• 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.

Revering Makes Submitting Successful

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Adam and Eve were equal, she wasn't required to submit to him.

Jim,

This would not align well with the OC or NC. First, in the OC God created Eve as Adam's helper. This therefore does show she had a functional role. Equal to Adam in that she was also human as he was human? Yes! Were they both equal and loved by God? Yes! Were they just as important and valuable to God? Yes both were equal in value and importance. But Eve was created for a specific purpose, and that assignment was to follow Adam and be a help to him in the original commission he had been given. This is also what we find taught in the NC writings. Paul stated it very explicitly as to why a woman was created. Paul said: "a woman is the glory of a man . . . man was not made for the woman but the woman was made for the man" (1 Cor. 11:7,9). Though highly unpopular in egalitarian circles if we accept the absolute inspiration of the text we are left that Eve was created for Adam and she was assigned to be his helper, not his leader or not in the same role as Adam. Equal? Yes. With different roles? Yes. the comment about ruling over Eve was not anything new other than now after sin there would be conflict in the roles as sin had disrupted the harmony. Does that make a woman less valuable? Not at all. If this is true then every employer who has employees is demeaning the employees for they too have a different assignment and role than the employer. Plus, it would mean that within the Godhead there is degradation as well. The Holy Spirit is also the Helper by Jesus Christ. Jesus, who though he was also God in the flesh, submitted to God the Father. Does that make Jesus less valuable than the Father? Certainly not! Does it make the Holy Spirit less valuable because the Spirit is called the Helper like Eve was called Adam's helpmate? Certainly not. Functional roles can be different even when all members are equal.

he cannot be blamed for being a bad leader of Eve.

I understand what I think you are trying to communicate. Adam did not control Eve and he did cause her to eat. But, it is not true that Adam was in the same type of sin as Eve. If you will read 1 Timothy 2 closely we find that God says Eve was deceived. Adam's sin was not one of deception but one of purposeful rebellion. And clearly Paul in Romans 5 places the blame for mankind's fall into sin directly on the shoulders of Adam. In chapter 5 verses 12 and following Paul said it three or four times that sin entered the universe through Adam, not through Eve. Adam stood as the covenant head of the human race. Thus Eve experience her fall into sin when Adam deliberately disobeyed God's order.
True, Adam was held to a higher degree of responsibility for what he did, than Eve was. Maybe because she was the "weaker vessel" and easier to deceive. I'm not questioning headship, or value, only the idea of a husband being blamed for poor leadership. It's true that sometimes a man can lead his woman into sin, but many times, a woman leads her man into sin (Probably what happened with Adam). Was Adam's failure to obey God caused by his lack of leadership? Is STEVE correct in saying that "our job as husbands is to spend hours listening...............and then do the right thing." :o
 
Was Adam's failure to obey God caused by his lack of leadership?

Well it is for sure true he should have told his woman "NO." SO in that sense he did fail to lead and in that failure to say no to her he said yes to her and then acted upon that belief by eating of the fruit.
 
Fairlight said:
as long as her husband isn't asking her to do something sinful or physically abusing her..in those cases, she needs to flee to safety/quote]
I agree, there are times when a woman shouldn't submit.
 
First of all submitting has been turned into, the universal word for wife beater practicly. So to begin that word must be nixed and replaced w a new p.c. Word. Like Honor, which requires the same, fundimental principals if not more. Because submit is now something a slave or servent would do, or thats how we take it today. Im not saying rewrite the bible, Gods word is specific, But lets say Honor. So the best way to honor ur husband is to love and respect him. His office and his decisions. Now men must love their wives w all they have, but for men Honor is much more important to him than, love. Women u must honor him, it is the most loving thing u can do. Dont make decisions w out him. Dont go over his head. Honor his requests and men love ur wives, even when ur mad, realise ur depriving her of love is making it hard to honor, love her even when u feel she is not honoring. And women honor him even qhen it looks like he is not loving u. Make this a win win.
 
by the way Adam and EVe were not equal, first of all because she was a physical body part fashoned into a person, Adam had to feel he owned some kind of right to her. seriously if my Toe was fashoned into a person im not gonna let i just fend for itself, or be harmed, or anything else. Eve had to feel dependant on Adam since thats where she came from. And Adam had to be like a tour guide for eve, this is this, I named that Animal a lion, and such and such. So he was a leader from the start, no not equal, all part of Gods plan. The timeing of the creation order i mean.
 
by the way Adam and EVe were not equal

It depends upon how one defines equal.

I define the term this way: equal in that both Adam and Eve were loved by God the same. They were both equally loved, equally important, and equally valuable.

But equality does not mean rule out differences of assignment or function. For example, in the Godhead, which is the fundamental basis for a relational theology, the Father, Son, and Spirit each have their roles, and each is equal to the other. Yet the Father leads and the Son followed and the Spirit was sent by the Son. So even in the Godhead we see order and functional roles. Though no member of the Godhead is any more important than the other each member does have a role and assignment. Equality does not negate functional roles. Equality has to do with worth, value, and positional standing. In regard to men and women they are equally loved before the Lord, each equally important, and equally forgiven in Christ with equal worth in his eye. But they have differing roles and functional assignments.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
by the way Adam and EVe were not equal

It depends upon how one defines equal.

I define the term this way: equal in that both Adam and Eve were loved by God the same. They were both equally loved, equally important, and equally valuable.

But equality does not mean rule out differences of assignment or function. For example, in the Godhead, which is the fundamental basis for a relational theology, the Father, Son, and Spirit each have their roles, and each is equal to the other. Yet the Father leads and the Son followed and the Spirit was sent by the Son. So even in the Godhead we see order and functional roles. Though no member of the Godhead is any more important than the other each member does have a role and assignment. Equality does not negate functional roles. Equality has to do with worth, value, and positional standing. In regard to men and women they are equally loved before the Lord, each equally important, and equally forgiven in Christ with equal worth in his eye. But they have differing roles and functional assignments.
I agree. I believe that feminism and the equal rights agenda have distorted this truth.
 
Pluralfamilies.net said:
First of all submitting has been turned into, the universal word for wife beater practicly. So to begin that word must be nixed and replaced w a new p.c. Word. Like Honor, which requires the same, fundimental principals if not more. Because submit is now something a slave or servent would do, or thats how we take it today. Im not saying rewrite the bible, Gods word is specific, But lets say Honor. So the best way to honor ur husband is to love and respect him. His office and his decisions. Now men must love their wives w all they have, but for men Honor is much more important to him than, love. Women u must honor him, it is the most loving thing u can do. Dont make decisions w out him. Dont go over his head. Honor his requests and men love ur wives, even when ur mad, realise ur depriving her of love is making it hard to honor, love her even when u feel she is not honoring. And women honor him even qhen it looks like he is not loving u. Make this a win win.
Good points. Husbands Love your Wives. Wives Honor your Husbands. Marriage should be a 100/100%, not a 50/50% realtionship like a game of keeping score. Maybe God commanded husbands to love their wives because at times it is difficult for them to do. The same with wives, maybe God commanded wives to submit to (honor) their husbands because at times it is difficult for them to do. (I think I borrowed these last two sentences from Scarecrow)
 

I hate to be pedantic Jim but you have to make a clear distinction between truth which is universally acknowledged and truth as you believe. Feminists and equal rights advocates are not necessarily believers. Personally I believe that Dr. Allen's post was a concise and fair assessment from a religious pov and I respect that, but a secular person would not see that as truth so how can they distort it, they just choose not to believe it surely?

B
 
you have to make a clear distinction between truth which is universally acknowledged and truth as you believe.
Is there such a thing as truth that is universally acknowledged, or is all truth based upon a belief system?
 
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
Jane Austen

But seriously, I believe there are universal truths, wether one is a believer or not. It is called common sense.
 
John Whitten said:
you have to make a clear distinction between truth which is universally acknowledged and truth as you believe.
Is there such a thing as truth that is universally acknowledged, or is all truth based upon a belief system?

Right, we can be super pedantic but I don't see the point.

Is it universally acknowledged that people speak different languages? That the sea is made up of salt water? That snakes are reptiles? I believe that most children and all adults will agree with me, I consider that pretty universal.

In a world with different religions and none at all, people will believe very strongly that their beliefs are the truth. You believe what you believe is true with all your heart but so....do...they.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

Just the one???? :o

;)

B
 
Isabella wrote,
In a world with different religions and none at all, people will believe very strongly that their beliefs are the truth. You believe what you believe is true with all your heart but so....do...they.
Actually that is the point of my question. Humanity is so diverse that I wonder if there really is anything that is universally considered truth.
 
John Whitten said:
Humanity is so diverse that I wonder if there really is anything that is universally considered truth.

Universal Truth = everyone knows there are winners and losers when playing a game, one person who will be promoted at a job, one God that will win over other gods. So I believe winners=knows the Way; the person getting promoted=knows the Way; and the God that conquerors all other gods=is the Way.
 
John Whitten said:
Isabella wrote,
In a world with different religions and none at all, people will believe very strongly that their beliefs are the truth. You believe what you believe is true with all your heart but so....do...they.
Actually that is the point of my question. Humanity is so diverse that I wonder if there really is anything that is universally considered truth.

Well when I come across someone who believes that the oceans are made up of custard, rather than salt water, I may consider that but I don't think we (humanity) are so extreme as to find no points to agree upon, I just don't expect the world to agree with me about social policy, the best way to educate children, family structures or religious beliefs, of course I believe I am entirely right and true but I am not going to insist that everyone believes the same, that is free will surely?

B
 
[/quote]When I come across someone who believes that the oceans are made up of custard, rather than salt water, I may consider that but I don't think we (humanity) are so extreme as to find no points to agree upon, I just don't expect the world to agree with me about social policy, the best way to educate children, family structures or religious beliefs, of course I believe I am entirely right and true but I am not going to insist that everyone believes the same, that is free will surely?B[/quote]
I agree that's free will,thank God for giving us a free will and not creating puppets! We are free to believe whatever we choose to and love whosoever we choose to.
 
Hummm.....some of the definitions for universal truth today are still within the postmodern field of thought or the existential model where truth hinges upon who believes it or upon the numbers who believe it.

Biblically speaking, however, universal truth is whatever God has said to be true in that sphere. Something can be universally true even if every single person in the entire world disagrees with it. Universal is a term that I think is throwing some people off. Universal simply means in a biblical sense in all places at all times. God is the one truth in all places at all times as he is omnipresent. And truth is whatever law he applies or requires or obligates us to in whatever realm we exist.

There are some truths from him that are applied to only certain people at certain times in certain places. For example, Romans 14 speaks of those issues. Some people are free in the Lord to drink some alcohol and others are not. Thus, the law not to drink does not qualify as universal law for all people at all times in all places. It is a law of conscience upon some but not all.

But the truth or law that all people everywhere repent and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord is a universal law that applies to all people at all places at all times.
 
Excellent synopsis, Dr. Allen.

If God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is not the standard of truth in a person's life, then that person must choose what the standard of truth is. Then we get into the turbulent waters of whose truth is right, etc. The Aboriginals in Australia? The Native Americans in Belize? The Celtic pagans of 1000 years ago? The New Agers of modern America? It is rationally impossible to believe that all truths have equal validity, because as soon as one truth contradicts an other, then one of the truths isn't truth anymore.
 
Ah...well, I was defining universal in the non biblical way of course, as was Jane Austen in the quote we are all referencing Dr. Allen. Though I appreciate the definition can be widened I don't think it is terribly helpful to the point....mind you it is a point which has probably been entirely forgotten.

;)

B
 
Back
Top