut off. Those who are in Christ are secure.
Romans 11:2 states that God hath not cast away his people which He forknew. Vrs 7 says that Israel hath not obtained it, but the election (the people that He forknew) hath obtained it. 20 because of unbelief they (unbelieving Israel) were broken off (not the believing remnant vrs 5) and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded (arrogant) but fear (not terror but a filial reverence or humility because you are where you are by faith in Christ). 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. (Even the ones who were cut off in His severity will be grafted back in if they abide not in unbelief)
The whole point of this passage is not that we're to be terrified that God will arbitrarily cut us off with severity. The whole thing is about those that are dwelling in God versus those who aren't. Those who are, have nothing to worry about provided they stay in covenant. These are the ones who may be bold in the day of judgement, because they have a filial covenant. Those who aren't in God are the ones who have to be terrified of judgement. Just like I've been saying the entire time. Wrath and terror are for those outside of filial covenant with God, never for those within covenant with God.
That's a poor understanding of what I was saying. 2000 years ago, everyone understood that the word phobeo was used in two different ways depending on how they were used in the phrase. 1600 AD, the translators of the day understood that the word phobeo was used in two different ways depending on how they were used in the phrase, prime example Eph. 5 where they utilized the word reverence in stead of fear. 1800 AD, Daniel Webster understood that the English word fear had more than one definition depending on how it was used in the phrase. And now, 2000 years after the passage was written, everyone that doesn't have an ax to grind, or a fallacy or misunderstanding of scripture to support, still understands that the word is used in two or more different ways depending on how they are used in the phrase.
This has nothing to do with a modernized mind or the BS that comes from Dobson (whatever that is). It has everything to do with rightly dividing scripture. So far you have yet to address the passage in 1 Peter 3 that absolutely disproves the idea that our wives are to be in terror or fear of their husband, but like Sara, are to be humble and submissive and hold their believing Godly husband in a type of reverence or phobeo, not just without terror, but without any terror. Or prove how reverence is symbiotic and intricately intertwined with terror, and have been decidedly obtuse about the 1 John 4 passage.
I’ll break it down.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
16. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
17. Herein is our† love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
Obviously His love is always perfect. The passage says that our love is made perfect when we dwell in God and God in us. At this point the relationship is obviously filial and that is why we may have boldness in the day of judgement. Those who are not in Christ obviously do not have this filial relationship, thus they are prevented from boldness in the day of judgement because they are appointed to wrath. Those who are in Christ are not appointed to wrath 1 Thess 5 thus they may have boldness through Christ before the Judge.
18. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.†. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We love him, because he first loved us. Eph. 5:25 Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the church.
Because a perfect love like Christs' casts out fear, it does not utilize it as a tool to keep our wives in submission to us. A wife that is submitted utilizing terror will never love her husband like we are to love Christ. If all of her reactions and service are based upon her terror of her husband, rather than from love and reverence of her husband, her love will never be perfected because "she' that feareth is not made perfect in love.
So he that feareth is not made perfect in love, and yet under your perspective, you think your wife has to fear so that she can be made perfect in love? These concepts are contradictory and illogical.
Your assertion that terror and reverence are symbiotic and intricately intertwined have been based solely on your own predisposition. Where is your reference that the one who is in Christ should be in terror of God. The Romans passage only supports this if you ignore the part about the contrast between the severity and the goodness of God. Only if you fall away do you have to be worried about being cut off. Those who are in Christ are secure.
Romans 11:2 states that God hath not cast away his people which He forknew. Vrs 7 says that Israel hath not obtained it, but the election (the people that He forknew) hath obtained it. 20 because of unbelief they (unbelieving Israel) were broken off (not the believing remnant vrs 5) and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded (arrogant) but fear (not terror but a filial reverence or humility because you are where you are by faith in Christ). 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. (Even the ones who were cut off in His severity will be grafted back in if they abide not in unbelief)
The whole point of this passage is not that we're to be terrified that God will arbitrarily cut us off with severity. The whole thing is about those that are dwelling in God versus those who aren't. Those who are, have nothing to worry about provided they stay in covenant. These are the ones who may be bold in the day of judgement, because they have a filial covenant. Those who aren't in God are the ones who have to be terrified of judgement. Just like I've been saying the entire time. Wrath and terror are for those outside of filial covenant with God, never for those within covenant with God.
That's a poor understanding of what I was saying. 2000 years ago, everyone understood that the word phobeo was used in two different ways depending on how they were used in the phrase. 1600 AD, the translators of the day understood that the word phobeo was used in two different ways depending on how they were used in the phrase, prime example Eph. 5 where they utilized the word reverence in stead of fear. 1800 AD, Daniel Webster understood that the English word fear had more than one definition depending on how it was used in the phrase. And now, 2000 years after the passage was written, everyone that doesn't have an ax to grind, or a fallacy or misunderstanding of scripture to support, still understands that the word is used in two or more different ways depending on how they are used in the phrase.
This has nothing to do with a modernized mind or the BS that comes from Dobson (whatever that is). It has everything to do with rightly dividing scripture. So far you have yet to address the passage in 1 Peter 3 that absolutely disproves the idea that our wives are to be in terror or fear of their husband, but like Sara, are to be humble and submissive and hold their believing Godly husband in a type of reverence or phobeo, not just without terror, but without any terror. Or prove how reverence is symbiotic and intricately intertwined with terror, and have been decidedly obtuse about the 1 John 4 passage.
With all due respect, and as nicely as I can say it, an objective, thorough approach to studying the Scriptures.
I'm not content with the content of your post @ZecAustin. Many words have multiple meanings which are dependent on the context of the sentence. If you look at writings that are contemporary to the Gospels you will see the full range of Phobeo being used. The statements made in Greek about Fear of G-d are based of of Teachings from the Tanahk. Yirah which is translated as fear and has multiple meanings that are reflected at the same time but is also used to mean reverence and Pahad which most accurately means dread or the type of fear your describing. Yirah is the one used most often. So unless it's being said that the fear being spoken about in the Gospels is not related to the fear being spoken of in the Tanahk the root of the Phobeo teachings are the Yirah teachings. That would mean that Phobeo teachings would have a meaning more than fear of punishment like Yirah.
There are other words used to mean fear of punishment in Biblical Greek that dont have the multiple meaning.
There are other words used to mean fear of punishment in Biblical Greek that dont have the multiple meaning.
Last edited:
I don't know why there's an argument. You're all saying the same thing.
Other than that, you're just quibbling over what words to use and which part to emphasise.
I thoroughly agree with both @ZecAustin and @Verifyveritas76 as stated above. Well said both of you.
Other than that, you're just quibbling over what words to use and which part to emphasise.
Last edited:
If my children are afraid, they come to me. Once they are in my arms, they are no longer scared. Why? Am I some cute cuddly soft toy that just oozes soppy love? Of course not.
I'm bigger than them, so I'm scary to them - they fear me to some degree simply because I'm big. They don't fear I will actually beat them, I have never done that - they simply see me as bigger and stronger, and therefore scary.
But at the same time they know I love them.
When afraid, they don't run to their little sister - she might love them just as much as I do, but there's something missing.
They come to me BECAUSE I'm scary to them - so they assume that whatever / whoever is making them afraid will ALSO be afraid of me, and I will protect them.
That is a reverential fear. It involves both the "terror" side of fear (they see me as stronger than them and thus physically scary), and the "respect" side of fear. In fact, both are so intermingled you can't really draw the line between the two - nor should you try.
Or as C.S. Lewis put it:
I'm bigger than them, so I'm scary to them - they fear me to some degree simply because I'm big. They don't fear I will actually beat them, I have never done that - they simply see me as bigger and stronger, and therefore scary.
But at the same time they know I love them.
When afraid, they don't run to their little sister - she might love them just as much as I do, but there's something missing.
They come to me BECAUSE I'm scary to them - so they assume that whatever / whoever is making them afraid will ALSO be afraid of me, and I will protect them.
That is a reverential fear. It involves both the "terror" side of fear (they see me as stronger than them and thus physically scary), and the "respect" side of fear. In fact, both are so intermingled you can't really draw the line between the two - nor should you try.
Or as C.S. Lewis put it:
I have little time lately to comment, but I was going to say something along these lines. I agree with both sides actually. I hate watered down fear of God in sermons and expositions. It's a weak link in the Church. I fear God because of what he has the power and the right to do...snuff me out at a moment's notice because of my rebellion and sin. But, my reverence for him lies in the fact that I know he loves me because he sent me his grace through faith. Propitiation is the big theological word that I think applies here (someone correct me if I am wrong).
I operate daily out of fear (trembling) and love of God. I don't see the contradiction.
But I also don't like the implication that men are somehow weak or cowtowing to radical feminism if we operate primarily out of agape toward our wives. Emulation of Christ's agape is sacrifice for the greater good. If a husband sacrifices what is in his best interests for the sake of the family/marriage and the wife models this and reciprocates...guess what? Everybody wins!
Here the thing, After everything I've seen and done in my life so far that G-d has safely pulled me kicking and screaming to the others side, there's only one thing I fear now. Hearing 4 simple words, I know you not. I don't fear the Wrath of G-d, I fear being seperated from the L-rd. If I am to get punished by G-d for something then that means I did something to deserve punishment. He only punishes us for Sin. The penalty for Sin is death, but my Father promised me eternal life. All I have to do Is my best to walk in the way Yeshua set before me, that narrow pass. Justified in the Faith that my father loves me enough to correct me and set me back on the path if start to be disobedient and stray off it. Any punishment other than death (seperation from Him) no matter what type is a tender mercy.
So I've been reading over what you all have continued to say and it brings me back to where I started this conversation in the beginning. I am an honest man and I'm going to speak plainly here. I'm very disappointed with how several of you men (and a few ladies) have argued with me about your "interpretation" of scripture. At NO point have I made an "interpretation" or a "belief" comment in regards to the scriptures I've mentioned throughout the discussion. This very thing is what has divided the church for hundreds of years creating stupid pointless denominational structures that have pushed people apart and away from the overall picture, to LOVE and FEAR GOD!!!! All I have read have been arguments and disagreements of the meaning of the word FEAR and what 70%+ of what the bible talks about the fear and wrath of God. No one can argue what the bible says, MEN it is our duty to follow and uphold the word of God and what it says, we are to LEAD our families in this same way. I have come across multiple people over the years who always put a spin on what the think God is like or how God won't allow things like a divorced woman to marry or to divorce her husband "because that goes against his nature" type of arguments.
I am disappointed because this web site Doctrainal statement says your mission is to follow the bible, the infallible word of God, so where is the actions behind this. I have not once read a single argument from any of you that says what I'm quoting is wrong, all I read is "I don't agree" or personal thoughts on the matter that are NOT Biblical based but opinion based. Here it goes, the reactions and responses I've encountered from most of you have been "Pharisee" responses, the same type of attitude that was used even against JESUS trying to trip him up in his actions of love.
I think most of us are here on BF because we believe that the bible is what it says, that is why we accept Polygamy! How can you accept some of the things that the bible says when it fits what you have been taught or what you like but then be against what other parts of the bible say because you don't like the thought of it or want to accept that God is a God of Wrath, Fear, Anger, jealousy, and LOVE. They all work together and you all seem to be missing that in some way or another. We are not even supposed to argue interpretation of scripture biblically, why is this, because there is only one translation and one meaning of scripture, and if any of us lacks wisdom we are to ask for He gives it freely and without finding fault. Wisdom=understanding.
I will revert back to my original statement, wives are to fear their husbands, this is what scripture says, this is not my interpretation or my belief on the matter, it is what the infallible word of God says. This does not make me a woman hater, as I was accused by a "typical modern based church goer" reaction. IF I am a woman hater than God is a woman hater, and we all know this is not the case. I did not write the scriptures, I am not God, nor do I pretend to know or understand everything, that doesn't change or remove what we have right in front of us in the Word.
The bible is meant to make us uncomfortable, we are supposed to be stretched. I think it is interesting how none of you responded to my reference to Acts 5 and how God killed Ananias and his wife who believed in God, especially those of you who say God is not a God of wrath to his people. How can you make a blanket statements that go against what the bible directly says, and then have no response or even a corrective statement to admit what your belief is or thoughts are wrong? Let us be humble men, accept some times we are wrong and choose to accept and follow what scripture says. This is not something to be argued about. There are a lot of false teachings out there and Jesus cautions us to look out for it and for false profits. Teach what the bible says, follow what it says and live by it.
I have so many family members who think I'm committing a great sin because I am married to two woman, they are "church goers", doctorated by the denominational churches. They argue that it is not right based on Adam and Eve and disregard the rest of what the bible says about it. It really seems to me that's exactly the same approach several of you have had here with this discussion about fear and wrath of God, disregarding what the majority of the Bible says on the topic and only focusing on the scriptures of Love, because that's what fits your thinking and what you want to believe.
I am disappointed because this web site Doctrainal statement says your mission is to follow the bible, the infallible word of God, so where is the actions behind this. I have not once read a single argument from any of you that says what I'm quoting is wrong, all I read is "I don't agree" or personal thoughts on the matter that are NOT Biblical based but opinion based. Here it goes, the reactions and responses I've encountered from most of you have been "Pharisee" responses, the same type of attitude that was used even against JESUS trying to trip him up in his actions of love.
I think most of us are here on BF because we believe that the bible is what it says, that is why we accept Polygamy! How can you accept some of the things that the bible says when it fits what you have been taught or what you like but then be against what other parts of the bible say because you don't like the thought of it or want to accept that God is a God of Wrath, Fear, Anger, jealousy, and LOVE. They all work together and you all seem to be missing that in some way or another. We are not even supposed to argue interpretation of scripture biblically, why is this, because there is only one translation and one meaning of scripture, and if any of us lacks wisdom we are to ask for He gives it freely and without finding fault. Wisdom=understanding.
I will revert back to my original statement, wives are to fear their husbands, this is what scripture says, this is not my interpretation or my belief on the matter, it is what the infallible word of God says. This does not make me a woman hater, as I was accused by a "typical modern based church goer" reaction. IF I am a woman hater than God is a woman hater, and we all know this is not the case. I did not write the scriptures, I am not God, nor do I pretend to know or understand everything, that doesn't change or remove what we have right in front of us in the Word.
The bible is meant to make us uncomfortable, we are supposed to be stretched. I think it is interesting how none of you responded to my reference to Acts 5 and how God killed Ananias and his wife who believed in God, especially those of you who say God is not a God of wrath to his people. How can you make a blanket statements that go against what the bible directly says, and then have no response or even a corrective statement to admit what your belief is or thoughts are wrong? Let us be humble men, accept some times we are wrong and choose to accept and follow what scripture says. This is not something to be argued about. There are a lot of false teachings out there and Jesus cautions us to look out for it and for false profits. Teach what the bible says, follow what it says and live by it.
I have so many family members who think I'm committing a great sin because I am married to two woman, they are "church goers", doctorated by the denominational churches. They argue that it is not right based on Adam and Eve and disregard the rest of what the bible says about it. It really seems to me that's exactly the same approach several of you have had here with this discussion about fear and wrath of God, disregarding what the majority of the Bible says on the topic and only focusing on the scriptures of Love, because that's what fits your thinking and what you want to believe.
Your beleif that Ephesians 5:33 Phobos was not meant as respect or reverence and the translation was changed. Your opinion based of your interpretation.
We're all men and we all discuss to work things out. Sometimes some of us get a revalation and change our stance , other times not. Your beleif is only authority in Your home. Your not the Head over any of us so your disappointment means nothing. It's unfounded since you did make a beleif statement, although you see it as a fact and not beleif. There has been scripture provide to counter your opinon you choose to interpret it in a way that keeps your opinon intact.
This is not humble. This is finger wagging. You say we give typical Pharasse Responses....re-read your post where you elevate your opinion to authority.
Last edited:
This is based off of what bible verses?