Friday, June 7, 2013

Roman Catholic use of the sword of men (Inquisitions)

The New Testament church did not wage war “after the flesh” to combat theologically aberrant souls or seek to rule over those without. Instead, apart from the passive discipline of disfellowship, it relied upon spiritual power to discipline those within. While for those without prayer was enjoined, rather than raising up armies to subdue them, while also calling the civil authorizes to uphold their own just laws that would protect them from unjust treatment. (click on reference to view: Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 5:4,5,12,13; 1Tim. 1:20; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12 ; Acts 22:25)

However, basically following the "edit of Toleration" (AD 313) and the declaration of Theodosius I (AD 380) which made Nicene Christianity the State church, the latter progressively took upon aspects of the State, including reliance on the arm of the flesh to fight its spiritual battles. And which was one of the many things Protestantism (which also has its faults, but see evangelicals vs. Catholics here) had to unlearn from Catholicism, as we are not be to conformed to this world, but surrender our bodies to God and be renewed in our mind according to the Scriptures, so we will use our bodes according. In contrast, below is some of the documentation of the use of the sword of men by Rome. 

Pope Innocent III, Cum ex Officii Nostri of 1207: In order altogether to remove the patrimony of St. Peter from heretics, we decree as a perpetual law, that whatsoever heretic, especially if he be a Patarene, shall be found therein, shall immediately be taken and delivered to the secular court to be punished according to the law. All his goods also shall be sold, so that he who took him shall receive one part; another shall go the court which convicted him, and the third shall be applied to the building of prisons in the country wherein he was taken. The house, however, in which a heretic has been received shall be altogether destroyed, nor shall anyone presume to rebuild it; but let that which was a den of iniquity become a receptacle of filth. Moreover, their believers and defenders shall be fined one fourth part of their goods, which shall be applied to the service of the public. — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207, Inquisition, by Edward Peters, p. 49,  review Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum
 • Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.
The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (
 • Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda,1252:

(25) Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.{7}
(26) The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them,as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.
(29) The head of state or ruler must cause the names of all men rendered infamous by heresy, or under a statute of outlawry for it, to be written in a consistent form and manner in four books, of which one shall go to the state or local government, another to the Diocesan bishop, the third to the Dominican friars, and the fourth to the Franciscans, and the names of these persons are to be read aloud three times a year in a solemn public ceremony.
(30) The head of state or ruler must carefully investigate the sons and grandsons of heretics and those who have lodged them, defended them, and given them aid, and in the future admit them to no public affairs or public office.

(31) The head of state or ruler must send one of his aides, chosen by the Diocesan if there is one,with the aforesaid inquisitors obtained from the Apostolic See, as often as they shall wish, into the jurisdiction of the state and the district. This aide,as the aforesaid inquisitors shall have determined, will compel three men or more, reliable witnesses,or, if it seem good to them, the whole neighborhood, to testify to the aforesaid inquisitors if they have detected any heretics, or want to expose their motives,{9} whether the heretics celebrate rites in secret gatherings, or scoff at the common life of the faithful, and their customs; or if the witnesses want to expose those the heretics have seduced, or their defenders, or those who lodge them, or those who give the heretics help. The head of state shall proceed against the accused according to the laws of the Emperor Frederick when he governed Padua.

(32) The head of state or ruler must, within ten days after the accusation, complete the following tasks: the destruction of the houses, the imposition of the fines, the consigning and dividing-up of the valuables that have been found or seized, all of which have already been described in this decree. He must obtain all fines in coin within three months, and divide them up in the manner to be set forth hereafter, and convict of crime those who cannot pay, and hold them in prison until they can. However, he shall be subject to investigation for all and each of these things, as it shall be described hereunder, and moreover he must designate one of the assistants, chosen by the Diocesan bishop or his surrogate and the aforesaid inquisitors, to carefully complete all these tasks; another assistant shall be substituted if they so decide.

(33) None of these sentences or punishments imposed on account of heresy, shall,either by the motion of any public gathering, the advice of counselors, or any kind of popular outcry,or the innate humanity {10}of those in authority,be in any way waived or pardoned.
(34)The head of state or ruler must divide up all the property of the heretics that is seized or discovered by the aforesaid officials, and the fines exacted from these heretics, in the form and manner following: one-third shall go to the government of the state or district. The second as a reward of the industry of the office shall go to the officials who handled this particular case. The third shall be deposited in some secure place to be kept by the aforesaid Diocesan bishop and inquisitors,and spent as they shall think fit to promote the faith and extirpate{11} heretics, this policy prevailing in spite of any statute that has been or shall be enacted against this dividing-up of the heretics' property.
Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things....

5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:] as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:

(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;

(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;

(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;

(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;

(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;

(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;

(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing;

(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;..

(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office. [Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V Note: Those words in brackets signify the Latin significance of the full authority of this Constitution above.]  
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine: [Error condemned] “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” [consider infallible by some], — Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): "[It is error to believe that] The (Catholic) Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect." Section V, Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights, #24.

"[It is error to believe that] In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers (Church and civil), the civil law prevails." Section VI, Errors About Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church, # 42

The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end,...has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction...

...with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted.... — Catholic Encyclopedia Jurisdiction

Pope Gregory I. denounced as worthless a confession extorted by incarceration and hunger.369369    Epist. VIII. 30. But at a later period, in dealing with heretics, the Roman church unfortunately gave the sanction of her highest authority to the use of the torture, and thus betrayed her noblest instincts and holiest mission. The fourth Lateran Council (1215) inspired the horrible crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and the establishment of the infamous ecclesiastico-political courts of Inquisition. These courts found the torture the most effective means of punishing and exterminating heresy, and invented new forms of refined cruelty worse than those of the persecutors of heathen Rome.
Pope Innocent IV, in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices (1252).371371...
This was an ominous precedent, which did more harm to the reputation of the papacy than the extermination of any number of heretics could possibly do it good. Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.The Torture

St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century). The Angelic Doctor never treats of torture in secular judicial inquiries. However, without mentioning the word, he does justify the contemporary Inquisition’s use of torture (recently introduced in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV... in considering whether unbelievers may be "compelled" to the faith, he first acknowledges that those who have never been Christians (i.e., Jews, pagans and Muslims) may not be forced to embrace the faith, but then continues: "On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received".

 11. St. Alphonsus Liguori (18th century). This saint and doctor of the Church – the "prince of moral theologians" – seems to have been the last noted Catholic moralist to defend judicial torture. In his Theologia Moralis, he does not so much argue for, but rather, takes for granted, the ethical legitimacy of the practice as such, and concerns himself only with the procedures and restrictions which he thinks should be followed as safeguards against excessive cruelty and injustice. After all, he is scarcely alone in endorsing torture, and cites a total of ten earlier approved Catholic authors (de Lugo and others) whose teachings he synthesizes in this section of his own classic work.

Catholicism has now [when Augustine's “The City of God” was published] been explicitly and emphatically the Roman state religion since the imperial edict of February 28, 380,6 but the laws remain to a great extent in fundamental continuity with the old pagan legislation – including its reliance on interrogatory torture (quaestio) as a standard part of judicial practice for serious crimes...he treatment of heretics and schismatics in this original Christian respublica was severe, but milder than in subsequent mediaeval times. They were not put to death, but were reduced to poverty by the confiscation of their property, and were subject to legal disabilities (incapable of making testaments)...

Paul Johnson, English Roman Catholic researcher and author: 
Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself.

The codification of legislation against heresy took place over half a century, roughly 1180-1230, when it culminated in the creation of a permanent tribunal, staffed by Dominican friars, who worked from a fixed base in conjunction with the episcopate, and were endowed with generous authority. The permanent system was designed as a reform; in fact it incorporated all the abuses of earlier practice and added new ones. It had a certain vicious logic. Since a heretic was denied burial in consecrated ground, the corpses of those posthumously convicted (a very frequent occurrence) had to be disinterred, dragged through the streets and burnt on the refuse pit. The houses in which they lived had to be knocked down and turned into sewers or rubbish-dumps.

Convictions of thought-crimes being difficult to secure, the Inquisition used procedures banned in other courts, and so contravened town charters, written and customary laws, and virtually every aspect of established jurisprudence. The names of hostile witnesses were withheld, anonymous informers were used, the accusations of personal enemies were allowed, the accused were denied the right of defence, or of defending counsel; and there was no appeal. The object, quite simply, was to produce convictions at any cost; only thus, it was thought, could heresy be quenched. Hence depositors were not named; all a suspect could do was to produce a list of his enemies, and he was allowed to bring forward witnesses to testify that such enemies existed, but for no other purpose. On the other hand, the prosecution could use the evidence of criminals, heretics, children and accomplices, usually forbidden in other courts.

Once an area became infected by heresy, and the system moved in, large numbers of people became entangled in its toils. Children of heretics could not inherit, as the stain was vicarial; grandchildren could not hold ecclesiastical benefices unless they successfully denounced someone. Everyone from the age of fourteen (girls from twelve) were required to take public oaths every two years to remain good Catholics and denounce heretics. Failure to confess or receive communion at least three times a year aroused automatic suspicion; possession of the scriptures in any language, or of breviaries, hour-books and psalters in the vernacular, was forbidden. Torture was not employed regularly until near the end of the thirteenth century (except by secular officials without reference to the Inquisition) but suspects could be held in prison and summoned again and again until they yielded, the object of the operation being to obtain admissions or denunciations. When torture was adopted it was subjected to canonical restraints - if it produced nothing on the first occasion it was forbidden to repeat it. But such regulations were open to glosses; Francis Pegna, the leading Inquisition commentator, wrote:

'But if, having been tortured reasonably (decenter), he will not confess the truth, set other sorts of torments before him, saying that he must pass through all these unless he will confess the truth. If even this fails, a second or third day may be appointed to him, either in terrorem or even in truth, for the continuation (not repetition) of torture; for tortures may not be repeated unless fresh evidence emerges against him; then, indeed, they may, for against continuation there is no prohibition.'

Pegna said that pregnant women might not be tortured, for fear of abortions: 'we must wait until she is delivered of her child'; and children below the age of puberty, and old folk, were to be less severely tortured. The methods used were, on the whole, less horrific than those employed by various secular governments - though it should be added that English common lawyers, for instance, flatly denied that torture was legal, except in case of refusal to plead.

Once a victim was accused, escape from some kind of punishment was virtually impossible: the system would not allow it. But comparatively few were executed: less than ten per cent of those liable. Life-imprisonment was usual for those 'converted' by fear of death; this could be shortened by denunciations. Acts of sympathy or favour for heretics were punished by imprisonment or pilgrimage; there were also fines or floggings, and penance in some form was required of all those who came into contact with the infected, even though unknowingly and innocently. The smallest punishment was to wear yellow cloth crosses - an unpopular penalty since it prevented a man from getting employment; on the other hand, to cease to wear it was treated as a relapse into heresy. A spell in prison was virtually inevitable.

Of course there was a shortage of prison-space, since solitary confinement was the rule. Once the Inquisition moved into an area, the bishop's prison was soon full; then the king's; then old buildings had to be converted, or new ones built. Food was the prisoner's own responsibility, though the bishop was supposed to provide bread and water in the case of poverty. The secular authorities did not like these crowded prisons, being terrified of gaol fever and plague, and thus burned many more people than the Church authorized. The system was saved from utter horror only by the usual medieval frailties: corruption, inertia, and sheer administrative incompetence...

In the Middle Ages, the ruthless and confident exercise of authority could nearly always swing a majority behind it. And the victims of the flames usually died screaming in pain and terror, thus appearing to confirm the justice of the proceedings. — Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 253-255.

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.
The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]
  • that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
  • that it was used only once
  • that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.
The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1]

The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.[3] The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them."[4]

Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) —
Modernist change:
Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech of 6 September 2007.."In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances'". — TORTURE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS A PROBLEM IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, September 2005: Living Tradition ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM, Editor: Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., Living Tradition, Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157, USA
Translation of Ad extirpanda

Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Red Cross (Geneva, June 15, 1982)... And as for torture, the Christian is confronted from infancy onward with the account of Christ’s Passion. The memory of Jesus – stripped, flogged, and derided right up until the sufferings of his final agony – should always make him resolve never to see analogous torments inflicted on any one of his brothers in humanity. Spontaneously, the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . .

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), on "Respect for bodily integrity".
#2298. In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture.
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993). #80. Now, reason testifies that there are some human acts which are seen to be "non-ordainable" to God, since they are radically incompatible with the good of the person (omnino dissident a bono personae) created in His image. These are acts which in the Church’s moral tradition are called "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum)...TORTURE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS A PROBLEM IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, September 2005: Living Tradition ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM, Editor: Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., Living Tradition, Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157, USA

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Things the New Testament church did not have, as seen in Scripture

1. A church that believed that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation, and inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical decent, makes such the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority.

They could not believe that, as the church began contrary to the Catholic premise, but in dissent from the very magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2), Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." (Romans 9:4)  

And they had listened to a holy anointed man in the desert who eat insects, and taught God is able  to raise up children unto Abraham from stones." (Matthew 3:9) And they believed an itinerant Preacher from Galilee who  did not have the sanction of the magisterium, and who rejected Him. (Mk. 11:27-33)  But who established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
2. A magisterium whose office was perpetually assured never to err whenever it universally spoke on faith and morals. And which infallibly declared that it was, as per Rome, and led by a supreme pope whose successors as individuals had the same unique charism. 

That an infallible magisterium is necessary to be the steward of Divine revelation and fulfill the promise of preservation is not Scriptural, but is an ecclesiastical extrapolation by Catholics. We know that Acts 15 issued Divine binding judgment because it was solidly based on Scriptural substantiation, and was recorded in Scripture.

3. A pope who was elected by voting, not the OT method of casting lots, and which thus was often the result of included bribery, political intimidation, and centuries of Italian superiority, and immoral men who would be qualified to be or remain a church member, let alone an apostolic successor. "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,” “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. " (Acts 1:24,26)

4. A corporate church that looked to a pope in Rome as its first supreme infallible head to be perpetuated, or any exhortation or command to the churches to submit to Peter as its supreme head, or such a title being give him confirming him as the rock upon which the church was built, as Rome contends (without the “unanimous consent of the fathers”). A most conspicuous absence in the light of the type of cardinal importance Rome shows.

"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (Jesuit Father theologian, and professor of church history Klaus Schatz, in “Papal Primacy,” p. 3)
Peter was first in rank and in initial use among the 12, and did exercise a general pastoral role, and was first to use the “keys.” Yet Paul could state, "for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." (2 Corinthians 12:11

The extensive attributes for a “pope Paul” have even been listed in a tongue-in-cheek response to RC attempts to exalt Peter above that which is written. And who listed Peter as second among them who them “which were of reputation,” “who seemed to be pillars.” (Gal. 2:2,9)

As for Peter being rock upon which the church is built, besides that interpretation not having "unanimous consent" of the fathers (which is spun to mean something other than what the term conveys) for what its worth, that the Lord Jesus is the rock of Peter's confession upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed teachings in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; Rev. 4:3) or "stone" (lithos) (Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Acts. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20) as stated by Peter himself. (1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt 32:4, Is. 28:16)

5. The mention of any successors to the original apostles (James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14)

6. A separate sacerdotal class of clergy titled "priests - a word never used distinctly for any pastor, in distinction with the Jews, and the only time it is used for anyone in the NT church it is for the general priesthood of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9) "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, ...For a bishop must be blameless..." (Titus 1:5,7)

7. A clergy that differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) and also made distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7

And likewise with a pope enthroned like a Caesar, with his subjects bowing down to him and kissing his feet." "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:25-26)

8. Required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ..One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) " (1 Timothy 3:2,4,5) "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. " (1 Corinthians 7:7)

9. A separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)

10. The practice of praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6)

11. The practice of baptizing infants. Infants cannot fulfill the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and the NT conspicuously provides zero examples of this supposedly critical practice, and where there is any description of household baptisms, what is supported is that the baptized could hear. "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. " (Acts 8:12) "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. " (Acts 16:32-33)

12. A gospel which promoted institutionalized religion, in which one is held to be born again due to the very act of baptism, even though the subject cannot repent and believe, and then is taught they can eventually become good enough to enter Heaven through the power of the church, by taking part in rituals which ex opere operato (by the act itself) convey grace but foster perfunctory professions, and then typically through purgatory, indulgences and offerings to departed souls.

13. A church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent. Or who, having lost that power, treats notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline. “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators ....But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:13) "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. " (1 Timothy 1:20)

14. Laws that greatly restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was. "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 3:15) "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." (Acts 17:2)

15. A church that sanctioned teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, and that some historical accounts may not be literally accurate (sermon on the mount, etc.) "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. " (Matthew 12:40)

16. A church that taught that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs. "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. " (1 Corinthians 10:20)

17. The Lord's supper being the means by which souls gain life in them, or not “discerning the body” as referring to the elements of the supper versus members of the church.

Catholics can plead tradition on this, but what so-called "church fathers  believed does not necessarily have any more warrant than some of the unbalanced views on celibacy versus marriage some had, and the wresting of Scripture in trying to support them that even Jerome engaged in. However, one can be a real believer and yet hold to some errors, a belief in the a "real presence" being one of them.  

Finally, there are many more things of contrast that can be added but which are not necessary restricted to Catholicism, and it must be said that the real alternative to Catholicism, that of churches which manifest Scripture (not their church or men) as being supreme and authoritative as the assured word of God, and preaching salvation by grace, also has things that are contrary to the NT church. Primarily these typically are a lack of emphasis on baptism in confessing Christ (not as being necessary to be born again, but which can be the occasion of it), the nature of saving faith as effecting holiness in heart and deed, the laying on of hands in conveyance of the fullness of the Holy Spirit, (Acts 9:17) and Scriptural operation of all gifts, and a central magisterium with apostolic holiness and real spiritual power, and division.

However, overall essential conformity with Scriptural and the working of Holy Spirit is far more manifest in evangelical churches than in Catholicism, which preaches an institutionalized gospel in which souls are imagined to be born again through the act of baptizing, even if they have no repentance or faith, and go on to believe they will finally become good enough to enter Heaven through the power of the church (rituals, purgatory, indulgences, prayers to the departed, etc.). And which can only claim it has apostolic holiness and real spiritual power, and a central magisterium with such, while its foundational premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office is unScriptural. In addition, Catholicism itself bounds with disagreements, and exists as sects and in formal division with more than one central magisterium, each infallibly differing on what Tradition, Scripture and history teach. More here on unity.

The early church did not teach perpetual assured infallibility of office, whereby Roman Catholics find assurance, but both the Lord and His disciples established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Yet, besides comparison between Catholic and evangelical faith, the contrast between the church today and that of the book of Acts is one that calls for mourning and repentance, (James 4:1-12) and a corporate “dress code” of sackcloth and ashes till we find mercy and the Lord raises us up to walk toward perfection.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Male headship versus positional gender equality (egalitarianism)

This is an extension of a debate which began here, but which was discontinued due to the blog owners objections. It was thus agree i could post them on my own blog.

Note that my position on headship is due to what I see in Scripture as teaching in totality and contextually. And in which male headship does not mean leadership reduces those under it to being mere “menial servants,” nor is being in submission a thing to be avoided and a mark of  essential inferiority of  nature,  and as expressed in one of my posts below as regards women, it does not mean God cannot speak to them, or that they cannot lead public women singing, (Ex. 15:20) and share what Christ has done, (Jn. 4:28,29) support ministry and minister to workers therein, (Phil. 4:3) privately help instruct a man with and under her husband, (Acts 18:26) and work a business and buy and sell, (Prov. 31:15,16,24; Acts 16:14) without upstaging the authority of the man. And there can be circumstances in which women must lead (as there can be  when even children must), and likewise sometimes disobedience to authority is required.

But that none of which negates the positional gender distinctions ordained as the standard, in which the man is head of the women as Christ is of the church, and God the Father over Christ, who came forth from the Father, (Jn. 8:42; 16:27,28) - though eternally existing - and likewise the women from the man, (1Cor. 11:8; 1Tim. 2:13), and therefore (outside exceptional instances) are to be in leadership over family and the church. Thus the Lord appointed zero priests or apostles and changed nothing the OT said as concerns male headship.

Next, I think it would helpful to first begin by posting many texts (chronologically) which directly or indirectly may pertain to the issue of male headship. Consideration  of context, culture, linguistics, genre, confluence and other aspects are also involved in Biblical exegesis.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27)  

"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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." (Genesis 2:15-17) 

"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:18-24)

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. " (Genesis 3:1-7)  

"And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " (Genesis 3:9)

"And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. " (Genesis 3:13) 

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. " (Genesis 3:16)   

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. " (Genesis 17:10) 
"That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord's." (Exodus 13:12)  

"And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances." (Exodus 15:20) 

"Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God." (Exodus 23:17)

"And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."  "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them." (Numbers 3:10,15) [only males were priests]  

"All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 15:19) 

"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth–el in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. " (Judges 4:4-5) 

"And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. " (Judges 4:8-9)

"And she said unto her servants, Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal." (1 Samuel 25:19) 

"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. " (Proverbs 31:10-18)  

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. " (Jeremiah 31:31-34) 

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: " (Joel 2:28)  

"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him." (Matthew 10:1-4)  [All males]

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? " (Matthew 19:4-5) 

"(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) " (Luke 2:23)  

"And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (Matthew 28:5-7) 

"There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. " (John 4:7) 

"The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither " (John 4:15-16)  

"The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? Then they went out of the city, and came unto him." (John 4:28-30) 

 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. " (Acts 1:14)

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: " (Acts 10:34) 

"Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. " (Acts 13:1-2) 

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. " (Acts 16:14-15) 

"This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. " (Acts 18:25-26)  

"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. " (Romans 16:1-2) 

"Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ." (Romans 16:3-5) 

"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Romans 16:7)

"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." (1 Corinthians 7:4)

"But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." (1 Corinthians 7:36-37)  

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? " (1 Corinthians 9:5) 

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:2-3) 

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." (1 Corinthians 11:4-5) 

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (1 Corinthians 11:7-10) 

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (1 Corinthians 11:11-12) 

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering " (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)   

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:16)    

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. " (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) 

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. " (Galatians 3:26-28) 

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. " (Ephesians 4:4-7)  

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; " (Ephesians 4:11)  

"Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:20-21)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5:22-24)  

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Ephesians 5:25) 

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:31-32)  

"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." (Ephesians 5:33)  

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." (Ephesians 6:1-3) 

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;" (Ephesians 6:4-5) 

"And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life." (Philippians 4:3)  

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." (Colossians 3:16)  

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:" (Colossians 3:18-22) 

"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:8-10) 

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:11-15) 

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:1-5) 

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. " (1 Timothy 3:12) 

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." (Titus 1:5-6)  

"Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." (Titus 1:9)   

 "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)

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear." (1 Peter 3:1-2) 

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." (1 Peter 3:5-6)  

"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." (1 Peter 3:7) 

I will begin by posting my previous comments and provide an notice when the missing one's begin.

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Equating male headship with slavery and invoking texts such as Gal. 3:28 as negating the former is sophistry, which prohomosexuals likewise engage in using the same hermeneutic.

The Scriptures do indeed sanction its regulated forms of slavery, but which were not part of the fundamental moral laws ordained by God from the beginning, which are based upon creational distinctions as reflective of the Divine order, but instead are part of the civil laws and which regulated a existing institution which God did not initiate.

And regardless of Mormonic or other racist doctrine, God did not make the black man a perpetual servant to the white man (and strangers could own Hebrews servants for up to 6 years).

The basis for slavery being different than that of male headship, thus Paul continues to only clearly affirm the latter, but while he instructs on how slaves are to be treated, yet he clearly requires a slave owner to receive his escaped and converted slave back as a brother, no longer a slave, (Philemon 1:15-17) and in general recommends that they obtain freedom if lawfully able. (1Cor. 7:1)

And which would later be made possible, while slave revolts under Rome only made things worse (and the Christian emphasis is on having a superior spirit in all circumstances, rather than focusing on proactively promoting political change [cf. 2Cor. 10:3-6]).

By equating male headship with racism and slavery is as if Genesis taught:

"And the Lord God formed the white [or Hebrew] man of the dust of the ground. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the white man should be alone; I will make him an helper for him. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a black man, and brought him unto the white man.

"And the white man said, The black man whom thou gavest to me, he gave me of the tree, and I did eat. " (Genesis 3:12)

"Unto the black man God said, I will greatly multiply thy labor and thy servitude, in the sweat of thy face shalt thou provide bread, and thy desire shall be against thy master, and he shall rule over thee."

And is seeking to negate the fundamental basis for male headship, the egalitarian exegetes have New Covenant teaching saying,

"But I would have you know, that the source of every man is Christ; and the source of the women is the man; and the source of Christ is God. For this cause ought the woman to have no sign of submission on her head*, because of the angels who also are not ruled over by God."

"But I allow a woman to teach, and to reject any claims to male headship, as they are to be quiet. For Adam was not first formed and then Eve. Nor was Adam first deceived, but the man and the woman were deceived as equal partners." (1 Timothy 2:12-14)

In the light of zero examples of female priests, apostles or pastors (despite egalitarian extrapolations), and women only being as a head in a rare exceptional circumstance, in contrast to explicit statements that women are not to occupy the (magisterial) office of teacher in the church, and that the wife is to be subject to her husband as the church is to Christ, based on creational distinctions, then the very attempts to negate the headship of the male are an argument against the feminist egalitarianism.

*Note that kephalē, the word for "head" in 1Cor. 11:3, etc., in the less than 20 times out of 76 that the word for "head" is used outside the literal sense, and outside such metaphorical uses such as Christ being the foundational head stone of the building, then it denotes far more than simply "source," but authority, so that 1Cor. 11:3 is corespondent to, "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5:24).
February 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
"none of this actually addresses the topic of my post." "Any further comments that fail to engage the actual post or which descend into a discussion or attack on my or anyone else's character, motives or person, will be summarily deleted."

With due respect it seems as if you only read the first sentence, as my response certainly did address the premise that these argument for male headship are the same as for slavery.

And rather than my post consisting of an attacking on your or anyone else's character, motives or person, outside of my relegating the egalitarian argument as sophistry - which i see defined (Free dictionary) as

1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument,

and its use by me was in regards to the argument itself, and did not necessarily impugn the motive - then the rest of my post was a reasoned argument against the egalitarian polemic.

Nor was i tell you to disallow dissenting prohomosexual posts, but showing how the same reasoning is used to wrongly justify both.

And thank you for allowing me to express my conclusions.
February 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 1:

Paul teaches about the two back-to-back both in Eph. 5 and Col. 3

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. " (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; " (Ephesians 6:5)

The commonality is that submission is enjoined upon both, but the key distinction is that the basis is different and therefore its transcendence. The headship of the male is based upon creational distinctions reflective of that within the Godhead. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. " (1 Timothy 2:13) “and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1Cor. 11:3)

And in which creation the wife typifies the church, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. " (Ephesians 5:31-32)

In contrast, while submission is required of both, the station of a servant is not based on any creational order or intrinsic distinctions, but is a matter of circumstance in the NT. And which station can change, with freedom for to servants being recommended or even enjoined, while male headship is further affirmed under the New Covenant, with no liberty from that being offered, despite the attempts to assert otherwise.

What my post says is, "these arguments that used to be used to support slavery are no longer considered valid. These same types of arguments are now being used to support male headship, so those arguments ought to be re-examined."

While you may have engaged in this simply as an examination of polemical similarities, it seemed to me to be an attempt to impugn the doctrine of male headship by using certain arguments for slavery by some Christians and making them analogous to those for male headship, yet there are problems with the former argument which the latter do not have, as well as the critical distinctions between the two cases, some of which i thus dealt with.

And thus noted evangelicals such as Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley were among and many other Christian abolitionists who were in opposition to slavery while upholding male headship, while less doctrinal minded types such as the Quakers were part of a a minority that deviated from the traditional doctrine.

Further, the word "sophistry" does have the connotations I mentioned, and "deliberately deceitful" is in fact part of the understood meaning of that word..."Fallacious argument" would have suited your stated meaning better,

The “understood meaning” of sophistry as denoting willful deception is an interpretation, while apart from motive i see it as meaning deceptive, as explained.

Finally, with regards to your point on "homosexual arguments" - what bothers me is that you seem to be using this as a reason to weaken my argument through guilt-by-association.

It is, as they both invoke the same fallacious argumentation, though they push it to a further extreme, both in this case as well as many others.

To be ctnd.
February 14, 2013 at 5:08 AM

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 2:

Also, your speculative rewriting of Gen. 2-3 in an attempt to show that the basis for slavery and the basis for male headship are different, actually proves how much the two arguments are the same.

Just the opposite. My post actually contrasts the two arguments by illustrating the type of statements and foundational support slavery would need if it were to be have the same basis and immutability as male headship.

As it does not, what you can argue is that there are similarities between some attempts to justify at least racial slavery, or similarities as regards certain aspects as submission, but which ignore the critical foundational distinctions between the two.

There are also similarities between the gospel of the Lord Jesus and the story of Mithras, but which does not make them the same due to distinctions and other aspects , nor make the former to be the one doing the copying.

Thus the real issue becomes the viability of the arguments for racial slavery insofar as they compare with those for male headship.

The 1850s argument claimed that blacks were intended by God to be subordinate to whites from the beginning of the time there were races. Your argument claims that women were intended by God to be subordinate to men from the beginning of the time there were sexes. The 1850's argument claims that all black people inherited subordination due to the sin of their ancestor. Your argument claims that all women inherited subordination to the sin of their ancestor.

I will give a brief response to these first and then respond more fully.

The differences is that the former cannot be established while the latter is and the contrast it clear. Unlike the women, in creation God nowhere said He made a black man from a white man to be his helper, and that whitey would would rule over the black man, and confirm in the NT by making the women to be as the church, with submission being likened to that of Christ to the Father.

The racial slavery argument is based on their curse on Canaan is at best speculative, and is not confirmed in the rest of Scripture, with leadership being restricted based on skin color, whereas male headship in marriage and the church explicitly is. And the attempts to negate the latter, which i have dealt with by God's grace, overall require such fallacious argumentation that they effectively are an argument against them.

The 1850s argument allows no change to the subordination of black people even though Jesus has brought and is bringing the New Creation. Your argument allows no change to the subordination of women even though Jesus has brought and is bringing the new creation.

Again, even if the argument for racial superiority and slavery from Gn. 9:25 were sound, the NT nowhere makes race a factor in leadership, as if the head of the black man was the white man and that blacks are not to usurp the authority of the white man, while explicitly stating this as regards the husband over the wife.

Moreover, the premise that the principle behind such texts as Gal. 3:28, that of essential equality, negates male headship would also negate any order of leadership within the Godhead and in the church, but which it manifestly cannot not.

To be ctnd.
February 14, 2013 at 5:11 AM

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 3:

These arguments illustrate why this exercise in analogy is deceptive, because the arguments for racial slavery rests upon assertions which are nowhere established, unlike those for male headship. Again, you simply will not find God creating the black man out of the white Adam for a helper he is to rule over, and the NT confirming the white man as the head of the black with the latter being a type of the church, as well as spiritual leadership being restricted to the white man.

In addition, it cannot be established that Adam and Noah were white, and that Canaan somehow distinctively became the progenitor of the blacks of Africa, and that his posterity were forever cursed as slaves for Japheth and Shem, and that this is confirmed under the New Covenant.

The first mention of anyone having servants was Abraham, (Gn. 14:14) and neither there or anywhere else does skin color determine slavery. While an argument may be made, based upon the Table of Nations, that the descendants of Canaan populated part of Africa, that is speculative and not transcendent in any case.

What Scripture does do is place the boundaries of Canaan in close proximity to Israel, (Gn. 10:19) and it is more accepted that they populated a large portion of what is now in the Middle East , occupying the Levant , a restriction that was emphasized by 18th century abolitionist theologians.

Also, as Canaan was the name of the “Promised Land,” thus Shem fought his own relatives for it. Yet the Canaanites in the promised land were to be killed (not subjected) and which was for moral reasons, not race. In contrast, cities in areas very far off from them who were objects of conquest, and chose not to fight, were made tributaries. (Dt. 20:10-18)

And it was from the heathen that were round about Israel, and children of the strangers that sojourned among them, that they were allowed to buy bondmen and bondmaids from, although the latter could own Hebrews servants for a time. (Lv. 25:44-47)

Meanwhile, as genetic science has that humans originating in Africa near present day Ethiopia, thus some argue that Adam was black.

I would also add that, as one who has had 2nd degree burns on both my legs due to being out in the sun for about 6 hours (forsaking the law of my mother!), besides other episodes, i do not think dark skin is inferior to white, and it is the latter which i think could seem to be like a curse in most of Africa.

Furthermore, and critically, the NT also says nothing about blacks being fated to slavery, or slaves being so due to any aspect of creation and distinction between races, with only commonality with women being that they were both called to submission within an established order. And likewise Christians are enjoined to (conditionally) submit to spiritual and civil rulers as an order ordained by God. (Heb. 13:17; Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pt. 2:14) Besides the specific authority structure, Christians are to serve one another, but which does not place all on the same level of functional authority.

In addition, not only was a race not forbidden to be in leadership, but as said, slaves were encouraged to obtain freedom, (1Cor. 7:21) and abolishment of slave status was actually required in one case. (Philemon 1:10-21)

To be ctnd.
February 14, 2013 at 5:40 AM
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 4:

In contrast, the submission of the wife to her husband has a unique and transcendent basis, beginning with the women coming from the man as a helper, and ruling over her, and the priesthood and (later) apostleship consisting only of males (despite some eisegetical egalitarian extrapolation arguing otherwise), and explicit NT teaching that affirms the headship of the male in both marriage and the church, based on creation, the fall, and reflective of the order within the Godhead.

Therefore the weakness of arguments of racial slavery and the strength of the evidence against it is something egalitarians can only wish was the case in regards to male headship, while the distinctions between them negate the attempt to equate the two as both being conditional and abrogated.
February 14, 2013 at 5:41 AM

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 1.

• Sorry, PBJ, but what this really boils down to is that you agree with a certain interpretation of the scriptures that supports male headship, but you disagree with with another interpretation of the scriptures that supports African slavery. You believe you have more support for your position than they did for theirs, but your continual use of the word "explicit" is really identical to another of the pro-slavery 1850s arguments: that your position is "clear" in the scriptures while your opponents are "twisting scripture" or committing "eisegesis."

Of course what it boils down to is the warrant for each polemic, and thus i worked to substantiate that the arguments for slavery that are used in attempting to negate those for male headship fail.

• But there is no such thing as an unbiased human being, and there is no reading of the Bible that is not an interpretation.

Well of course it is an interpretation, but the “that's your interpretation” response can be used for anything, including that there is no coherent moral ethic in Scripture, and which allows one to justify anything, and which modern revisionist hermeneutics lead to.

However, truth is exclusive by nature and in Scripture is manifest, and thus the Lord made absolute and divisive statements, as did the apostles, and persuaded souls based on Scriptural substantiation and exegesis. And which the modern feminist polemics are demonstrably contrary to, such as by reducing God to being the “source” of Christ, rather than His head, and thus Christ simply being the source of the church, and not its head, so that it can dispense with the male as the head of the wife, and physically signifying that.

• I don't think yours holds up any more than you think the slavery ones hold up.

Of course you do not, but which does not make your judgment valid, while the nature of debate is to present evidence and let the others judge, and thus i do, seeking to present what is most consistent and clear in Scripture on this issue.

• However, I can see that you have dedicated a lot of time to creating your own websites on this issue which are intended to negate the functional equality of women and relegate them to being under male authority.

That is not an objective statement as i really have only one web site with a couple mirrors, and one page, with a couple sub pages out of about 300 that was created specifically to address this issue. I have blogs but which do not yet specifically address male headship.

• . But I would like you to think about this: If the position that you take, however "biblically correct" it seems, is inherently against "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," then how can you be so sure you're interpreting correctly?

Your challenge assumes what needs to be established. Atheists also invokes “do unto others” as their moral guide, and as illustrated by the use of “do unto others” argument by those who want to negate any authority and advocate “free love,” it must be recognized that this principle presupposes a moral code from God that establishes what you should want to be done unto others as done to you.

Left to himself, man can easily justify consensual fornication based on “do unto others,” but the first commandment, is to love God supremely. And among other things, this enjoins obedience according to our station in life, including based on age and creational order and the Fall and after the order in the Godhead and the church to Christ.

In the end, upholding positional/functional distinctions is no more against “do unto others” now than it was in the past, or against such things as requiring obedience to parents by teenagers (who think they know what is best and rebel against parents being uniquely endowed with authority over them), versus parent being in submission to them.
February 18, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
• What it looks like to me is that you have decided to use my blog for your own personal podium. You believe this is a place where you can come and authoritatively "deal with" the views on my blog. Not so. I allow comments, and I do publish a reasonable amount of disagreeing comments, but 13 long posts are hardly a reasonable amount.

I understand your protest and authority, however, my 13 responses were to 8 posts attacking my position, which included links by you to more, and it is not unreasonable for me to present reasoned replies to each to the multiple arguments they made, which i quote, all of which makes for some length.

• Nor is this blog set up, or intended to be, a "debate" blog. I allow civil discourse, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to be put on trial.

Well, I would say it is not reasonable to have a blog on an issue which opposing views are attacked, but which ends up allowing one side to be present 8 posts while disallowing reasoned Scriptural responses them.

• You have your own blogs where you can present your views of scripture in detail.

I do have one, and if you would rather not post my responses then i may post them there if that is OK.

• ...Most of your 13 comments are elaborations on this theme. Frankly, as I read through them, they became quite repetitive.

The arguments against my position were from 4 different posters in 8 posts and somewhat repetitive or covering more than one aspect, and included speculating of me, “it seems he prefers to take text out of context in order to try to reach his conclusions,” and overall longer responses were needed.

• One of them also broke my rule against speculating about my motivations, by intimating that the reason I believe as I do is that I have been abused by men.

That was an honest speculation which was general, “i wonder if some of the reactions here...”, and i was not conscious at the time that i was violating your rule against attacking motive, which this seems to fit under. Sorry.

• In short, and as I have told other men who came here to try to set me straight-- I am not permitting you to teach and assume authority on my blog.

My real motive is truth based on sound exegesis, but I do not think responding to a polemic against something in a combox on a blog which you control is assuming authority on your blog, while some level of teaching is inevitable in responding to issues.

• Finally, contrary to your strange equation of my position on "do unto others" with that of atheism, I do presuppose a moral code from God that establishes what you should want to do unto others. And setting yourself over them in a chain of command is, not, despite what you claim, part of what you should do unto others. "Thus do the rulers of the Gentiles," Jesus said, "but it shall not be so among you."

If a chain of command is contrary "do unto others" then God would be contradicting Himself, as He did just that, and requires (conditional) obedience to authority. (Rm. 13:1-7; 2Thes. 3:14)

And the Lord here is obviously not rejecting authority, as He exercised it Himself and gave it to the church. (Mt. 18:17; cf. 1Cor. 5:13; 6:4) Note also my comments on “red letter” exegesis, as only relying on the gospels is not a valid hermeneutic. And thus obedience to elders is enjoined. (Heb. 13:17; cf. Acts 20:28; 2Thes. 3:14) But what the Lord is teaching is what manner leadership is to be: "And whosoever will be chief [not that none may be] among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. " (Matthew 20:27-28)

• I will give you one opportunity to answer this, and comments will then be closed on this post. 

The begins the missing section:
Pt. 2.

Now those who oppose authority can ague that this is contrary to “do unto others” because it is contrary to what leaders would want required of them, but a true leader must want to upholds God's order regardless, and if we love God above all then we will want ourselves to be treated to be in accordance with what God ordains, and which includes submission to authority, and in so doing Scripturally discriminates based upon character, age, gender, ability and status (parents), which an uncritical use of “do unto others” can be used to argue against.

All of the issues you raise are addressed in my other blog posts....

And which foundationally are are being dealt with here.

This understanding of God's Kingdom equality brings liberty and gladness-- that the gospel is just as much good news for women as it is for men.

But which does not mean liberty that dissolves an order of authority and restrictions thereto.

This understanding leads men to do unto women as they would want done unto them-- to be treated as full, functional equals.

That is like a teenage response to “wait till you’re older, while even Christ does not have the same position as the Father, and while yet being God, He will be forever be subject unto the Father. "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Your understanding fundamentally tells women that the Kingdom of God really isn't as great a place for them as it is for men. I want no part of...a "too bad you're not a man" Kingdom.

That is apparently because you see submission as denigration (which is what the devil evidences in asserting that he would be like the Most High), but if so then according to your reasoning the Lord Jesus has a “too bad you are not the Father” position, but instead it is your polemic that is not submissive to Christ. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

And when it comes right down to it, when I look at Jesus and how He treated women, I can't believe that your gospel is His gospel.

A serious charge, (Gal. 1:6-9) but while you may not believe it, first, the actual “gospel of your salvation” by which souls realized regeneration, does not require preaching about about male/female roles, although Christ as the Son sent by the Father is preached. (1Jn. 4:14),

Second, saving faith is the type that effects obedience, and the details of that are not restricted to the gospels. Invoking a “red letter” hermeneutic that restricts theology to just the 4 gospels is not a valid basis for doctrine, as there are many things the Lord did not personally address, but He affirmed the moral law that preceded Him, and He foretold that more revelation would come by the same Holy Spirit by which He spoke. (Jn. 16:12-15)

Third, just as God ordained zero priests under Moses, the Lord ordained zero women to be His apostles (and only men are appointed as pastors over the church), and affirmed no women as being in authority over man, and how He treated women in no way conflicts with the complementarian position as revealed in Scripture. That He did not personally specifically teach on female submission in way infers abrogation of it, any more than His lack of mention of bestiality or certain other moral laws does. (Yet He always listed fathers before mothers, and affirmed Genesis in establishing original intent, and which has the man created first, and being given the authority to name the animals, [Gn. 2:19] and the women, who was created for the man, who leaves father and mother to cleave unto his wife.)

Pt. 3.

If a reading of scriptures ends up painting God as a "respecter of persons" even though the scripture says He isn't-- if it ends up painting God as arbitrary and unjust-- then it can't be a correct reading..

The problem is that you are not judging what is just according to Scripture. God's ordination of male headship is not arbitrary, but part of His original design as what is best for man, and not being a respecter of persons did and does not preclude establishing an order of authority, or restricting leadership based on age, or gender, nor was it contrary to choosing Israel over others as the steward of Divine revelation. Thus the Holy Spirit teaches,

"And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. " (Ephesians 6:9)

Here, despite upholding a hierarchy of submission, the master is reminded that regardless of position, all are essentially equal, with faith and character being determinant of spiritual status, (Acts 10:34) so that God does not necessarily hear the prayers of a man over those of a women (most likely they make more) or receive more rewards, and a custodian can have a higher rank in the church than an elder, etc. While slavery was not mandated from the beginning but it regulated as itself is a integral institution which was made tolerable under Scriptural regulation, and thus could be jettisoned when feasible, the distinctions in governmental rank remain within the family and church.

Nor is submission itself unjust nor does it render one to be as a menial slave (though we should have that attitude), as the submission of Christ to the Father and the church to Christ illustrates. It is your forcing Scripture to conform to your demand of positional equality between genders that cannot be a correct reading.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " (1 Timothy 2:12-14)

The real difficulty in those scriptures is this: that we find it easier to believe that God made women inferior, than it is for us to believe that we have misinterpreted those scriptures."

Rather, the real difficulty in those scriptures is this: that we find it easier to believe that our modern idea of how God should do things, negating functional/positional distinctions, at least as to creation-based gender, and making inferiority in any position or function as a negative thing, is superior to having Christ in submission to the Father, and the church in submission to Christ, and thus the women unto the man, and obedience in just submission being honorable, and thus our modern enlightenment justifies our misinterpretation of those scriptures.

Pt. 4.

And please don't tell me that your view of scripture is not about women being inferior. Giving lip service to "equality of nature" while stating that women are designed to be under male not "equality." It's female inferiority, no matter what you call it.

And thus according to your reasoning, Christ could not be equal in nature to God, as He was and will be in submission to the Father, and which submission of the women to the man follows. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. " "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. " (1 Corinthians 11:3,9-10)

Recognizing that God makes distinction between genders and established an order in the family is Scriptural, and submission is not a dirty word, and i have spent almost my whole life being overall under the authority or leadership of someone else, rather than being in position of authority, and sometimes women, and which i am not threatened by. And my contention is not driven by male ego but by grief at seeing Scripture being distorted to adapt to a doctrine that is foreign to it. I look far more to serve than to lead (perhaps even to a fault, sometimes helping some people i likely should not). But i wonder if some of the reactions here which equate submission to being menial servants and or inferior in nature are because of some abuse by men.

I have actually contended with a man more than once who had the distorted view that a women could never tell any man what to do, or ever disobey her husband, and I strongly argued that she conditionally may in instances, (1 Sam. 25:1-19) and likewise obedience to the gov. is not unconditional. And if Scripture said that women were the head of the man as Christ is of the church, and ordained women priests and apostles and pastors, then i would contend for that as being the truth. But instead the Scripture most clearly teaches the opposite.

To Don, Pt. 1.

I think I would start any discussion with Peace4Jesus by asking him to not use the word "headship" as it is not found in the Bible and the use of it makes some unwarranted assumptions. What actually IS used in the Greek NT is the word kephale which has a primary meaning of one's physical head and when not used for that purpose has some metaphorical meanings.

Don, the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, nor Trinity, nor egalitarian, but the word for and concept of “head” is.

And talk about unwarranted assumptions and things not found in the Bible, kephalē occurs in the metaphorical sense less than 20 times out of a total of 76 occurrences, and in the literal sense it refers to the top, (Jn. 20:12) most often to the chief physical part of the body, and therefore in the metaphorical sense it represents the whole person; (Lk. 21:18; Act.18:6; Rom. 12:20) to Christ being the chief cornerstone of the building, its foundation; (Mat. 21:42, Mark 12:10, Lk. 20:17, Act. 4:11; 1Pet. 2:7) to God being the authority over Christ and Christ being the same over man; (1Cor. 11:3,4) and head and authority over the church and its source (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10,19) and likewise as man being the head over the wife. (1Cor. 11:3,5)

And the Hebrew word for head, rô'sh, is also used to denote preeminence in such places as Josh. 11:10

More on this issue follows below.

..I think he has already added too much tradition that is not found in the Bible...

Rather, in no place does kephalē simply refer to source as contrary to having primacy, and to make the man to simply be the source of the women and not her authoritative head requires that you do the same to God over Christ and Christ over the church.

(believer333) The submission of the wife to the husband is the same submission that all believers are to give to one another. Eph. 5:21 contains the verb that vs. 22 does not have and thus sets the tone....It is nothing to do with exercising authority or leadership over each other.

Eph. 5:21 is consistent with the exhortation to serve one another, but the teaching goes on to detail how this occurs in practical orders, with the church serving Christ in being subject unto Him, and the women to the man. Consistent with your reasoning, a general exhortation disallows details as to how that is applied except as generally, and here would disallow pastors from having any authority over the flock, and Christ over the church, and which is untenable. As is the idea that “of” does not mean “over” here, and is dealt with later on in response to your use of it.

By saying anything at all to the wife, Paul just promoted her from the positions of menial servant that you appear to ascribe to, to a person of equal value to everyone. She is now included with everyone’s similar submission to Jesus and to each other. This is something not heard of in that era.

Equating being under submission with being a mere “menial servant” is another misreading of Scripture, while here you are introducing a mere cultural norm which is not ordained in Scripture in order to negate that which is. Certainly the Lord was being counter cultural in speaking to the women, thank God, but this does not equate to the positional equality you extrapolate out of it. Being spoken to directly rather than through one's head does not make them equal, otherwise or Christians could not be directly told to, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves..." (Hebrews 13:17)

To Don, Pt. 2.

...He never promoted any such teaching.

He certainly did not promote the Jesus only “red letter” hermeneutic referred to above, or your strawman argument that submission means you are a mere “menial servant,” unless you want to make Christ such, but as said, He appointed zero apostles and changed nothing the OT said as concerns male headship, except as misconstrued to mean mere “menial servants” who cannot lead public women singing, (Ex. 15:20) and share what Christ has done, (Jn. 4:28,29) support ministry and minister to workers therein, privately help instruct a man with and under her husband, (Acts 18:26) and work a business and buy and sell, (Prov. 31:15,16,24; Acts 16:14) without upstaging the authority of the man. And there can be circumstances in which women must lead (as there are when children must), and likewise sometimes disobedience to authority is required, but which does not equate to a negation of the positional distinctions ordained as the standard.

There is actually no teaching in the whole of Scripture that puts forth a male headship in either the marriage or the church. All such assumptions are pulled from pieces of sentences out of their Scriptural context and then used to reinterpret the rest of Scripture.

Rather, there is actually no teaching in the whole of Scripture that negates male headship in either marriage or the church. All such assumptions are pulled from pieces of sentences out of their Scriptural context and then used to reinterpret the rest of Scripture. As has been progressively manifest here.

Interestingly, all Scriptures used to support something husbands should be are things addressed to women, not the men.

Irrelevant as well as false: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; " (Ephesians 5:25) "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. " (1 Peter 3:7)

In Gen. 3, in discussing the results of their sin, God says to the woman (not the man) that the man would now respond to her desire for him by seeking to rule over her. Notice that God did not tell the man to rule over his wife. It is important that we see this...

It is important that we notice that the Holy Spirit refers to creation and the Fall as reasons why women are not be the head over men: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " (1 Timothy 2:13-14) And obviously redemption does not obliviate all the effects of the Fall, otherwise in this body Christians would not groan, and the flesh have to be crucified.

In Eph. 5, Paul is talking to the woman (not the man) when he says that the husband is head OF (not over) her.

Please, the text states "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject [hupotassō, “to subordinate, be under obedience”] unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. " (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Your attempt to argue “of” as being opposed to “over” is necessary as the text states that Christ is the head of the church, but it is clear that this places the church in submission to Him, as being “over” the church, while your exegesis would also disallow God from having authority over Israel and heaven and the as He is the God of Israel, (Mt. 15:31) and “the God of heaven,” (Rv. 16:11) and is “Lord of all.” (Acts 10:35)

To Don, Pt. 3.

In a similar manner, Paul in talking to the husband (not the wife) reminds the man that he needs to treat the wife as his own body. Since the man has his own body, he is not to take his wife’s body as his own.....They need to live as one unit, which is furthered stated in vs. 31, where we are reminded that two are supposed to live as one.

According to your logic then again, since Christ has His own body then He cannot rule the church as His own body, while v. 31, which speaks of man and women becoming one, is followed by, “but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (v. 32)

While having oneness is the intent, this does not negate that the latter is subject to the former, Your error is making oneness and mutual service to negate headship, but which it clearly does not, do in context and consistent with the analogy as well as other texts. The church does not lead Christ, but what is in “a similar manner” is the reason of the wife's submission, as Christ is head of the church which is subject to Him.

In the church is another long discussion because you have instigated into Scripture what is not inherently there.

Indeed you have and negated what is there.

Also, a belief of hierarchy in the Godhead is Arianism. Arianism is the assertion that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father,...

That there is no relational hierarchy order in the Godhead, and is demanded by much of egalitarian argumentation, but it is not Scriptural or inconsistent with Trinitarian theology, and instead, as Robert Letham in Westminster Theological Journal warned in 1990, that, "One fails to see how evangelical feminism as such can consistently or for long preserve the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity."

There is much more on this here on what CFs wrote, and of order within the Godhead, and rather than economic subordination being unScriptural,

What i described is not Arianism. To make it so is a false analogy, as shared similarity does not overcome distinctions which separate it from Arianism. Arianism is the assertion that the Son of God was a created being, inferior in nature to the Father, as if equality and subordination are contradictions,, but which is clearly a false conclusion, and as is that having the same nature disallows positional distinctions. Otherwise Christians could not be required to "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) And leaders did exercise authority over them.

Moreover, the determinative factor is not what some believe, but what Scripture best warrants, which is that Jesus is God, having come forth from the Father (Jn. 8:42; 16:21cf. Ja, 1:16) as preexistent, (Mic. 5:2) having the same nature and possessing titles, attributes and receiving glory which are uniquely Divine, which i work to show,, while yet being second in position in the Godhead.

The Athenasian creed points out that in God, none is before and none behind, none is superior and none lessor...

They are coequal in nature as the creed holds, and it is uniquely impossible to speak of the Father commanding the Son as if there could be a conflict of wills within the eternal Trinity, but which is not opposed to a functional subordination in which the Father is head, and the Son is subject, versus the Son commanding the Father, and which extends beyond the Lord's incarnation on earth, as will be seen.

To Don, Pt. 4.

Roman Catholicism itself understands that,

We may view the Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat our Lord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to His Godhead... From this point of view it may be said that in the creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. (

And from the SBC Center for Theological Research (paradoxically written by a women):

Paul shows that the relative position of men and women is like the hierarchical
structure within the Godhead...” (

You’ve a long haul to prove otherwise.

Actually you’ve a long haul to prove that the Son is not the one in positional subjection. It is never the Son presenting Himself as the one from whom the Father came, and as being is the sender, or commanding the Father, or doing other things which place one in subjection, but the Father toward the Son eternally.

It is the Father from whom every perfect gift comes, (Ja. 1:17) through the Son who proceeds from the Father (but being always with Him, “light from light') and by whom He made the worlds and all things. (Heb. 1:2; Jn. 1:2; Col. 1:16)

It is the Father who sends the Son: “I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (Jn. 5:30; cf. 6:38) “neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” (Jn. 8:42)

It is the Father that provided a body for Christ. “..a body hast thou prepared me.” (Heb. 10:5)

And provides and commands the Son what to speak: “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (Jn. 12:49) “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.”
And is the one who determines the elect: “that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” (Jn. 6:65)

It is the Father who rewards the Son for service: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. " (Revelation 3:21)

It is the Father that functionally made Jesus Lord over all: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. " (Acts 2:36)

Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Acts 2:25) After which Christ shall be subject unto the Father: "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:27-28)

This is simply what Scripture states and wrangling it to disallow the Father as the head of Christ and Christ the head of the church and the man the head of the women is untenable, as is making submission to necessarily mean inferior in nature, or a thing to be avoided, or as sanctioning leadership treating brethren in submission as if they were mere property.

To Don, Pt. 5.

The teaching unit that includes the wives submit text starts at Eph 5:15 and ends in 6:9, for example. By truncating it at both ends, he is simply treating the text like Play-Doh and making it into something of his own creation.

This is another argument by assertion, the reality is that it is the egalitarian polemic that is treating text like Play-Doh.

The section provides for “understanding what the will of the Lord is,” and calls all to submission, first (v. 21) in general as servants who are called to, as said elsewhere, “by love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13) And then specific details of how submission is to be applied within established orders is provided, first that wives be in submission to husbands as to the Lord, (v. 22) after the manner that the church is subject to Christ:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. " (Ephesians 5:23-24)

For marriage is a type of the church being the bride of Christ, (vs. 31.32) and while it is the wives who are instructed to be subject to their husbands and not vice versa, yet the man is called to “love their wives as their own bodies, (v. 28) even as the Lord does for the church, (v. 29) even though He is its head.

Having affirmed general submission, and specifically that of the church to Christ, and the women to the man, the Holy Spirit commands submission of children to parents, (6:1-3) while admonishing fathers on how to treat his children. (v. 4)

Finally, the Holy Spirit calls slaves to be obedient to their masters, (v. 4=8) while also instructing masters on proper and fair care of them.

Thus in the specifics of submission it is wives to husbands, the church to the Lord Jesus, children to parents and slaves to masters. In every case ( except as Christ and the church which serves as the standard for wives) those being submitted to are also commanded to rightly care for those who are to be subject to them. However in none of these cases does the latter requirement negate the order of submission, though both are to serve each other accordingly. It remains that the attempt to negate male headship has no more warrant than negating the church being subject to Christ or children to parents or slaves to masters. And the differences as regards the latter with that of male headship have been already shown.

To Retha, Pt. 1:

you quote 1 Timothy 2:13. That text speak of a creation sequence, but does not say the man is hierarchically over the woman.

It doesn’t? I expect the context to be considered, and with the prior verses which this verse is part of the basis for, states, " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:11-13)

This makes a class distinction, calling women to quietly learn “with all subjection [subordination],” which elsewhere is from their husbands, (1Cor. 14:35) And the word for subjection is the same as used in 1Tim. 3:4: “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity,” (cf. 2Co_9:13;, Gal_2:5) and thus it functionally forbids women from being in leadership over men, and which fall under hierarchy. If you want to argue that this text does not universally state men are over women, then we need to consider this as part of a larger teaching.

Then you quote 1Cor. 11:3. That text, in the opinion of male headship proponents, is about male leadership. If that is true, it does not say male leadership is because men were first, because then the text do not speak of firstness. In the opinion of another group, the meaning of head is different and the text is not about leadership. Either way, the text does not connect male leadership to who was created first.

I actually referenced this verse as regards creational distinctions reflective of that within the Godhead, yet this is part of a larger teaching which states that man, “is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:7-9) And which goes with, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. " (1 Timothy 2:13) "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. " (Genesis 2:18)

This teaching thus certainly connects male leadership to who was created first, and while the women in turn gives birth to man so that man is also by the woman, this is not said in opposition to male headship, and which is why Paul says submission is to be signified.

As for reducing “head” to simply being source, the Father is not simply the source of Christ or Christ the church, but as is easily shown (see other posts), it also denotes leadership.

..if you have any idea what helper mean in the Old Testament, you will not use the word to demonstrate hierarchy. (The same Hebrew word mostly denotes God helping humans,...

If you consider context then you should see that it is not simply being a helper that is relevant to male headship but that she was created for man, and derived from him, as the glory of the man. God was not made for man, and the Holy Spirit invokes this as a basis for male headship, as shown above (1Tim. 2:11-13; 1Cor. 12:7-9) and will be expanded on below.

Pt. 2:

Do you realize that the text [1 Cor. 11:10] , as written in the original Greek, does not not have any "a sign of her husband's" words in? It is translated into the text. The Greek say "For this cause she should have authority on her head, because of the angels.” (I think this refers back to 6:3 - If we can judge the angels, we can certainly decide for ourselves over trivial things like headgear.) This Greek expression never refer to someone else's authority over, but always to own authority.

The “have power” is indeed something she is to have on her head, that being having it as a sign signifying her status, as will be seen.

As for translating into the text, i was not quoting a text but how the egalitarians effectively render it, and what rendering the Greek text does supply for is, “this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels,” and in context this is a sign of submission.

After establishing that “the head [not simply source] of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” the texts states, as part of a reproof, that, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head,” and if she will not be covered then she might as well be bald in shame. (1Cor. 11:3-6)

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. " (1 Corinthians 11:7-10)

Note that Genesis 1:27 states, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," and then Gn. 2:18-23) details just how “male and female created he them” (plural), which was separately, “because she was taken out of Man.” (Gn. 2:23) Eve was made in the image of man, as was Adam's son (Gn. 5:3), thus what is being invoked is that Adam coming first and women being derived from man, and for him, is a basis for his headship.

Thus the head of man is Christ, and whom man dishonors by praying with his head covered, as man was originally made in the image and glory of God. And thus man is to signify and not hide that by covering his head in congregational prayer, as that manifests his creative distinction, while the women was made from man and likewise is to signify that by her head covering.

Why exactly this is to be done “because of the angels” is not clear, but that it is to be done is clear, and is correspondent to the humility shown by the angelic creatures in Is. 6:2, who were covered in recognition of humility before the glory of God, and thus women are to be before God and man in the holy congregation where God is to be manifest among them. And which is also consistent with the exhortation of 1 Tim. 2:9, that “men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting,” and likewise the instructions for women are that they are to “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety...”

After tempering the headship status of man by reminding us that, being made a women from Adam's side, consequently man is also of the women through birth, the Holy Spirit continues the above reproof by appealing to the Corinthians to judge rightly in this matter, as does not even “nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (vs. 13-15)

Pt. 3.

What Paul means here “by nature” sees debate, but in Rm. 2:14 it refers to an undefiled innate sense of God's law, and in any case, and as supplemental to what has been said, nature is stated to teach that, “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.”

Therefore the headcovering here is a sign of creational differences, not as a freedom to choose what kind of headgear one wants, if any.

Note that this is not saying that it is ever wrong for man to cover his head, which is a sign of humility in Scripture, but in the congregation they are to reflect Adam being created in the image of God, who is his head, and likewise Eve as being made from man, who is her head under God.

Don't go quoting wrong how we would understand the probably the worst-translated text - most words added - in the Bible.

That the the woman should not or need not have a sign of submission on her head is a valid rendering of what egalitarians teach here, contrary to the text, and resorting to saying that this is “probably the worst-translated text - most words added - in the Bible” — neither of which is true — will not change that. 
After using my last opportunity to respond, the blog owner changed her mind and gave another as she did not close off comments, and which is here (with added reference links):
To believer333: 

• I see by your website that your method of interpretation is to quote a verse and then interpret that verse in whatever seems obvious by those words in only that verse...Because you apparently have done this all your Christian life, you now have a backlog of assumptions made by this method. 

Then what you “see” is not reality, but  instead you posit a premise without proof. Simply because a specific text is referenced does not mean the context have  not been considered.

 Instead,   in contrast to the  misconstruance often shown by egalitarians in their eisegesis, which includesarguing based on a “red letter” hermeneutic, i endeavor to compare Scripture with Scripture, and which consistently upholds male headship as i described it, from Genesis onward.

• Correct exegesis of Scripture ignores the verse numbers and looks for the beginning of the subject being discussed and the ending. 

True, context is what i have often admonished others for ignoring, and while blogs are conducive to extensive examination, in my last series i engaged in this in refuting the idea that the context was contrary to the historical conclusion, but my posts were disallowed from appearing due to length and other objections.

Here they are, with more material. (elsewhere I have also posted the entire bible [except Revelation  as i need to give it more study]  which provides classic Protestant commentary, by God's grace, and also on historical understanding of female "silence" in the church.)

As for the rest of your exegetical aspects, I affirm giving what these considerations warrant, and consideration of these aspects are what you will find in conservative guides on exegesis as well as “liberal” ones, and the issue is whether such valid considerations as cultural climate and authorial intent or linguistics are understood as warranted, or whether they are abused in order to affirm a desired conclusion. The latter is abundantly manifest by modern day revisionists in departing from historical truths, and includes everything from relegating OT miracles and historical accounts to being fables, to making God the Father to be a women or merely to be the source or Christ, and likewise Christ for the church, as distinct being from the head of it.

Or such considerations are invoked in muddying their waters so that the command to live by every word of God is practically impossible. Some prohomosexual authors invoke such considerations in arguing that Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate, and even that nothing is intrinsically immoral, disallowing that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality for today, and basically contending we can do what seems right based upon our judgment. (contra Dt. 12:8)

• PBJ, until you learn how to do this... 

I understand these principles, and how they can be abused,  and find the assertion your side is rightly using them, and all the opposing position is not, to be spurious. And that instead, with the totality of Scripture considered, and in the light of how  Scripture interpret itself, I find and show that the Scriptures uphold male headship, as explained, from beginning to end.

To Kristen:
• I'll give PBJ one last chance to respond (which I would have done anyway, since I had the last word) 

You already gave me a last opportunity and which I did make use of, and this is another one, thank you.