Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unbiblical Headship Doctrine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
    [One for one theory] Derf quote: …[W]hat if God actually put man in the garden to fail…[?]

    Like adding contamination to a petri dish? Eze 28:15 Sin was man’s fault not God’s (Rom. 5:12–19).
    No disagreement that sin is man's fault. My point in that thread was to ask the question--was there a reason God gave Adam and Eve such a simple law: Don't eat of that one tree? Seemingly simple to uphold and certainly proven simple to break.
    He needs him [Adam] to fall…This doesn't try to account for the role of women (apologies to women), specifically of Eve.

    She came from him—he was her source (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). Headship is not biblical.
    The "source" comment is a good one. But she came from him before they sinned. I guess I would need to see your definition of headship to know for sure what's unbiblical about the idea. There are numerous passages that show some kind of headship is in play, some between husband and wife (Eph 5:23, Num 30:8), some between father and daughter (Num 30:5), and certainly many between king and people.

    Are you opposed to the idea that women should be under headship of their husbands? Or daughters under their fathers? Your OP was a little disjointed, so I couldn't figure out what your complaint was. Maybe you could reiterate with your specific issues. It seems Eph 5:23 and 1 Cor 11:3 speak of headship of some kind.

    Adam and Eve needed to be redeemed (Rom. 3:25, 26). One is one not two (Matt. 19:6).

    Oops from theology club--could not reply. I'll put my response here.
    I see that you are saying that Eve needed to be redeemed (which i believe, too, but are women handled differently? 1 Tim 2:15. I'm just asking the question...), but I'm not sure how the Matt 19:6 helps to make that case. If the two-become-one thing applies in any way, here, it would seem that it would make Eve guilty even if she didn't sin. Would you support that idea? It could be backed up by 1 Cor 7:14,
    For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    If a woman could be made "holy" by her one-ness with a man in redemption, could Eve be made guilty by her one-ness with Adam in the transgression?

    Thanks for replying here. I haven't been real thrilled with the constant bickering I see in some threads, so I like to post in the theo club. Are you not a member there? can you be? It's not just for men.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Derf View Post
      My point in that thread was to ask the question--was there a reason God gave Adam and Eve such a simple law: Don't eat of that one tree? Seemingly simple to uphold and certainly proven simple to break.
      Sin did not originate with God (Jas 1:17). For anyone who would blame him come the time, it won't fly.

      Originally posted by Derf View Post
      Are you opposed to the idea that women should be under headship of their husbands?
      It's not biblical--and I have no dog in this fight (1 Co 7:1, 8, 32–35).
      Originally posted by Derf View Post
      I see that you are saying that Eve needed to be redeemed (which I believe, too) but are women handled differently? 1 Tim 2:15.
      Nope.

      See:

      Dreams & Visions: Natan


      Originally posted by Derf View Post
      If the two-become-one thing applies in any way, here, it would seem that it would make Eve guilty even if she didn't sin.
      She did sin (2 Cor. 11:3).

      Originally posted by Derf View Post
      1 Cor 7:14...If a woman could be made "holy" by her one-ness with a man in redemption...
      That doesn't always happen (1 Co 7:15). Paul was a widower or his wife abandoned him when he became a believer (not too uncommon by the way).

      Recommended reading:

      'Til Faith Do Us Part by Naomi Schaefer Riley

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
        Sin did not originate with God (Jas 1:17). For anyone who would blame him come the time, it won't fly.
        Not sure why you keep saying this, as I'm not advocating for God originating sin.

        It's not biblical--and I have no dog in this fight (1 Co 7:1, 8, 32–35).Nope.
        But you're not willing to define "it"? And you start a post about "unbiblical headship"? What other fights do you start that you don't have a dog in? Seems a little divisive to me.
        And now, back to our program...


        She did sin (2 Cor. 11:3).
        That verse doesn't say she sinned. It says she was deceived.

        That doesn't always happen (1 Co 7:15). Paul was a widower or his wife abandoned him when he became a believer (not too uncommon by the way).

        Recommended reading:

        'Til Faith Do Us Part by Naomi Schaefer Riley
        A spouse that leaves is handled differently. So that doesn't seem to apply. A daughter that leaves may also be handled differently, as Num 30:3 indicates.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Derf View Post
          [2 Cor. 11:3] That verse doesn't say she sinned. It says she was deceived.
          She yielded to temptation and sinned (Ge 3:6, 2 Cor. 11:3). This isn't rocket science.

          Originally posted by Derf View Post
          A spouse that leaves is handled differently...
          How are they handled? They're not there.

          Originally posted by Derf View Post
          ...A daughter that leaves may also be handled differently...
          Neither mommy nor daddy saves an individual. One must come to the kingdom on his own.

          "The search (7:16–23): The Lord gives Joshua specific instructions for determining who the guilty person is.
          (1) The method (7:16–17): The Lord points out the tribe to which the guilty person belongs; then he points out the clan, then the family, and finally the person himself.
          (2) The man (7:18–23): Achan is found to be the guilty person.
          f. The stoning (7:24–26): Achan and his guilty family members are stoned and their bodies burned." Willmington, H. L. (1999). The Outline Bible (Jos 7:16–26). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.


          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
            She yielded to temptation and sinned (Ge 3:6, 2 Cor. 11:3). This isn't rocket science.
            Maybe. Or maybe she was just deceived. To say she sinned based on those verses is putting words into the scriptures. Here's the crux of the question. God gave Adam instruction about the tree of knowledge of good and evil PRIOR to God creating Eve. If you are saying that Eve sinned, then you are saying that God's commands to Adam apply equally to Eve. But the only way for that to be true is if God either reiterated those commands to Eve after she was brought out of Adam, or if she is bound by all the commands given to Adam. The former is argued against by the slight miswording Eve gave to the serpent when he asked what God had said. She said: [Gen 3:3 KJV] 3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

            Whereas what God said to Adam was:
            [Gen 2:17-18 KJV] 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

            Notice that the immediately following verse (Gen 3:18) shows that God had not yet created Eve when He first gave Adam the command. We are not told that God never reiterated the command after Eve was formed, so we don't know for sure. It seems very likely that Adam was a little overzealous in protecting Eve, so that he may have added to the commandment of God the part about not even touching the tree. Thus it is at least some evidence that Adam delivered the command to Eve.

            So if God never told Eve not to eat of the tree, is it sin if she disobeyed her husband? You say it is. If so, then you must agree with at least some aspect of Adam's headship over Eve even before the transgression. Meaning that headship of some sort is certainly biblical, and part of God's "very good" creation (before the fall). That doesn't mean that man is today innocently applying a "very good" kind of headship--sinful man certainly corrupts God's very good creation.

            How are they handled? They're not there.
            They are allowed to go, and they aren't considered "holy", I suppose.

            Neither mommy nor daddy saves an individual. One must come to the kingdom on his own.
            Just quoting scripture.

            But I disagree on your second point--no one comes to the kingdom on his own--we are all lead to the kingdom in some way. Rom 3:11

            "The search (7:16–23): The Lord gives Joshua specific instructions for determining who the guilty person is.
            (1) The method (7:16–17): The Lord points out the tribe to which the guilty person belongs; then he points out the clan, then the family, and finally the person himself.
            (2) The man (7:18–23): Achan is found to be the guilty person.
            f. The stoning (7:24–26): Achan and his guilty family members are stoned and their bodies burned." Willmington, H. L. (1999). The Outline Bible (Jos 7:16–26). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
            Thank you for that overwhelming evidence in favor of headship. Certainly those children of Achan, not to mention the sheep and oxen and donkeys, were not guilty of Achan's trespass, were they? yet they were condemned to die with Achan. That's headship, don't you think?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              [She yielded to temptation and sinned (Ge 3:6, 2 Cor. 11:3).] Maybe.
              Something about, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat" that isn't clear? Ge 3:6

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              To say she sinned based on those verses is putting words into the scriptures.
              I have not added, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat". Ge 3:6

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              God gave Adam instruction about the tree of knowledge of good and evil prior to God creating Eve.
              Wrong. She was in him. They named the animals (Gen. 2:19, 20; Col. 3:10).

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              If you are saying that Eve sinned, then you are saying that God's commands to Adam apply equally to Eve.
              God created ἄνθρωπος [humankind (man and woman)]. Ge 1:27

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              We don't know for sure.
              You don't know for sure (2 Ti 2:15).

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              It seems very likely that Adam was a little overzealous in protecting Eve, so that he may have added to the commandment of God the part about not even touching the tree.
              If he was so protective of her then why did he stand by allowing her to sin? She added to scripture (Ge 3:3).

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              Thus it is at least some evidence that Adam delivered the command to Eve.
              God gave them (ἄνθρωπος [humankind]) the command (Ge 2:17).

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              So if God never told Eve not to eat of the tree, is it sin if she disobeyed her husband?
              She disobeyed God. Adam did the same (Ge 3:6).
              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              ...[Y]ou must agree with at least some aspect of Adam's headship over Eve even before the transgression.
              Women aren't here to make you a sandwich.

              "Woman...Make me a sandwich." ~ Fox Mulder

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              Meaning that headship of some sort is certainly biblical...
              If you can sell that to your honey, knock yourself out.

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              ...and part of God's "very good" creation (before the fall).
              Very good for you. Not so very good for her.

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              [Unbelievers leaving marriage] They are allowed to go, and they aren't considered "holy", I suppose.
              Allowed? If they're leaving their marriage, they aren't obeying God (Matt. 19:3–9). The abandoned believing spouse is given peace. Ezek. 16:8–14, 1 Co 7:15

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              [Wicked spouse, children, etc.] I disagree on your second point--no one comes to the kingdom on his own...
              Mt 7:14

              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              "...[T]hose children of Achan, not to mention the sheep and oxen and donkeys, were not guilty of Achan's trespass, were they?
              They wanted daddy's money.

              Daddy's Money ~ Ricochet
              Last edited by serpentdove; March 9th, 2017, 11:34 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                [QUOTE=serpentdove;4952842]Something about, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat" that isn't clear? Ge 3:6


                I have not added, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat". Ge 3:6


                Wrong. She was in him. They named the animals (Gen. 2:19, 20; Col. 3:10).
                You were, too, I guess. So you named the animals? In that sense, I suppose you did. But in that sense, you acknowledge Adam's headship.


                God created ἄνθρωπος [humankind (man and woman)]. Ge 1:27
                Is this supposed to be an argument against what I said? You already admitted that Eve only participated in the naming of the animals because she was "in Adam" rather than being individually present.


                You don't know for sure (2 Ti 2:15).
                Correct, I don't. Nor do you.


                If he was so protective of her then why did he stand by allowing her to sin? She added to scripture (Ge 3:3).
                Good question. And yes, she did add to God's command (scripture??). But you don't know the source of that addition, whether it was Adam or Eve that added, or both.

                God gave them (ἄνθρωπος [humankind]) the command (Ge 2:17).
                Only if you acknowledge that what applies to Adam then applies to the whole human race. Once you acknowledge that, which you have, you acknowledge headship of some type.



                Women aren't here to make you a sandwich.
                I'm not asking all women to make me a sandwich. Nor do I have that authority. But I'm not Adam, either. Adam might realistically be in a position to ask all women to make him a sandwich, as daughters, except for the part where God says [Gen 2:24 KJV] 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Thus the ability to demand a sandwich, as help in fulfilling the commands of God and in fulfilling the purposes of God in making creation "very good", might not be unwarranted. But if a son leaves father and mother (and their authority over him) and takes a wife (or has one given to him by her father, as is still the verbal custom in our weddings today: "Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?"), then it seems the sandwich demanding authority has passed to the new husband. (And thus, Mulder's demand was inappropriate, as he wasn't her husband.)


                Very good for you. Not so very good for her.
                Maybe that's why creation is not so very good anymore. We aren't willing to listen to authority: God, father and mother, husband, king, boss, etc.

                But you've given an excellent example of what that curious part of Eve's curse must mean [Gen 3:16] and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee--that women will forever chafe under the fact that their husbands are their leaders, while their husbands exercise heavy handedness.

                You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this, despite your claim not to have a dog in this fight.


                Allowed? If they're leaving their marriage, they aren't obeying God. The abandoned believing spouse is given peace. Ezek. 16:8–14, 1 Co 7:15
                No argument. Paul does say "let him go", meaning "allow him to go".

                They wanted daddy's money.
                The donkeys? And if the donkeys weren't killed for greed, is it possible that the children weren't either? Maybe even infants?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  "You were, [there] too, I guess. So you named the animals?"
                  I wasn't there.

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  "...in that sense, you acknowledge Adam's headship."
                  Strawman Eph 4:14


                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  [God gave them (ἄνθρωπος [humankind]) the command (Ge 2:17).] Only if you acknowledge that what applies to Adam then applies to the whole human race.
                  It applied to them. They were not to eat the apple. You may eat all the apples you'd like.

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  Once you acknowledge that, which you have, you acknowledge headship of some type.
                  Headship is not biblical (Gen. 2:19, 20; Col. 3:10).

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  I'm not Adam...
                  You're no Adam. You're fallen Adam (Rom. 5:12).

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  Adam might realistically be in a position to ask all women to make him a sandwich...
                  He's dead. You're soon to follow (Gen. 2:16, 17, 19; Rom 5:12–14).

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  ...[T]he ability to demand a sandwich, as help in fulfilling the commands of God...
                  God did not command a husband to demand a sandwich from his wife. God commanded he love his wife (Eph. 5:25–33). She is his "companion" (Mal. 2:14)--“a helper comparable to him” (Gen. 2:18, 20).

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  Maybe that's why creation is not so very good anymore. We aren't willing to listen to authority...
                  You aren't her authority. She isn't your authority. Gen. 2:19, 20; Col. 3:10

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  God, father and mother, husband, king, boss, etc.
                  She has dominion over the cat (Gen. 1:28).

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  But you've given an excellent example of what that curious part of Eve's curse must mean [Gen 3:16] and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband...
                  He's fallen.

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  ...he shall rule over thee...
                  Now you're living up to all you can be.

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  ...[T]heir husbands exercise heavy handedness.
                  They do (Mal. 2:14, 15).

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this...
                  Eccl 7:9, Eph 4:14 I have no pony in this race, chicken in the parade, clown in this tent...

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  Paul does say "let him go", meaning "allow him to go".
                  He/she's gone (not unusual by the way).

                  Gone ~ Montgomery Gentry Mt 10:36

                  Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  [Evil children following evil daddy (Jos 7:16–26)] The donkeys?
                  The immoral donkeys--the one the wife is in charge of (Matt. 10:31).

                  Bolivia ~ Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
                  Last edited by serpentdove; March 11th, 2017, 02:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I hope that this is not rude or silly but where is the serpent?

                    Is not the apple a symbol of the fruit of ALL knowledge?

                    Do we not know thing the were unknown before our life began?

                    Do we not learn from ALL that we experience and that starts with Mum and Dad (if you are lucky in today's world) is that not the start of a natural headship process?

                    Is it not therefore possible that these ideas of headship (leadership) are part of the original writers point of view based on their own learnings. SO that we should acknowledge our rightful superiors and respect what ever way this is currently shown by the people of the same church as the bible you are referencing.

                    This should be the most biblical understanding as it should be part of the church's doctrine?

                    Please forgive any offence I would like to understand the deeper christian understanding of the bible as expressed by people who have done the work I have not done because I have never believed in God before.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Saxon Hammer View Post

                      Is not the apple a symbol of the fruit of ALL knowledge?
                      Peach.

                      We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
                      They already know monsters exist.
                      We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Saxon Hammer View Post
                        I hope that this is not rude or silly but where is the serpent?
                        At CARM. Ro 14:4, Ps 105:15

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
                          At CARM. Ro 14:4, Ps 105:15
                          ??? What answer is that ???

                          I find no serpent reference at CARM which I had to do an internet search for !!!!!
                          Again more bloody scripture and no thought !!!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Saxon Hammer View Post

                            I find no serpent reference at CARM which I had to do an internet search for !
                            The Google (Bush) couldn't help you?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
                              The Google (Bush) couldn't help you?
                              No YOU can't!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Saxon Hammer View Post
                                No YOU can't!
                                No argument here (Jn 8:37).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X