Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unbiblical Headship Doctrine

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

  • intojoy
    replied
    Originally posted by intojoy View Post
    Silence
    Head covering
    Modest apparel



    Sent from my iPhone using TOL
    Right


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • serpentdove
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Saxon Hammer
    replied
    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 !!!

    Leave a comment:


  • serpentdove
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Tambora
    replied
    Originally posted by Saxon Hammer View Post

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Saxon Hammer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • serpentdove
    replied
    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, 01:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    [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?

    Leave a comment:


  • serpentdove
    replied
    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, 10:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • serpentdove
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • serpentdove
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X