Submission

Status
Not open for further replies.

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Because Christ was fully man, He could have chosen to disobey
Sorry - but this is not true. Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time. And as God He cannot sin. And as a man, He was born with a human nature, but not a sinful nature. He never could have sinned for He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. So to say that He could have disobeyed God in the Garden is to say at any time from eternity past until eternity future that Jesus Christ is capable of choosing to sin. But God CANNOT sin. Ever.

Yes He was tempted. But He did not have a "choice" in the matter of His crucifixion as all of that was determined before the world began. When He says that He will do the Father's will over and above His own will, He is saying that as a man his flesh did not want to die (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak), but as God He knew what He was doing and why He was doing it (Heb 12:2). He was not making a choice. He was living by faith! Denying Himself, and taking up His cross. And He tells us to likewise follow Him.

Bottom line, to say that Jesus could have disobeyed the Father is to say that He Himself was not God. I am sure no one on this board would ever say that Jesus was not God.....

Phillip

[Edited on 9-28-05 by pastorway]
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Actually, Christ was showing that it is natural for a human being to not want to die, that at the same time we are to be in complete submission as he was when he prayed to the Father. He submitted all that the Father's Will be accomplished. It was not to show that he was making a choice.

You're right in that God could do whatever He wanted. But He has made known to us that the end was determined from before the beginning. Again, he is not a reactionary God.

We do make choices. However, our choices should be based on God's Word.

Perhaps, due to it being a previous issue for you, it was a sin for you to drink. That was not the case in the example given however.

On the church issue...I do believe we are called to assemble ourselves together. However, the prevention of attending services alone is not what would starve a person spiritually. How many people throughout the world are unable to attend a church and yet are more fed than many of us who are in church everytime the doors are open? The Word should be our primary feeding. Honestly, there was a time not long ago that I had no friends, lived in the middle of the cornfields, and we had no church to go to...add to that the fact that my husband worked from before I got up till after I was in bed and I, with two wee ones, was responsible for 3acres and laundry done by a wringer washer (cloth diapers and all). We were at the time being shunned and abandoned. Yet this is the time that I clung to my Savior stronger than ever.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 

BJClark

Puritan Board Doctor
puritangirl,


Just because I may want to sleep in on a Sunday morning and forsake the gathering together of the people of the Lord doesn't mean that I can, because it's the Lord's Day and I have an obligation to keep the Sabbath holy.
Are the Sabbath and the Lords day one and the same? I don't believe they are.

Sabbath:

[Heb.,=repose], in Judaism, last day of the week (Saturday), observed as a rest day for the twenty-five hours commencing with sundown on Friday. In the biblical account of creation (Gen. 1) the seventh day is set as a Sabbath to mark God's rest after his work. In Jewish law, starting with both versions of the Ten Commandments, the rules for the Sabbath are given in careful detail.

Early Christians had a weekly celebration of the liturgy on the first day (Sunday), observing the Resurrection.

So I have to ask what does getting up on Sunday Morning and going to Church have to do with the keeping the Sabbath Holy, when in reality it has nothing to do with the Sabbath at all, but more to do with observing the resurrection?


Just because I may want to give into my flesh and be impure before marriage doesn't mean I can, because otherwise I would be breaking the law of God and committing adultury.
Sure you can, you just choose not too, there is a difference. I'm not saying your wrong not to, I'm just saying you still have a CHOICE on if you will or not.

Just because I may not understand or agree with my husband when he asks something of me does not mean I don't have to do it, because I am commanded by God to submit to my husband.
So you don't submit to your husband because you want to, but only because you are commanded to? My understanding of submission is that it is a choice.

"Submit is a verb. Submitting is a voluntary action. Submission is a choice we make. It´s something each one of us must decide to do. And this decision happens first in the heart. If we don´t decide in our hearts that we are going to willingly submit to whomever it is we need to be submitted to, then we are not truly submitting. Submission is a matter of trusting in God more than trusting in man."

"Too often people confuse "œsubmit" with "œobey." But they are not the same thing. The Bible gives commands about obeying other people only in regard to children and slaves, and in the context of the local church.
Since a wife is neither her husband´s child nor his servant, and the local church isn´t part of a marriage, the word "œobey" has no application to the relationship between a husband and a wife."


But your identity in Christ and as a Christian will directly affect the kind of wife you are. You will either be the kind of wife who doesn't care what the Bible has to say but instead views her relationship with her husband as a "team" and a "partnership" (the world's view), or you will listen to the Word of God and humbly accept your place as a wife.
You don't believe a husband and wife are a team who works together, Like a pair of oxen who are yoked together? (be ye not unequally yoked)

That is how I picture marriage, my husband and I yoked together as a team with Christ in control of the reins. There is a lead and a partner yoked together like with a wooden frame resting on the shoulder of each ox, with a bar and oxbow at each end so they could pull together as a team.

Christ being in control of the reins can turn the lead ox in which ever direction He desires them to go, and the partner follows because that is the direction the one in control of the reins is turning them. The partner ox is not trusting the lead ox to lead them, but is trusting in the one who controls the reins and It is His commands they submit to.

And I honestly don't know why people assume I have an issue with submitting to Christ or His Command to submit to my husband, just because I recognize it as MY CHOICE to submit or not, just as each and every one of us have the same Choice to Submit to Christ or not.

Just because we are Christians doesn't mean we can't still choose to sin and ignore the prompting of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. :um:
 

BJClark

Puritan Board Doctor
Actually, I can see times where a spouse would ask the other to do things that they themselves would not do, merely due to the roles each is in.
And they would be?

I'm serious here, what would a spouse not be willing to do if they had the ability and the means to do it themselves, but just would not do it under any circumstances, but would in turn ask their spouse to do it?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Webster's1828

SUBMIS'SION, n. [L. submissio, from submitto.]

1. The act of submitting; the act of yielding to power or authority; surrender of the person and power to the control or government of another.

Submission, dauphin! 'tis a mere French word;

We English warriors wot not what it means.

2. Acknowledgment of inferiority or dependence; humble or suppliant behavior.

In all submission and humility,

York doth present himself unto your highness.

3. Acknowledgment of a fault; confession or error.

Be not as extreme in submission, as in offense.

4. Obedience; compliance with the commands or laws of a superior. Submission of children to their parents is an indispensable duty.

5. Resignation; a yielding of one's will to the will or appointment of a superior without murmuring. Entire and cheerful submission to the will of God is a christian duty of prime excellence.

It is an action...one that God has placed as the duty of wives to husbands.
 

5solasmom

Puritan Board Freshman
Colleen, no worries!:D I've been known to debate passionately too....;)

And Beth, thanks for the kind welcome!

You said if I think I have something to contribute to go ahead and do so. I did not plan to jump back in here, but something has me scratching my head and my curiousity is getting the best of me. :D


Thank you for attempting to answer and comment on my previous comments. There is still an assumption that disobedience is taking place, which is what I'm calling into question to begin with. Forgive my seemingly beating a dead horse statement again...;) - Question coming down to, "Is it ALWAYS disobedient if we do not obey a dh's command (assuming we have graciously appealed and he does not change his demand) when obeying does not specifically break a command of God?". My position is that it is not. Yours is that it is.

Taking this principle of "We must obey unless it breaks a command of God", how then is it consistent to say that physical abuse IS an exception? How is receiving physical abuse breaking a command of God? I think there is stronger support scripturally for actually TAKING the abuse. I do not believe the support is addressing marriage, and I do not believe a woman has to recieve physical abuse either, but I am curious as to how that is consistent with your premise? And if physical abuse is an exception to the rule, why not emotional abuse as well?

The point I am making is that you are holding a position that says there is no exception to submission UNLESS it specifically breaks a command of God. My point is that that is not so (i.e. the "excellent" argument as an example). So how then is it consistent to say that physical abuseis an exception? Do you have scriptural support for that?

And to establish my position again, since I think there is an assumption that I am saying it's "OKAY" to disobey God (i.e. question as to "how far" I'm willing to rebel when I am not speaking of rebelling)...that is not what I have said. My question is still....is it ALWAYS sin not to obey a dh's command if that command is not in violation to a law of God". You have said yes. In order to maintain that consistency, you must then believe it is wrong for her to disobey him if he tells her to stand in the corner while he beats her with a bat (unless you can prove scirpturally that recieving a beating is a sin against a command of God).

We both believe physcial abuse is not an area we must submit in. So you have established my point. There are exceptions.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by 5solasmom]
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Physical Abuse is illegal...both to our Nations Laws and according to how Scripture says we are to deal with eachother.

From Dr. Laura and the Chaplain of the Glenburn Evangelical Covenant Church in Glenburn, Maine (Granted on the 5th Commandment, but it would also apply here):

When (parents)....break civil and moral laws or jeopardize life and limb of innocent "neighbors," you are required to stand between (them) and those laws or innocents. This may indeed mean that authorities must be notified. The chaplain of the Glenburn Evangelical Covenant Church in Glenburn, Maine, wrote in this regard: Since honor does not mean unquestioned obedience, we truely honor (our parents) when we hold them accountable to God's law. If my (parents) abandon me, I will honor them by seeking, though no forcing, reconciliation. If my (parents) abuse me, I will honor them by praying for them, so that they might see their error--and by escaping, if possible, so that they cannot continue to sin upon me. If my (parents) are unfaithful, I will honor them by calling for righteousness and by being willing to forgive them when they repent. If they are breaking the law, and refuse to heed my warnings, I will honor them by calling the police. Making them accountable to the highest moral order is honoring them in that I esteem them capable of responsible action."

BTW, I've had to face at least two of these issues with my mother and step-father. And I believe this would apply if you replaced "parents" with husband or spouse.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Forgive my seemingly beating a dead horse statement again...;)
BTW, we've abused this smiley :deadhorse: on a regular basis on this board...the reason we don't see him much anymore...I think he's escaped us. :bigsmile:

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ah, it has come down to physical abuse again. The 'submission' conversations always do....

Abuse is close to my heart. I ministered in the projects for several years and saw very abused women, whom the law could not fully protect without a divorce. They could only issue restraining orders and warrents and such. Many times this was inadequate to protect her.I'll get back to that. First, let me quote from a Prebyterian position paper on divorce when there is physical abuse:

In a paper presented to the Philadelphia Presbytery and included as an appendix to this report, W. S. Barker draws the following conclusions.
"œTo a direct question of whether physical abuse could be a grounds for divorce, the Puritan tradition informing the Westminster Assembly would have answered, No, not per se or by itself. William Perkins and William Ames before the Westminster Assembly, William Gouge as a member of the Assembly, and Richard Baxter soon after the Assembly are all consistent with Calvin and Beza and the Genevan tradition in emphasizing adultery as the essential cause for divorce.
"œThis same Puritan tradition also saw that under certain circumstances desertion could be a grounds for divorce, and physical abuse could be the basis of a desertion, the spouse guilty of the abuse being reputed as the deserter even though the other may have departed. Before such a situation could be the grounds for a divorce, however, a sufficient time would have to expire for the efforts of both church and civil magistrate to seek to achieve a reconciliation."
In any case, it is important to note both the broad agreement and the narrow scope both of identifiable disagreement and of remaining questions. The entire Reformed church held that marriage vows were generally indissoluble, that only a few vicious crimes against the marital covenant constituted grounds for divorce, that many alleged grounds lacked Biblical justification, that incompatibility was by no means a ground of divorce, that every effort was to be made to preserve a marriage and that divorce was always an unwelcome extremity, that adultery conferred upon the innocent party the right of divorce and remarriage, and, that, in certain extreme cases, the innocent victims of marital abandonment are released from their obligations to the marriage. Possible, though still strictly circumscribed, constructions of marital abandonment and whether in such cases a right of remarriage is conferred on the innocent spouse seem genuinely details of interpretation, differences which were insufficient to undermine the Reformed consensus on marriage and divorce.

Again, I tend to believe that there are some instances where divorce is justified in some cases of physical abuse where adequate protection cannot be given when the couple seperates. The laws very here state-state.

God's mercy extended even to the female slave , where if her master took away from her food and clothing when he married, that she could go free:

Exo 21:10 "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
Exo 21:11 "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Even here God shows mercy and protection. That said, I think these cases are very, very far and few in between.

The best thing she can do is stay away or seperate if he will not go to counciling. These are the most biblical options.

Extrememe cases of abuse is not however directly relevant to submission in daily living.
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Physical Abuse is illegal...both to our Nations Laws and according to how Scripture says we are to deal with eachother.


[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]
Excellent point. :ditto:
 

5solasmom

Puritan Board Freshman
It is illegal for the husband, not the wife. He is breaking both a command of God and a civil command.

But my point is, the wife is not. He is not asking HER to break a command of God or a civil law by taking abuse. This is getting down to nitty gritty specifics I know, but this is the whole point. We cannot use this principle in EVERY single scenario.

Colleen, I understand your points on submission and for the most part I agree with them. However, I think the idea that we always obey dh unless it violates one of the commands of God (shall/shall not) cannot literally be applied across the board with every thing (physical abuse is one example). There are times we must not submit to him even if the demand does not directly break a law of God to do. It may, like the singing in the street one scenario, be foolish, a poor witness to Christ, or even (which I failed to say) violate the wife's own conscience (to him who knows what is right and does not do it is sin for him).

Hope that makes sense.



:)
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Physical abuse is also a violation of the sixth commandment.

Westminster Larger Catechism
Q135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A135: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves [1] and others [2] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[3] subduing all passions,[4] and avoiding all occasions,[5] temptations,[6] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[7] by just defense thereof against violence,[8] patient bearing of the hand of God,[9] quietness of mind,[10] cheerfulness of spirit;[11] a sober use of meat,[12] drink,[13] physic,[14] sleep,[15] labor,[16] and recreations;[17] by charitable thoughts,[18] love,[19] compassion,[20] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[21] peaceable,[22] mild and courteous speeches and behavior;[23] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[24] comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.[25]

1. Eph. 5:28-29
2. I Kings 18:4
3. Jer. 26:15-16; Acts 23:12, 16-17, 21, 27
4. Eph. 4:26-27
5. II Sam. 2:22; Deut. 22:8
6. Matt. 4:6-7; Prov. 1:10-11, 15-16
7. I Sam. 24:2; 26:9-11; Gen. 37:21-22
8. Psa. 82:4; Prov. 24:11-12; I Sam. 14:45
9. James 5:7-11; Heb. 12:9
10. I Thess. 4:11; I Peter 3:3-4; Psa. 37:8-11
11. Prov. 17:22
12. Prov. 25:16, 27
13. I Tim. 5:23
14. Isa. 38:21
15. Psa. 127:2
16. Eccl. 5:12; II Thess. 3:10, 12; Prov. 16:26
17. Eccl. 3:4, 11
18. I Sam. 19:4-5; 22:13-14
19. Rom. 13:10
20. Luke 10:33-34
21. Col. 3:12-13
22. James 3:17
23. I Peter 3:8-11; Prov. 15:1; Judg. 8:1-3
24. Matt. 5:24; Eph. 4:2, 32; Rom. 12:17, 20-21
25. I Thess. 5:14; Job 31:19-20; Matt. 25:35-36; Prov. 31:8-9
 

5solasmom

Puritan Board Freshman
Physical abuse is relevant to the principle you are holding to. It still remains inconsistent with the principle itself because it does not violate a command of God to be abused.

The physical abuse is NOT the point. The point is that you hold an exception that cannot be supported by your own rule.

So are you saying that receiving abuse violates a command of God (recieving it, NOT giving it)?
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
The Fifth Commandment duty of submission does not trump the Sixth Commandment duty of preservation of life (sin prohibited by the Sixth Commandment per WLC #136: "the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life").
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
I honestly do not see how it has not been supported. The wife's actions in such a case (ie removing herself from the abuse) is upheld by other commands as has been pointed out.

I will be facing a similar situation soon in regards to laws in conflict. PA's homeschool law is in conflict with their Religious Freedom Protection Act. I will be appealing to one law to protect myself from the intrusion of the other. Which is precisely what we are pointing to here. You stated that we can't take this verse on submission by itself where certain cases are concerned. You're right. Thus the appeal to other laws found in scripture.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by bond-servant
Again, I tend to believe that there are some instances where divorce is justified in some cases of physical abuse where adequate protection cannot be given when the couple seperates. The laws very here state-state.
This is where it is the laws of the land that are lacking. To go back to scriptural times, one could be stoned for such. (where's that stoning avatar I saw a few months back?)
 

BJClark

Puritan Board Doctor
5solasmom,

I am reminded of Christ being beaten, spit on, and hung on a cross, Even He endured the most vile of abuses, and yet submitted and spoke not a word. So you are right, it does not violate God's commands to stand there and be beaten. He even loved those who were beating Him.

Physical abuse is relevant to the principle you are holding to. It still remains inconsistent with the principle itself because it does not violate a command of God to be abused.

The physical abuse is NOT the point. The point is that you hold an exception that cannot be supported by your own rule.

So are you saying that receiving abuse violates a command of God (recieving it, NOT giving it)?
[Edited on 9-28-2005 by BJClark]
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Reading through this I have a question.....

IF it is part of submission for a wife to accept abuse from her husband let's exapnd this a bit.

What if the husband begins abusing the children?

Is the wife to submit and allow that to continue?

Are the children supposed to allow it to happen without saying a word since they are commanded to obey and honor their parents?

Think about it. If an abused wife should just take abuse from her husband then she should also not interfere if he is abusing the children, and that is ridiculous.

No offense - but the whole idea that submission means to take abuse is a severe misunderstanding of what the Bible means when it tells a wife to submit to her husband. To submit is to follow his lead, it is not to put herself in harms way - that is not following a leader, that is yielding to a tyrant.

Jesus took abuse, and in cases of presecution there are times that we take abuse - but abuse from a spouse cannot be accepted under the guise of submission.

As an elder, when I counsel couples, if there is abuse, then I urge separation until we work through those issues for the safety of all involved. I prefer the wife to go live with a family in the church until the husband has repented and resolved the issue.

Phillip
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by pastorway

As an elder, when I counsel couples, if there is abuse, then I urge separation until we work through those issues for the safety of all involved. I prefer the wife to go live with a family in the church until the husband has repented and resolved the issue.

Phillip
:amen:
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Phillip,

I don't think that Bobbi is suggesting that a women be submissive in an abusive situation, she is just using that as an example to show that the woman does not ALWAYS have to submit to her husband. I believe that she is trying to show that an abusive situation (the receiving end) is not sinful to stay in, but "common sense" (?) says she should leave.

However, this is not the case. Tolerating abuse is sin. It has been shown above that it would be violating the sixth commandment for a woman to "submit" to abuse. Therefore, the attempt to show that a woman does not have to submit in all lawful instances DOES NOT FOLLOW.

It is a woman's duty to submit at ALL times UNLESS it violates a higher law (i.e. the law of the land, or the law of God).

If some of you believe that this is NOT true, and there are OTHER instances of refusal to submit, I beg you, what rules are there to DETERMINE when you should, and when you should not submit to your husband?
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Just to clalify too - submission is placing yourself under ones authority, in this case, to serve as a help-mate - meaning that this is God's design for the family for the man to lead and the woman to help. Submission does not mean that the wife has no say, that she must do everything the husband tells her to do, that she is not a partner in the marriage, that she cannot think on her own and for herself, or that every decision should be left to the husband and his word is final!

Submission means that she lovingly places herself in his care and under his leadership, serves as a help-mate, encourages discussion with the goal of the family as a whole making wise decisions, and while being submissive she has the ability to appeal his decisions! It also means that the husband can delegate areas of "control" to her and she is still being submissive.

When a wife submits that does not make the man a Lone Ranger in the marriage. It means that he has someone helping him fulfill his God given role as a leader.

The perfect example is that in my marriage (and in my life) I am horrible with finances! I cannot balance a checkbook to save my life. I took Greek and Hebrew not College Algebra and Trig! So I asked my wife to take over the finances because she is a math whiz and a frugal shopper to boot. When I had "control" of the finances we kept bouncing checks and never knew how much money we had in the bank. Now things are much better. She helps me by taking on this responsibility since she is better at it than I am!

Phillip
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel


It is a woman's duty to submit at ALL times UNLESS it violates a higher law (i.e. the law of the land, or the law of God).
This one sentence pretty much perfectly summarizes many posts. Thank you. :)

Yes, there are circumstances where a woman may need to seek protection, and in theses cases both God's law and gov't law is being broken.

Scripture is clear on submission.

btw: Pastorway, I liked your example...
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
excellent posts!

BTW, Pastorway...hubby will feel better knowing that it's not only him on the balancing checkbook things....(my head hurts when he takes it over)
 

5solasmom

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Phillip,

I don't think that Bobbi is suggesting that a women be submissive in an abusive situation, she is just using that as an example to show that the woman does not ALWAYS have to submit to her husband. I believe that she is trying to show that an abusive situation (the receiving end) is not sinful to stay in, but "common sense" (?) says she should leave.

However, this is not the case. Tolerating abuse is sin. It has been shown above that it would be violating the sixth commandment for a woman to "submit" to abuse. Therefore, the attempt to show that a woman does not have to submit in all lawful instances DOES NOT FOLLOW.

It is a woman's duty to submit at ALL times UNLESS it violates a higher law (i.e. the law of the land, or the law of God).

If some of you believe that this is NOT true, and there are OTHER instances of refusal to submit, I beg you, what rules are there to DETERMINE when you should, and when you should not submit to your husband?
I am sorry but I cannot see how the sixth commandment is being violated if a woman endured abuse from her husband. HE is violating it 100%, and as someone stated earlier, a woman is to submit to her dh even if HE is in sin in his request. I read the WCF and looked up the verses. None of them state that it is WRONG for someone to endure abuse. We can go through scripture and pull out all kinds of verses that would tell us the opposite. If enduring abuse is sin for the one being abused, then Christ sinned by allowing others to abuse Him.

Rules to determine when you should not submit -

If it violates the law of God.
If it violates the conscience.
If it's not an issue of "submission/obedience" at all.
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by 5solasmom


Rules to determine when you should not submit -

If it violates the law of God.
If it violates the conscience.
If it's not an issue of "submission/obedience" at all.
I understand where you are coming from, but if we are talking about extremes here,... what if it is against her concience to go to church, but her husband tells her they will go to church as a family. Or, what if she does not agree with the Bibllical principle of tithing, and thinks that her husband misunderstands Scripture and that he is wasting thier money... should she disobey him and hold back her own earnings if she has them? See what I mean.... this is a slippery slope....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top