 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/11/2005 3:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I'm not sure if any of you follow gender debates, but one sticking point I have found most facinating is the use of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to justify the hermeneutic that Women can be equal to men but universaly subordinate to them.
There is quite a bit of controversy over this. It seems like the majority of Evangelicals affirm an eternal subordination (in eternity--not just the incarnation). Egalitarians (like myself) are suspect of this. What do guys think?
Read my blog at <a href="http://ochuk.gizzar.com" target="_blank">ochuk.gizzar.com</a> | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/11/2005 10:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
Ochuk said...
I'm not sure if any of you follow gender debates, but one sticking point I have found most facinating is the use of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to justify the hermeneutic that Women can be equal to men but universaly subordinate to them.
There is quite a bit of controversy over this. It seems like the majority of Evangelicals affirm an eternal subordination (in eternity--not just the incarnation). Egalitarians (like myself) are suspect of this. What do guys think?
Let me ask my wife what I think....... 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/12/2005 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Jesus said the greatest among you will be the least, the youngest. We should all submit ourselves as Christians. We should consider it an honor to be dishonored. Who cares about equality? When you think about it, what does it even mean? Equality in power? God is almighty. Equality in value? In God's eyes we are all each worth the very life of Jesus. I think that the very question of equality betrays a less-than-godly point of view (not that my POV is God's, I'm stuck here too).
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/12/2005 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | See, I don't generally stick to the doctrine of the subordination of the son, I think subordination really is the wrong word to be using - he has a different role from the father, but I think that it is one of manifestation and revealing rather than being subordinate | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/13/2005 10:13 PM (GMT -6) | | According to 1 Cor. 15:28 the Son will be subject to the Father so that God may be all in all. That appears cut and dry when considering the subordination of the Son. Plus, in many of Paul's letter he writes "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". How can the Father be "the God" of Jesus Christ without subordination? Also in Paul's letters he speaks of all being equal in Christ, but yet seems to turn around supports that women should be subordinate to men. It is important to see the context when Paul makes these statements. When Paul writes that women are to be suborinate to men it is also when discussing earthly matters. When Paul speaks of all being equal and one in Christ, he is speaking in the spiritual sense. While we are still living in our fleshly bodies we are subordinate to others and others are subordinate to us male or female, but in our heavenly, resurrected, glorified, immortal, uncorruptable bodies there is no male or female, jew or gentile, etc. My point is that since we are to consider ourselves as already dead and resurrectind in Christ we should always consider our brothers and sisters in Christ as one, but we cannot deny the earthly world we must live and work in during this life in the flesh.
I am sorry I got a little wordy but I hope I was able to help in your search for truth concerning the subordination of the Son and the gender issues. | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/14/2005 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | klock said...
According to 1 Cor. 15:28 the Son will be subject to the Father so that God may be all in all. That appears cut and dry when considering the subordination of the Son. Plus, in many of Paul's letter he writes "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". How can the Father be "the God" of Jesus Christ without subordination? Also in Paul's letters he speaks of all being equal in Christ, but yet seems to turn around supports that women should be subordinate to men. It is important to see the context when Paul makes these statements. When Paul writes that women are to be suborinate to men it is also when discussing earthly matters. When Paul speaks of all being equal and one in Christ, he is speaking in the spiritual sense. While we are still living in our fleshly bodies we are subordinate to others and others are subordinate to us male or female, but in our heavenly, resurrected, glorified, immortal, uncorruptable bodies there is no male or female, jew or gentile, etc. My point is that since we are to consider ourselves as already dead and resurrectind in Christ we should always consider our brothers and sisters in Christ as one, but we cannot deny the earthly world we must live and work in during this life in the flesh.
I am sorry I got a little wordy but I hope I was able to help in your search for truth concerning the subordination of the Son and the gender issues.
Way too many issues for me to get into there - have a look at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/theoudelphia.html for an overview from my point of view | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/15/2005 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Mark,
After going to the link you gave it seems that the author goes to great lengths to prove that the Bible really doesn't mean was it says just to defend what he believes about trinity theology. Even the name Christ which means "anointed" or "sent one" implys subordination. The Son was sent by the Father.
Post Edited (klock) : 7/15/2005 1:01:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/15/2005 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | At the well,
Maybe I am unclear as to how "submission" is being defined. I am only looking at the basic statements in scripture. By Jesus' own admission and words, He was anointed and sent by the Father and only did the works of the Father and only spoke the words of the Father. The author of Mark's link states that this does not show submission but only that Jesus and the Father are on the same program (I am paraphrasing, not quoting). This is true, but it still does not change the basic fundemental idea that in order to be sent, there must be One Who is sending. In order to be anointed, there must be One Who anoints. I do not think this fact can be denied.
1 Cor. 15:28 states that the Son will be subject to the Father and God will be All in all. Thr Greek used here is hupotasso, which Thayer defines as "to arange under; to subordinate". Breaking the word down to its basic components you get will-being-under-set. This appears to me very cut and dry, that the Son is "under" the Father.
The Jews were looking for the Messiah, the "One sent from God". The kings of Israel were spoken of as "anointed" by God, even Cyrus, a king of a foreign nation is spoken of as being "anointed" or "sent by God" (Isaiah 45:1). These were shadows of the "Messiah" to come.
Klock
| | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/15/2005 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid-
How do you interpret "begotten"?
When you go into the tri-unity theology are you stating that at one time God was only "one person" until the other "persons" were begotten from Him? Because this would stray from the popular trinity belief that the Son and Holy Ghost have been in existence in eternities past along with the Father.
I agree with the statement that the Son's will in an extension of the Father's but with the understanding that it is still two seperate wills as evidenced in the garden when Jesus submitted to the will of the Father and not His own.
The statement that marriage does not have an heirarchy agrees with the current trends in most churches who are more concerned with keeping up with the world rather then teaching what is directly taught in the Bible and cannot be used to compare anything about the relationship of the Son with the Father. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/16/2005 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | I was just quoting the old creed. Begotten not made. I didn't say there was a time when the Son didn't exist.
klock said...
The statement that marriage does not have an heirarchy agrees with the current trends in most churches who are more concerned with keeping up with the world rather then teaching what is directly taught in the Bible and cannot be used to compare anything about the relationship of the Son with the Father. What exactly are you accusing me of? In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. We are one in marriage as we are one in Christ as we are one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father. The statement that marriage does not have heirarchy is taken straight from the Biblical account, not modern feminism.
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..."
When the people at the top of the hierarchy die for those on the bottom, the hierarchy has been flipped. In Christ, we love one another, we put other's desires ahead of our own, we die for each other. The husband acts like Christ who took the form of a servant and washed the feet of his bride.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/16/2005 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...I was just quoting the old creed. Begotten not made. I didn't say there was a time when the Son didn't exist.
klock said...
The statement that marriage does not have an heirarchy agrees with the current trends in most churches who are more concerned with keeping up with the world rather then teaching what is directly taught in the Bible and cannot be used to compare anything about the relationship of the Son with the Father. What exactly are you accusing me of? In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. We are one in marriage as we are one in Christ as we are one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father. The statement that marriage does not have heirarchy is taken straight from the Biblical account, not modern feminism.
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..."
When the people at the top of the hierarchy die for those on the bottom, the hierarchy has been flipped. In Christ, we love one another, we put other's desires ahead of our own, we die for each other. The husband acts like Christ who took the form of a servant and washed the feet of his bride.
How can you quote the passage above and say that someone is not "to submit"? Basically you are saying that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says. When the Bible states that Jesus took on the form of a servant speaks of His taking the form of a mortal man and being obedient to God even to death on the cross (Phil. 2:7-8) not the subject we are discussing here. In the above passage you quoted, Paul is exhorting wives to do what is right in the Lord and that is to submit to their husbands.
I may not understand your point but it seems as though you are putting mortal humans on the same level as Jesus Christ and God the Father. What are you getting at by saying
"We are one in marriage as we are one in Christ as we are one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father."?
We are one WITH Christ or are we one IN Christ? There is a huge differenece in these two statements.
Please elaborate on what you are saying along with the Bible verses.
Klock
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/16/2005 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | |
"We are one WITH Christ or are we one IN Christ? There is a huge differenece in these two statements.
Please elaborate on what you are saying along with the Bible verses."
I believe both are Biblical are they not?
I think the Bible means exactly what it says. Wives should submit to their husbands. Husbands should go even further in their submission to their wives. They should be like Jesus who washed his bride's feet (the job of a very low servant), who gives his life for her, who begs and longs for her, who knocks at her door but doesn't barge in. If this is not the very definition of submissive, I don't know what is.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/16/2005 11:12 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
"We are one WITH Christ or are we one IN Christ? There is a huge differenece in these two statements.
Please elaborate on what you are saying along with the Bible verses."
I believe both are Biblical are they not?
I think the Bible means exactly what it says. Wives should submit to their husbands. Husbands should go even further in their submission to their wives. They should be like Jesus who washed his bride's feet (the job of a very low servant), who gives his life for her, who begs and longs for her, who knocks at her door but doesn't barge in. If this is not the very definition of submissive, I don't know what is
I know that we are one IN Christ, but I am not do not know about one WITH Christ. That is why I asked for Bible verses. I hestitate because it seems to imply that we are equal to Christ and I believe that that is not found in the Bible. I am curious as to what exactly you mean by "one with Christ".
As far as the submission issue, we may have to agree to disagree becasue we are looking at the same verse but seeing different interpretation. I try my best not to interpret what I am reading in scripture, but take it at face value and in direct statements. I have never read that husbands should "submit" to their wives in the same manner as the wife is entreated to submit to the husband. We are to submit to the government, slaves are to submit to their masters, wifes are to submit to their husbands, children are to obey their parents, etc, These are all direct teachings from the bible with no need of extra interpretation.
The Bible is also very clear that the HEAD of the Son is the Father and that the Son will be subject to the Father, Who subjects all under the Son, at the conclusion of the eons so that God may be All in all. Direct statements that need no interpretation. The subordination of the Son is clear and direct in the scriptures. Instead of saying that the bible really doesn't mean what it says, we should adjust our belief to match the clear and direct statements of the bible.
My point has been that during this life's humbling experience God has placed certain individuals over us whom we have been exhorted to submit to. I take Paul's exhortation personally in that I should submit to the government (Rom. 13), submit to those place above me in the workplace and work as though working for the Lord (Eph. 6), etc. Even though we are equal in Christ, I am to submit to the authority God has given them. Take the example of Christ with Pilate. Pilate's authority over Christ at the time of His trial was given to him by God (John 19:11). Christ is our perfect example because He submitted to the Father's will and was obedient even unto death on the cross.
Easy for me to say because I am male, but during this lifetime wives have been exhorted to submit to their husbands. I, for one, see this as setting a heirarchy in the marriage and as world history has shown, those who are given authority for the most part abuse it. That is part of the humbling experience of this life; to see our inability to use our given authority for what God has intended. Because many husbands (I included) have not used this authority always in a godly manner and the many horrible stories of how this is abused, should not change what is a direct and clear exhortation from the Bible.
Does this mean that a husband should always overule what the wife says? No way! My wife completes who I am. This does not mean that we are equal, but actually proves that we are not! I, for one, am glad we are not equal because it is how my wife is different that attracts me to her. In our resurrected life there is no male nor female, but there is still heirarchy. The Bible speaks of thrones, ruling, people being awarded to different levels according to what is accomplished during this lifetime. In our resurrected bodies we will not be hindered by the flesh and will be able to execute our God-given authority in a godly manner because we will be fully lead by the spirit of God. There is authority and rule all the way up until the end of the eons, but as I stated earlier, once all has been subjected under the Son, the Son will then be subjected to the Father and God will be All in all. | | Back to Top | | |
|
RL
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 8/9/2005 9:38 PM (GMT -6) | | At the beginning: "one sticking point I have found most facinating is the use of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son..."
That's not what first Corinthians says.
Find the "until" in the verses. ("Until God be all and in all" And find that all is in Christ before for that purpose.
And also find the many ways in which each Father and Son could be interpreted each way. Paul wanted to keep anyone from doing what the quote implies. He made such an interpretation impossible -- or should be.
(tx) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|