John Clapton - 08 September 2008 06:36 PM

I am however, seeking to resist a line of logic that is intent on one outcome - the subjugation of women to men because of some so-called divine order.

All this talk about seperate wills that are aligned but different seems quite unnecessary for me to have a sound understanding of God.  The only purpose seems to me to be to create a basis for something else.

Now that’s hardly fair.

Isn’t it more a case of trying to make the best sense of the biblical data?  Both sides need to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  And this seems to be exactly what you’re doing here.  You don’t like where some people take divine order, and so you reject all notions of divine order, despite what the bible may say, and what the church fathers may have said.

Mike

Not at all, Mike.  I simply use different frameworks to guide my theological reflection on what the Bible is saying. 

It is not even a self-evident fact that if it could be argued that there is a strong Biblical case to be made about the subordination of the Son to the Father or even the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son this has implications that women should not exercise leadership over men.  I fail to see any connection between the two, despite all the linked material referred to in this thread.

The framework I use, as mentioned above, is that we are all called through our baptism into a priesthood of all believers in a Kingdom in which there is neither male nor female.  This framework shapes the way I interpret the data. 

You use a different framework, we all do.  It is just that some of us claim to look completely objectively at the data, uninfluenced by anything else - this is not humanly possible.

The framework I use, as mentioned above, is that we are all called through our baptism into a priesthood of all believers in a Kingdom in which there is neither male nor female.  This framework shapes the way I interpret the data.

How do you believe the Bible supports this framework?

1 Peter 2:9 - “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you might proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” and
Galations 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, There is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ.”

Indeed this last phrase should put an end to all talk of subordination anywhere in the Divine scheme of things.  Paul goes on “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” We are children of God, yet not as Christ is the Son of God, yet elsewhere Paul claims that we are co-heirs with Christ. 

We are “one in Christ” and that is it.  It is this fundamental principal that provides the framework for my interpretation of these things.

Hi Mike,

I agree (I think) with most of what is being said.  Most especially about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together, and not being three persons in co-operation.

I think that what you wrote in the rest of that comment is answered in sections of the Cary paper that I did not quote previously.

Here is some more.  You might get more benefit by reading the whole thing in sequence.

[W]ithout exception, everyone at the council [of Nicaea], including the heretics, believed that Christ was divine. The question was all about what kind of divinity this is—which is to say, the question was what the Christian view of God really is. What everybody at the council agreed on was that Christ as God is pre-existent: he was the divine Word that was with God in the beginning (John 1:1) long before Jesus was born.

This tells us something important about the focus of the doctrine of the Trinity: it concerns the divine being of Jesus, not his humanity. In his humanity he is not pre-existent but born of woman just like the rest of us, and subordinate to God just like every other human being. Confusing what the Bible says about Christ’s human obedience with what must be said about his divine being is therefore the easiest route to subordinationism. So for instance when Christ says “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), the Nicene tradition unanimously rejects subordinationist attempts to see this as a statement about Christ’s divinity. It is only as a human being that Christ is less than the Father; as God, what he says about himself is “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Only someone who is at once truly human and truly God can say both. But the doctrine of the Trinity, we must bear in mind, is focused on only one side of this two-sided Christology: it is about what it means to say he is truly God.

As for the argument regarding who sends who and who gets sent I’ve seen how those who believe in the eternal subordination of Jesus use it.  What a lot of work they’re making that little word “sent” do!  And now you’re trying to make the little word “will” work just as hard.

In fact - doesn’t saying they have different roles suggest they have different wills?

How and why?  The role I had in producing our children was quite different to the one my husband had.  But our wills were the same, i.e., to have children. 

Again - part of their differing roles is the Father willingly sending the Son, and the Son willingly being sent.  Different wills here, but united in action and purpose.

Here you’re making the word “will” work extra hard.  The Father’s will wasn’t merely to be will-ing to send the Son but to accomplish His purpose.  The Son’s will wasn’t merely to be will-ing to be sent but to accomplish the Father’s purpose.  As the previous quote from Cary says, “every work of the Trinity originates with the Father, is carried out by the Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit.”

if you have helpful thoughts about acceptance of authority, not just validity of office, it would be great to hear them.

I guess no one does. That’s a shame because I would have liked to have heard some opinions on this - I thought it was what the thread was about. Nevermind.

Tim

1 Peter 2:9 - “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you might proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” and
Galations 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, There is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ.”

Indeed this last phrase should put an end to all talk of subordination anywhere in the Divine scheme of things.  Paul goes on “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” We are children of God, yet not as Christ is the Son of God, yet elsewhere Paul claims that we are co-heirs with Christ.

We are “one in Christ” and that is it.  It is this fundamental principal that provides the framework for my interpretation of these things.

I think you have the order wrong. Before Christ we are not Jew or Greek, slave of free, male or female, for anyone can be saved and adopted as God’s sons. But this does not mean there is no structure to the people of God.

To use your words I would say we are “is that we are all called, in which there is neither male nor female, through our baptism into a priesthood of all believers in a Kingdom”

We will all be priests, but we won’t have equivalent roles, and neither do we now. There is much in the Bible that supports this. A lot of Revelations shows that there will be structure in heaven, even with nations. Jesus says in Matt 19 that the disciples will judge over Israel. Paul says in 1 Cor 6 that the saints the world and even angels… we are united in Christ, but we are not all equal, and some are to have positions over others.

Now you are messing with the words, Dannii.  v.26 “For in Christ Jesus you are all children (not sons) of God through faith.  As many of you as were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Thus) there is no longer...male or female ... for all of you are one in Christ.”

Where in this particular piece of Paul’s writing does he explain that this equality is qualified by a notion of heirarchy?  Again and again Paul talks about the freedom we have in Christ that breaks the yoke of slavery to the law and the ways of the world.  The insistence by many in this thread that there is a divine order that keeps women subservient to men is nothing more than a misguided attempt to use the name of Christ to keep more than half of the church in a yoke of slavery.

The heirachy is in your presuppositions rather than the text.

Where in that text does oneness imply unequal roles or positions? Where does freedom in Christ imply that?

I don’t think their is a divine order that keeps women subservient to men. I think that God has chosen to give authority to men over women in certain situations. A marriage is the foremost example, though church leadership is another. I cannot see how that could be called slavery! That some church leaders may abuse their position does not mean God’s model of headhship is wrong, for there would be some abusive female leaders too.

Hi Janice

I don’t think we’re progressing here, so I’m going to bow out of this conversation.

You haven’t convinced me that those who wrote the Nicene creed were against relational order.  In fact, I was hoping some of those quotes earlier shows relationship order was older then the 30 years that some of your quote have been claiming.  However - I’m aware that I haven’t convinced you otherwise, nor that the bible talks about relational order - at least whilst Jesus was on earth.

So thank you for your time and the efforts you have made.  I really do appreciate it.

Mike

Where have all the flowers gone...no.....where have all the Sydney conservatives gone?They’ve gone liberal on Anglo-Catholicism and on this...!

Robert ian Williams - 09 September 2008 05:13 PM

Where have all the flowers gone...no.....where have all the Sydney conservatives gone?They’ve gone liberal on Anglo-Catholicism and on this...!

RiW, I don’t think that your constant ‘cheap shots’ is helpful to on-going discussion.

Cheers,
Andrew

Robert ian Williams - 09 September 2008 05:13 PM

Where have all the flowers gone...no.....where have all the Sydney conservatives gone?They’ve gone liberal on Anglo-Catholicism and on this...!

Quite frankly, your attempted pincer-movement is odious and uncharitable.

Just trying to get the thread back on track..I only joke with those people I like.

Janice Money - 08 September 2008 09:36 PM

As the previous quote from Cary says, “every work of the Trinity originates with the Father, is carried out by the Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit.”

As a genuine question , is this the way God always acts? Do God’s works ever originate in Jesus?

Timothy Patrick - 08 September 2008 09:44 PM

if you have helpful thoughts about acceptance of authority, not just validity of office, it would be great to hear them.

I guess no one does. That’s a shame because I would have liked to have heard some opinions on this - I thought it was what the thread was about. Nevermind.