Patriarchal Accountability

[Stuckinthewoods]

I agree that his claims about the Angels being "married" to God is unsubstantiated- I think he uses the term "marriage" too loosely when dealing with the celestial order. I do, however, really appreciate the submission parallels that he makes between marriage and divine submission/headship roles. He conflates the two a bit more than I agree with, but I think at the heart he is correct.

 

[HannahMiller]

I've been a long-time lurker in this community, and more recently, I've become burdened in prayer over a thorny problem that I believe warrants honest discussion: the question of patriarchal accountability.

Truth be told, I've always had a heart for the stranger. My desire is that all of God's people in Christ would be able to find a community to worship, serve in, and call their own—whether that's Reformed Anabaptists (yes, they exist in some small number) or polygynist practitioners and converts in Western society (as missiological exceptions already exist in Eastern contexts, even among intensely conservative microdenominations that have originated in the West).

---

The Drift

Folks who find themselves outside of the camp become a law unto themselves.

Because polygyny is societally unpalatable for various reasons, many people tire of receiving the left foot of fellowship and go off on their own to pursue what they believe to be appropriate. However, without the connective tissue of abiding inside of a body of believers, we drift. As these well-meaning people become a law unto themselves, their interpretation of Holy Scripture begins to matter as much (if not more) than the primary source material: Scripture itself, to include the demands it places upon disciples (between believers and disciples I make no distinction).

---

A Proposal

This is one reason I've been tinkering with the idea of a patriarchal online church.

To be clear, while I'm almost certainly not the right person to be formally participating in such a concept, and am in no way advocating to personally assist with such an idea, I'm still turning the idea over in my mind as something that seems to be sorely needed. I spotted a similar gap in a community of vagabond evangelists and tried to dedicate some cycles to thinking through how to improve things for them as well.

Now, while the legitimacy of a virtual ekklesia might be debated, in underserved communities I believe the real need outweighs any hypothetical nuance. Of course, it's easier to opt-in to opportunities to fellowship without any real accountability (as each head of household is essentially functioning as a law unto themselves), but it affords fewer iron-sharpening opportunities for the men and less protection for the women and children who find themselves in patriarchal households that may not be being managed properly. It also denies the entire household any benefits of exercising gifts and charity within the context of a larger community.

This is disheartening for many reasons, not the least of which would be that it is written that the world will know we are His disciples by our love for one another. If even unholy secular humanists exercise concern for other human beings that co-exist with them on their homesteads, what does our testimony of anti-social behavior really say about us if we aren't seeking to love our neighbor and especially those of the household of faith in a public way? What does it profit? "Do not even publicans do the same?" I digress..

With regard to a patriarchal online church, such a church could have a blended eldership representing both [Messianic] Jewish and Gentile perspectives, and exist for the purpose of mutual edification, wise counsel, and yes (gasp) accountability. They could stand in the gaps to clarify doctrines, resolve disputes and disciple patriarchs. With a composite group of qualified elders, the spirit of Romans 11 could also be fulfilled in a way that virtually every church today can't: there seem to be virtually no modern day mixtures of wild and natural branches where Messianic Jews and Gentiles worship together (pun intended).

---

Prophetic Reasons

There are even prophetic reasons (for those of you so inclined) to strongly consider such a proposal:




How is it that we find ourselves in a community where many folks esteem Hebrew Roots and yet take lightly that which by inspiration was specifically written to the Hebrews? Or how is it that there are entire ministries being founded today based on a prophecy referencing polygyny, and yet these same contrarian champions may forsake the assembling of ourselves together?

I do not write this with a critical spirit, but rather to provoke you to love and good works. Please pray about this and consider it carefully.

---

The Separation Paradox

There also seem to be two different things at play here. The folks who stand apart from the church criticize it as diseased. Yet Paul's counsel was never for the faithful, orthodox members of the Corinthian church to depart from it, to flee. Contrariwise, there was no Scriptural precedent for existing faithfully outside of an institution and not congregating amongst yourselves. Even the Essenes had communities and caves.

So to say "I won't be a part of that unfaithful body" and yet "I won't congregate with any body" seems akin to a type of spiritual auto-immune disorder.

How is it that we have eyes which say to hands they have no need of them? Or how long can an ear, a finger or even a tooth survive apart from the body? If we have been given gifts to edify the body and yet exist apart from the body, do we not steal from the Giver of such good gifts?

Shall those who are not content to be diseased therefore be content to be disordered?

I think these are good things to think on also.

---

The Churchianity Tension

I understand this community's hostility towards and suspicion of "Churchianity." But at the end of the day, conservatively at least a third of the New Testament is written to churches. If Paul were alive today, many folks on these forums would've never received a letter. It is impossible to obey those who have the rule over you as a patriarchal man when you won't submit to the authority or oversight of another human being. This notion that we can be part of the body and yet live in a way that is happily divorced from it is without any scriptural precedent whatsoever.

---

A Broader Pattern

For what it's worth, I've observed the same phenomenon in other camps as well. Folks who are intensely evangelistic and regularly go out on the streets to preach are often ostracized from church communities, viewed with suspicion, and find themselves living as pilgrims and pietistic gypsies, traveling from one congregation to another. As time goes on, many of these people accumulate all kinds of curious doctrines, become plagued with repeated divorces, and other things that would disqualify them from just about everything except church discipline.

No doubt many of them mean well, and even began well. But we must pray and ask the Lord for grace to persevere unto the end, and to be numbered among the sheep of His pasture on the Last Day.

---

Opening the Conversation

I'm open to thoughts, pushback, constructive dialogue, etc. I don't know if something like this has been proposed in the past, but to my mind there would be many benefits, as we all have been given gifts by the Holy Spirit to minister one to another as part of the mystical Body of Christ.

An excellent idea and thank you for bringing these points up. I couldn't agree more! It has actually helped me piece together some thoughts I’ve been mulling over.

A man who expects submission from those under his authority but resists placing himself under authority may have a fundamentally different understanding of leadership from the one Jesus modeled.

Jesus did not model leadership as domination or unquestioning obedience. He washed His disciples’ feet, served those He led, rebuked those who abused power and ultimately gave Himself up for others. His example shows that authority is not about making others instruments of our will, but accepting responsibility for their good through service, humility and love.

A man cannot credibly present submission as a divine obligation for others while treating his own accountability as optional. Does he believe in the principle of submission, or simply in his entitlement to receive it? If he expects his wife to answer to him but refuses accountability to church elders, trusted Christian leaders or a wider Christian community, he risks placing his own judgement beyond correction. Yet no one is immune to pride, error or self-deception. Accountability is not a sign of weak leadership, it is a recognition that no human being is infallible.

Genuine leadership earns trust through character, consistency, humility and a willingness to be held to the same standards imposed on others. Leaders can be wrong, and religious institutions can misuse authority. What matters is whether those in leadership welcome correction, acknowledge their mistakes and recognise their own fallibility.

Equally important, submission must never mean surrendering our conscience or capacity to discern right from wrong. A wife does not lose her moral responsibility or her relationship with God because she is married, just as a husband does not become infallible because he occupies a leadership role. Respecting authority does not mean surrendering our agency or assuming another person’s judgement is always right.

Jesus taught, invited, challenged, corrected and served. He did not eliminate the agency of those He led. His example demonstrates that genuine leadership respects the dignity of others while guiding them with wisdom, humility and love.

I know a lot of people have been burned by the church which makes it even more important to be wise about christian leadership rather than jist rejecting it outright.

Ultimately, the question is whether the leadership we submit to reflects the character of Christ whom the leader claims to follow. Do they use authority to serve or control? Do they welcome correction or resist it? Do they recognise their fallibility, or expect their judgement to be unquestionable?

Authority, responsibility and accountability belong together. The measure of Christian leadership is not simply whether others obey, but whether the person leading reflects the character of Christ. His example reminds us that authority is not a licence for entitlement or control, but a responsibility to love, serve and act for the good of others.

That is the standard against which every claim to Christian leadership, in the home or the church, should be examined.

 

[Kojent]

An excellent idea and thank you for bringing these points up. I couldn't agree more! It has actually helped me piece together some thoughts I’ve been mulling over.

A man who expects submission from those under his authority but resists placing himself under authority may have a fundamentally different understanding of leadership from the one Jesus modeled.

Jesus did not model leadership as domination or unquestioning obedience. He washed His disciples’ feet, served those He led, rebuked those who abused power and ultimately gave Himself up for others. His example shows that authority is not about making others instruments of our will, but accepting responsibility for their good through service, humility and love.

A man cannot credibly present submission as a divine obligation for others while treating his own accountability as optional. Does he believe in the principle of submission, or simply in his entitlement to receive it? If he expects his wife to answer to him but refuses accountability to church elders, trusted Christian leaders or a wider Christian community, he risks placing his own judgement beyond correction. Yet no one is immune to pride, error or self-deception. Accountability is not a sign of weak leadership, it is a recognition that no human being is infallible.

Genuine leadership earns trust through character, consistency, humility and a willingness to be held to the same standards imposed on others. Leaders can be wrong, and religious institutions can misuse authority. What matters is whether those in leadership welcome correction, acknowledge their mistakes and recognise their own fallibility.

Equally important, submission must never mean surrendering our conscience or capacity to discern right from wrong. A wife does not lose her moral responsibility or her relationship with God because she is married, just as a husband does not become infallible because he occupies a leadership role. Respecting authority does not mean surrendering our agency or assuming another person’s judgement is always right.

Jesus taught, invited, challenged, corrected and served. He did not eliminate the agency of those He led. His example demonstrates that genuine leadership respects the dignity of others while guiding them with wisdom, humility and love.

I know a lot of people have been burned by the church which makes it even more important to be wise about christian leadership rather than jist rejecting it outright.

Ultimately, the question is whether the leadership we submit to reflects the character of Christ whom the leader claims to follow. Do they use authority to serve or control? Do they welcome correction or resist it? Do they recognise their fallibility, or expect their judgement to be unquestionable?

Authority, responsibility and accountability belong together. The measure of Christian leadership is not simply whether others obey, but whether the person leading reflects the character of Christ. His example reminds us that authority is not a licence for entitlement or control, but a responsibility to love, serve and act for the good of others.

That is the standard against which every claim to Christian leadership, in the home or the church, should be examined.

Well written, Sister. I was edified.

 

[Stuckinthewoods]

An excellent idea and thank you for bringing these points up. I couldn't agree more! It has actually helped me piece together some thoughts I’ve been mulling over.

A man who expects submission from those under his authority but resists placing himself under authority may have a fundamentally different understanding of leadership from the one Jesus modeled.

Jesus did not model leadership as domination or unquestioning obedience. He washed His disciples’ feet, served those He led, rebuked those who abused power and ultimately gave Himself up for others. His example shows that authority is not about making others instruments of our will, but accepting responsibility for their good through service, humility and love.

A man cannot credibly present submission as a divine obligation for others while treating his own accountability as optional. Does he believe in the principle of submission, or simply in his entitlement to receive it? If he expects his wife to answer to him but refuses accountability to church elders, trusted Christian leaders or a wider Christian community, he risks placing his own judgement beyond correction. Yet no one is immune to pride, error or self-deception. Accountability is not a sign of weak leadership, it is a recognition that no human being is infallible.

Genuine leadership earns trust through character, consistency, humility and a willingness to be held to the same standards imposed on others. Leaders can be wrong, and religious institutions can misuse authority. What matters is whether those in leadership welcome correction, acknowledge their mistakes and recognise their own fallibility.

Equally important, submission must never mean surrendering our conscience or capacity to discern right from wrong. A wife does not lose her moral responsibility or her relationship with God because she is married, just as a husband does not become infallible because he occupies a leadership role. Respecting authority does not mean surrendering our agency or assuming another person’s judgement is always right.

Jesus taught, invited, challenged, corrected and served. He did not eliminate the agency of those He led. His example demonstrates that genuine leadership respects the dignity of others while guiding them with wisdom, humility and love.

I know a lot of people have been burned by the church which makes it even more important to be wise about christian leadership rather than jist rejecting it outright.

Ultimately, the question is whether the leadership we submit to reflects the character of Christ whom the leader claims to follow. Do they use authority to serve or control? Do they welcome correction or resist it? Do they recognise their fallibility, or expect their judgement to be unquestionable?

Authority, responsibility and accountability belong together. The measure of Christian leadership is not simply whether others obey, but whether the person leading reflects the character of Christ. His example reminds us that authority is not a licence for entitlement or control, but a responsibility to love, serve and act for the good of others.

That is the standard against which every claim to Christian leadership, in the home or the church, should be examined.

I agree with @Kojent, very wise.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

An excellent idea and thank you for bringing these points up. I couldn't agree more! It has actually helped me piece together some thoughts I’ve been mulling over.

A man who expects submission from those under his authority but resists placing himself under authority may have a fundamentally different understanding of leadership from the one Jesus modeled.

Jesus did not model leadership as domination or unquestioning obedience. He washed His disciples’ feet, served those He led, rebuked those who abused power and ultimately gave Himself up for others. His example shows that authority is not about making others instruments of our will, but accepting responsibility for their good through service, humility and love.

A man cannot credibly present submission as a divine obligation for others while treating his own accountability as optional. Does he believe in the principle of submission, or simply in his entitlement to receive it? If he expects his wife to answer to him but refuses accountability to church elders, trusted Christian leaders or a wider Christian community, he risks placing his own judgement beyond correction. Yet no one is immune to pride, error or self-deception. Accountability is not a sign of weak leadership, it is a recognition that no human being is infallible.

Genuine leadership earns trust through character, consistency, humility and a willingness to be held to the same standards imposed on others. Leaders can be wrong, and religious institutions can misuse authority. What matters is whether those in leadership welcome correction, acknowledge their mistakes and recognise their own fallibility.

Equally important, submission must never mean surrendering our conscience or capacity to discern right from wrong. A wife does not lose her moral responsibility or her relationship with God because she is married, just as a husband does not become infallible because he occupies a leadership role. Respecting authority does not mean surrendering our agency or assuming another person’s judgement is always right.

Jesus taught, invited, challenged, corrected and served. He did not eliminate the agency of those He led. His example demonstrates that genuine leadership respects the dignity of others while guiding them with wisdom, humility and love.

I know a lot of people have been burned by the church which makes it even more important to be wise about christian leadership rather than jist rejecting it outright.

Ultimately, the question is whether the leadership we submit to reflects the character of Christ whom the leader claims to follow. Do they use authority to serve or control? Do they welcome correction or resist it? Do they recognise their fallibility, or expect their judgement to be unquestionable?

Authority, responsibility and accountability belong together. The measure of Christian leadership is not simply whether others obey, but whether the person leading reflects the character of Christ. His example reminds us that authority is not a licence for entitlement or control, but a responsibility to love, serve and act for the good of others.

That is the standard against which every claim to Christian leadership, in the home or the church, should be examined.

This sounds awfully familiar

 

[MemeFan]

An excellent idea and thank you for bringing these points up. I couldn't agree more! It has actually helped me piece together some thoughts I’ve been mulling over.

A man who expects submission from those under his authority but resists placing himself under authority may have a fundamentally different understanding of leadership from the one Jesus modeled.

Jesus did not model leadership as domination or unquestioning obedience. He washed His disciples’ feet, served those He led, rebuked those who abused power and ultimately gave Himself up for others. His example shows that authority is not about making others instruments of our will, but accepting responsibility for their good through service, humility and love.

A man cannot credibly present submission as a divine obligation for others while treating his own accountability as optional. Does he believe in the principle of submission, or simply in his entitlement to receive it? If he expects his wife to answer to him but refuses accountability to church elders, trusted Christian leaders or a wider Christian community, he risks placing his own judgement beyond correction. Yet no one is immune to pride, error or self-deception. Accountability is not a sign of weak leadership, it is a recognition that no human being is infallible.

Genuine leadership earns trust through character, consistency, humility and a willingness to be held to the same standards imposed on others. Leaders can be wrong, and religious institutions can misuse authority. What matters is whether those in leadership welcome correction, acknowledge their mistakes and recognise their own fallibility.

Equally important, submission must never mean surrendering our conscience or capacity to discern right from wrong. A wife does not lose her moral responsibility or her relationship with God because she is married, just as a husband does not become infallible because he occupies a leadership role. Respecting authority does not mean surrendering our agency or assuming another person’s judgement is always right.

Jesus taught, invited, challenged, corrected and served. He did not eliminate the agency of those He led. His example demonstrates that genuine leadership respects the dignity of others while guiding them with wisdom, humility and love.

I know a lot of people have been burned by the church which makes it even more important to be wise about christian leadership rather than jist rejecting it outright.

Ultimately, the question is whether the leadership we submit to reflects the character of Christ whom the leader claims to follow. Do they use authority to serve or control? Do they welcome correction or resist it? Do they recognise their fallibility, or expect their judgement to be unquestionable?

Authority, responsibility and accountability belong together. The measure of Christian leadership is not simply whether others obey, but whether the person leading reflects the character of Christ. His example reminds us that authority is not a licence for entitlement or control, but a responsibility to love, serve and act for the good of others.

That is the standard against which every claim to Christian leadership, in the home or the church, should be examined.

And to whom shall Pope, Bishop, King or Emperor submit?

Submission only makes sense if relationship is between superior - subordinate.

If there is no superior, there is no submission.

Kings were often High Priests and Emperor creates sovereignity from himself.

So any man who achieved sufficient indepedence, doesn't have to obey anyone.

Natural law and Biblical law are different dimensions of same issue: how to live mirally.

If natural law sees no need for mandatory submission, Biblical law isn't read correctly.

 

[Kojent]

And to whom shall Pope, Bishop, King or Emperor submit?

Submission only makes sense if relationship is between superior - subordinate.

If there is no superior, there is no submission.

Kings were often High Priests and Emperor creates sovereignity from himself.

So any man who achieved sufficient indepedence, doesn't have to obey anyone.

Natural law and Biblical law are different dimensions of same issue: how to live mirally.

If natural law sees no need for mandatory submission, Biblical law isn't read correctly.

Earthly sovereigns are to submit to the Heavenly Sovereign and His ambassadors (e.g. Nathan appearing in King David’s court on behalf of the LORD). The message brought by His ambassadors is to be evaluated by and never contradict God’s Word and His Spirit.

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” - Hebrews 13:17 (KJV)

Most chillingly, there are no New Testament examples of Christian mavericks or vagabonds, lawless gypsies who obstinately refuse to submit to anyone. Such a concept is wholly foreign to two millennia of Church history.

Only two of the seven churches our Lord wrote to in Revelation were spoken of positively: the other five were rebuked, and yet only one of those were threatened with having their candlesticks removed.

Churches are part of God’s program and they should be part of everyone’s program here, too.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That term often revolves around highly institutional churches that establish their own rules on appropriate beliefs. They enforce them rather harshly sometimes. Many, many groups would consider polygyny heresy. So, that’s a clue on how loaded that word can be.

Exactly.

 

[MemeFan]

Earthly sovereigns are to submit to the Heavenly Sovereign and His ambassadors (e.g. Nathan appearing in King David’s court on behalf of the LORD). The message brought by His ambassadors is to be evaluated by and never contradict God’s Word and His Spirit.

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” - Hebrews 13:17 (KJV)

Most chillingly, there are no New Testament examples of Christian mavericks or vagabonds, lawless gypsies who obstinately refuse to submit to anyone. Such a concept is wholly foreign to two millennia of Church history.

Only two of the seven churches our Lord wrote to in Revelation were spoken of positively: the other five were rebuked, and yet only one of those were threatened with having their candlesticks removed.

Churches are part of God’s program and they should be part of everyone’s program here, too.

There may not be New Testament examples, but you did read Bible enough:

Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

And since those men weren't condemned as example or Lord wanted to give Hebrews king, therefore Lord is fine with society without rulers, submission and authority.

Or maybe you can find where in Torah Lord creates governing authorities?

Also, haven't you read Jesus (Matthew 7:12)?

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Upps, Golden rule: For situation where both have rulership over each other is impossible and situation where one rules and another obeys breaks Jesus's command.

This must produce, in political terms, anarchistic society. In societal terms, we call such society voluntaristic. Defined as where all human interactions to be moral must be at least be given consent.

I can also use second love command as my proof.

Therefore, either Paul is advising being voluntary member of church and following spiritual guidance of voluntary mentor or Paul says obedience is mandatory (which makes him false prophet). Now I totally understand why some Christians consider Paul false.

Enjoy meeting new aspect of Jesus:

Once more on Romans 13: James Redford’s “Jesus Is an Anarchist”

As I have an interest in dislodging the sediment of encrusted theological opinion, today I post an excerpt from James Redford’s 2001 essay “Jesus Is an Anarchist,” the text of which is here: …

anthonygflood.com

I have questions for you:

1) Did you make list of all times Jesus didn't obey governement?
2) Is Jesus superior to Paul?
3) Are Jesus commands greater than all Paul's writing?
4) Is Paul false prophet who told us to disobey Jesus?
5) They did Jesus tell his followers to use violence in any form?

 

[Kojent]

There may not be New Testament examples, but you did read Bible enough:

Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

And since those men weren't condemned as example or Lord wanted to give Hebrews king, therefore Lord is fine with society without rulers, submission and authority.

Or maybe you can find where in Torah Lord creates governing authorities?

Also, haven't you read Jesus (Matthew 7:12)?

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Upps, Golden rule: For situation where both have rulership over each other is impossible and situation where one rules and another obeys breaks Jesus's command.

This must produce, in political terms, anarchistic society. In societal terms, we call such society voluntaristic. Defined as where all human interactions to be moral must be at least be given consent.

I can also use second love command as my proof.

Therefore, either Paul is advising being voluntary member of church and following spiritual guidance of voluntary mentor or Paul says obedience is mandatory (which makes him false prophet). Now I totally understand why some Christians consider Paul false.

Enjoy meeting new aspect of Jesus:

Once more on Romans 13: James Redford’s “Jesus Is an Anarchist”

As I have an interest in dislodging the sediment of encrusted theological opinion, today I post an excerpt from James Redford’s 2001 essay “Jesus Is an Anarchist,” the text of which is here: …

anthonygflood.com

I have questions for you:

1) Did you make list of all times Jesus didn't obey governement?
2) Is Jesus superior to Paul?
3) Are Jesus commands greater than all Paul's writing?
4) Is Paul false prophet who told us to disobey Jesus?
5) They did Jesus tell his followers to use violence in any form?

I don’t think the Bible is a book of suggestions. Nor do I consider it one of many tools to be used.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ was sinless. He certainly rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, much to the dismay of his opponents.

2. Paul seems to think so.

3. There is no contradiction between them.

4. What would make you think so?

5. If He had, theonomists would have a field day.

We’re going to need to have a very big talk about the inspiration of and providential preservation of God’s Word before we can start to get into any of this at any real depth.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." - Romans 13:1 (KJV)

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully." - 1 Peter 2:13-19 (KJV)

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men." - Titus 3:1-2 (KJV)

In light of the verses above, you're a false prophet, @MemeFan, plain and simple.

If you were merely misled you wouldn’t insist on attempting to teach others on this forum. I’ll continue to pray for you, but I have very little patience for the loaded questions, the tirades and non-sequiturs coming from your corner at this point.

If you’re proposing that maybe parts of God’s Word are true and parts aren’t, you have a happy inconsistency in your epistemology, to put it mildly.

I know this place isn't quick to run people off, but tolerating sin of this nature in this camp (read: forum) won't end well. It reflects poorly on the folks administering the site and reflects poorly on any attempt at reconciling polygyny with orthodox Christianity.

When you want to win hearts and minds, stop making clowns your mascots.

 

[MemeFan]

I don’t think the Bible is a book of suggestions. Nor do I consider it one of many tools to be used.

Well, we have book of suggestions. It's called of Book of Proverbs.

Proverbs are advice, not commands.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ was sinless. He certainly rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, much to the dismay of his opponents.

What is Caesar's exactly?

And how paying taxes and obeying Caesar's commands is act of love from Caesar?

If thought love doesn't include threat of jail time. I love my son very much, that's way he is in week long jail because he didn't do dishes today.

2. Paul seems to think so.

So Paul isn't sure Lord God Creator of Universe isn't superior over him.

3. There is no contradiction between them.

So if Paul and Jesus agree, then Hebrews 13:7 can't break golden rule and 2nd love commands. Maybe Jesus's words cut down number of possible meanings?

4. What would make you think so?

If Paul says obey and Jesus obedience isn't mandatory, well they can't both be right. It's logical contradiction.

5. If He had, theonomists would have a field day.

So Christian anarchists and pacifists are right. Violence is bad. So you can't demand obedience.

Without force, how are you going to deal with disobedient? Write strongly worded letter? See, all you have is suggestion.

We’re going to need to have a very big talk about the providential preservation of God’s Word before we can start to get into any of this at any real depth.

Oh yes, we should start with Jesus summary of prophets and law. Golden rule and love commands.

Since you call others heretic, per Golden rule, I have right to call you heretic too. Remember, how you want to be treated must be same as you treat others.

So, I should start by investigation your heresies. Let's with your beliefs how to treat your spiritual brothers. How do find that accusing other is act of love?

You did bring this upon yourself.

You’re a false prophet, @MemeFan, plain and simple. If you were merely misled you wouldn’t insist on attempting to teach others on this forum. I’ll continue to pray for you, but I have very little patience for the loaded questions, the tirades and non-sequiturs coming from your corner at this point.

I'm very very bad because I qoute Jesus in ways you disagree? Maybe you have real issue with Jesus and not me.

Also, accusation without claiming any evidence.

If you’re proposing that maybe parts of God’s Word are true and parts aren’t, you have a happy inconsistency in your epistemology.

I don't. I understand why some say Paul is false prophet.

Hebrews doesn't look like a being consistent with Jesus.