 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I think that's a fairly common pattern in my posts, and a fair way to treat information like this. |
It's a common pattern, but not always sensible or fair. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 12:05 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I think that's a fairly common pattern in my posts, and a fair way to treat information like this. |
It's a common pattern, but not always sensible or fair. |
So do you think we should accept any accusation against anyone else as true, and any newspaper article as true? Have you ever been falsely accused of anything?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 12:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Love your false dichotomy, there.
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I think that's a fairly common pattern in my posts, and a fair way to treat information like this. |
It's a common pattern, but not always sensible or fair. |
So do you think we should accept any accusation against anyone else as true, and any newspaper article as true? Have you ever been falsely accused of anything? |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 12:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
The Bible says 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'
If I read a brief blog post about a woman who says her husband, Mr. Doe, beat her and molested some kids, and I go around telling people that Mr. Doe beat his wife and raised his kids....
but it turned out he didn't do it, might I not be guilty before God of bearing false witness. That's one of the dangers of gossip.
I never even read this woman's book. Should I say her husband beat her? I don't see how that good ethics for a Christian.
I don't know this woman or her background, but someone falsely accusing their spouse of abuse of themselves or the kids isn't unheard of. It probably happens a lot when custody of the kids or division of property is an issue.
I'm not accusing the blogger of lying either. I'm just saying as Christians we have to be careful about accusing other people. It's pretty foolish to accuse our brethren when we don't know anything at all about the evidence.
"Always believe the victim" is not a good thing, either, certainly not in a court of law or in the church. There is a place for reserving judgment.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 12:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Tom, I know I can be analytical.
Of course, if there is a husband who beats his wife, or rapes a foster child like Bonnie Knox mentioned in a later post, that is very sad or evil. I thought I'd expressed those feelings in other posts, and maybe I didn't realize that I'd come across as 'dispassionate.'
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/13/16 7:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | rapes a foster child like Bonnie Knox mentioned in a later post |
the word I used was molested
I did not say raped |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/13/16 8:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
In the first place, you brought up the term pro-abuse and insinuated I had called you that when I had in fact, not called you that. (That was annoying.)
And just because you can't see the logic of what I'm saying doesn't mean the logic isn't there.
If the passage in 1 Peter 2 is an instruction to the people living in that TIME and situation, it does not follow that believers in every time period are going to be in those same circumstances. The principles are timeless, yes, and I think the enjoinder that 'if you suffer, don't let it be because you have done wrong yourself' is a timeless principle. But don't look at that passage in isolation of the whole body of scripture!! 1 Corinthian 7:21 says 'Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.' Why on earth would the Apostle Paul here tell someone to take advantage of the chance to be free while the Apostle Peter says suffer in your bondage? Well, it should be obvious that the circumstances are different for someone who can be freed from their bondage and from someone who can't be freed.
Now we come to the fact that you chose this particular text to quote in this particular thread. Try to follow me here as I give a hypothetical example. Let's say you told us you had put out a video on how to interpret the Bible. Then when you announced on Acts that you had made a part II to the video series. And let's say some snarky female poster quotes Proverbs 26:11. Then let's suppose you object that such comment was rude and disrespectful. Then suppose the snarky female poster says, 'If you say I'm rude, you are saying the writer of Proverbs is rude and I don't see a way around it.' Context is important and not just the context of the surrounding scripture, but the context of how and when scripture is quoted.
So, in other words, we should not conclude that you think the writer of Proverbs is rude and disrespectful just because you thought someone who quoted it was rude and disrespectful.
In the same manner, someone might wonder if by quoting 1 Peter 2 in a thread dealing mostly with abused wives that Link might be suggesting that women who are abused by their husbands should endure grief and suffer patiently EVEN though that same someone does not believe that Peter is telling wives to stay in abusive situations.
| Quote: | My point is if you are going to label me as pro-abuse because I quoted I Peter 2, then you should consider I Peter 2 to be pro-abuse. I don't see a way around that.
I also found it interesting, and strange, that your beef with my quoting that had to do with scripture applying to all times. If you think Peter was being 'pro-abuse' in that passage in the context, then that's worthy of thinking about and discussing. If you believe that the passage is inspired by the Spirit, what would that imply? |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/13/16 4:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | You should have been a lawyer! |
You should have been a comedian! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/13/16 4:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
This was a post I missed or skimmed and didn't catch part of it.
| bonnie knox wrote: | | I don't know if it is based on a refusal to grapple with the practical outworkings of one's beliefs, which was a major concern of Ruth Tucker's as stated in the OP '....But I do want them to reassess their position and how it plays out in practical terms.' Link seems very concerned that Ruth Tucker has made the suggestion that her ex-husband's view of headship was somehow connected to the way the relationship eroded to the point of threats and violence. |
My concern is the insinuation people who believe that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands (call them complementarians or whatever) have beliefs that lead to wife beating.
A man who quotes 'wives submit to your husbands' and then abuses his wife and think that's right because of 'submission' clearly has the wrong idea of headship.
| Quote: | As Patrick said, whenever the issue of women being abused comes up, Link wants to change the subject to men also being abused or that what is called abuse is not really abuse.
|
Patrick's 'black and white' view goes something like this 'if there is abuse get out'. Lot's of behaviors, probably even some forum members have engaged in on a one-off occasion might rightly be called 'verbal abuse.' There are also a wide variety of situations, too. There are men who habitually abuse their wives. There are wives who are violent and their husbands hit them back once. There are men who get drunk once and hit their wives and regret it in the morning.
| Quote: | | So, I think the demand to know how I would feel about being falsely accused is an attempt to detract from the issue at hand, although it seemed to me to be an example of a 'black and white Bible' when Link brought up the topic of having to have at least 2 witnesses. |
How do you interpret the two witnesses passages? Do they mean, 'well, you can have one witness, or no witnesses, if the person is accused of something really bad'?
Witnesses can testify to a number of things, including patterns of behavior, multiple incidences of the same type of sin, etc. The Bible says, 'be sure your sins will find you out.'
| Quote: | | In these discussions, I cannot detect in Link's conversations on this forum empathy for hurt women, unless it is tempered by the caveat that maybe she wasn't actually abused. I thought perhaps, if I used a scenario where the victim of abuse was a young boy, he might show some empathy for the victim, but again, in what was written here, he seemed to me to be more concerned with his rigid interpretation of the 2 scriptures mentioned. |
We aren't talking to someone in the room about their just being raped or beaten. We are talking about how to interpret the Bible. I could post about feeling like wanting to punch an abusive fellow in the face or pull a blanket over their head and beat them up, or send them to the chair. That seems to be more socially acceptable around here.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/13/16 10:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Link wrote: |
Patrick's 'black and white' view goes something like this 'if there is abuse get out'. Lot's of behaviors, probably even some forum members have engaged in on a one-off occasion might rightly be called 'verbal abuse.' There are also a wide variety of situations, too. There are men who habitually abuse their wives. There are wives who are violent and their husbands hit them back once. There are men who get drunk once and hit their wives and regret it in the morning.
|
I didn't realize that just hitting a woman once is not considered abuse, if there are extenuating circumstances.
Typically it's very seldom a one time thing and usually they were signs leading up to violence that may not have included any physical abuse such as hitting.
| Quote: |
We are talking about how to interpret the Bible. |
However, if the choice is to error on the side of caution or to follow what you believe to be Biblical principles and trust it's a one time thing and to forgive and move on, I'll stick with the error on the side of caution. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
3/14/16 6:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Patrick Harris wrote: |
I didn't realize that just hitting a woman once is not considered abuse, if there are extenuating circumstances. |
Sure it is, if its intentional. If a husband hit his wife in a one-off situation, would you advise she move out and they divorce and never be in the same house again? If it was a one time thing, and she's not in danger, and he repents and she forgives, and they come to you for counseling two weeks later, do you tell her to move out?
I knew an immigrant couple. On one occasion, the husband was lecturing his wife in the car and it was making her angry. She started punching him in the arm. They had their toddler in the back seat. The husband grabbed her wrists to make her stop and it left a couple of bruises. Should she leave her husband for bruising her wrists and never come back? Would you advise the husband to leave his wife for hitting him?
Would you advise a large husband to leave his tiny wife if she were violent and hit him?
| Quote: |
Typically it's very seldom a one time thing and usually they were signs leading up to violence that may not have included any physical abuse such as hitting. |
What is you basis for saying what is typical? Is your source scholarly, using legitimate methods of data collection?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 8:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Honestly, Link, I feel like I'm try to nail Jello to the wall in trying to figure out where you stand. You just said,
| Link wrote: | | My concern is the insinuation people who believe that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands (call them complementarians or whatever) have beliefs that lead to wife beating. |
Yet, earlier in this thread, I said,
| bonnie wrote: | | Link seems very concerned that Ruth Tucker has made the suggestion that her ex-husband's view of headship was somehow connected to the way the relationship eroded to the point of threats and violence. |
you responded with this
| Link wrote: | | You are misrepresenting my view here. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 8:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Link wrote: |
Sure it is, if its intentional. If a husband hit his wife in a one-off situation, would you advise she move out and they divorce and never be in the same house again? If it was a one time thing, and she's not in danger, and he repents and she forgives, and they come to you for counseling two weeks later, do you tell her to move out? |
Probably not at that point. However, if he didn't make some amends and had no remorse I'd still advice her to remove herself from the situation.
Not divorce but definitely find shelter somewhere else.
| Quote: | | Would you advise a large husband to leave his tiny wife if she were violent and hit him? |
Yes..
| Quote: | | What is you basis for saying what is typical? Is your source scholarly, using legitimate methods of data collection? |
It's fairly common knowledge if you read statistics on Domestic Violence. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
3/14/16 9:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | In the first place, you brought up the term pro-abuse and insinuated I had called you that when I had in fact, not called you that. (That was annoying.) |
Bonnie,
I noticed that you used the term after I brought it up to describe what you wrote below, | Quote: |
Link, do you agree that a wife should be subject to her husband's physical battering? When you ask Patrick if he is disagreeing with Ephesians 5:24, you are exhibiting the characteristic described by the title of the book. The beating of a woman till she's black and blue is justified by a black and white view of the Bible. |
I made some posts along the lines that there could be situations where a husband might take his wife's phone or keys. I said before we got into this, do we all agree that a wife should submit to her husband in everything (the wording of the Ephesians 5 passage.) Patrick said he didn't agree. I quoted the passage and asked him who he didn't agree with. I get this quote of yours in response, comparing my method of interpretation to a wife-beater's. I kind of found that 'annoying', too.
Your statements aren't true anyway. The most literal reading of Ephesians 5 does not lead to the conclusion that a husband is allowed by God to abuse his wife, not unless one thinks loving ones wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, and loving one's wife like his own body means leads to wife-beating.
We can read Ephesians 5 without assuming that the translators got things majorly wrong, or that the meaning of 'kephale' or headship has been lost over time, and still come to the conclusion that a husband is not to abuse his wife. There is no need to disregard any part of the teaching as irrelevant in our cultural context. A 'black and white' reading, as you call it, shows us that husbands are to love their wives.
The so-called 'black and white' idea that wives actually are supposed to submit to their husbands is the historical Christian viewpoint. It was the belief of Greek-speaking readers of scripture and the view of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant for the first 1900 years pretty much universally, before egalitarians came along and figured out how to really interpret the Bible. It is still the view of many, many evangelical Christians. It was the view of New England colonists who outlawed wife-beating. Why isn't wife beating more accepted? Why isn't Christianity viewed as a wife-beating religion? Why is it that Islam gets percieved that way instead?
| Quote: |
If the passage in 1 Peter 2 is an instruction to the people living in that TIME and situation, it does not follow that believers in every time period are going to be in those same circumstances. The principles are timeless, yes, and I think the enjoinder that 'if you suffer, don't let it be because you have done wrong yourself' is a timeless principle. But don't look at that passage in isolation of the whole body of scripture!! 1 Corinthian 7:21 says 'Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.' Why on earth would the Apostle Paul here tell someone to take advantage of the chance to be free while the Apostle Peter says suffer in your bondage? Well, it should be obvious that the circumstances are different for someone who can be freed from their bondage and from someone who can't be freed. |
I think you are trying to create an apparent contradiction that doesn't exist here, to prove some kind of point. There isn't any contradiction between Paul and Peter. Both tell slaves to submit to their masters. Peter deals in detail with the issue of a slave suffering for doing what is right, how suffering under such circumstances is commendable before God. Paul doesn't go into those details. Paul tells a slave who can be free to take advantage of the opportunity. Peter does not address it. But nothing Peter said would forbid a slave from taking advantage of an opportunity to be set free.
But there are other timeless principles in Peter's writings. There are people who suffer according to the will of God. There is suffering in this life, and it is God's will for the righteous to endure it for a time. Jesus gave us the example of enduring suffering according to God's will. (I Peter is a good book for every WOFer to study, IMO.)
| Quote: |
Now we come to the fact that you chose this particular text to quote in this particular thread. Try to follow me here as I give a hypothetical example. Let's say you told us you had put out a video on how to interpret the Bible. Then when you announced on Acts that you had made a part II to the video series. And let's say some snarky female poster quotes Proverbs 26:11. Then let's suppose you object that such comment was rude and disrespectful. Then suppose the snarky female poster says, 'If you say I'm rude, you are saying the writer of Proverbs is rude and I don't see a way around it.' Context is important and not just the context of the surrounding scripture, but the context of how and when scripture is quoted.
So, in other words, we should not conclude that you think the writer of Proverbs is rude and disrespectful just because you thought someone who quoted it was rude and disrespectful. |
Nothing in this conversation is really analogous to the scenario above.
| Quote: |
In the same manner, someone might wonder if by quoting 1 Peter 2 in a thread dealing mostly with abused wives that Link might be suggesting that women who are abused by their husbands should endure grief and suffer patiently EVEN though that same someone does not believe that Peter is telling wives to stay in abusive situations.
|
When you talk about Peter's cultural context, there was nowhere, legally, for an abused slave to go. Rome had crucified slaves in a slave rebellion. Peter is talking about slaves and we are talking about wives. But there are plenty of women who live in societies where the legal system doesn't outlaw wife-beating and there are no domestic violence centers. Male relatives may be less likely to step in and help than they would in other societies. I've never lived on the Arabian penninsula, but it is my understanding that this is the situation there. There are some Christians from this type of cultural background before their conversion in the Gulf area, and if there is a believing abused wife married to an unbelieving husband, this passage in I Peter may give her a lot of comfort. It is about slaves and masters, but it could apply to her situation as well, that her suffering is commendable before God.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 9:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Honestly, Link, I feel like I'm try to nail Jello to the wall in trying to figure out where you stand. You just said,
| Link wrote: | | My concern is the insinuation people who believe that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands (call them complementarians or whatever) have beliefs that lead to wife beating. |
Yet, earlier in this thread, I said,
| bonnie wrote: | | Link seems very concerned that Ruth Tucker has made the suggestion that her ex-husband's view of headship was somehow connected to the way the relationship eroded to the point of threats and violence. |
you responded with this
| Link wrote: | | You are misrepresenting my view here. |
|
Look at the details carefully Bonnie. If a wife-beater's view of scripture led to wife-beating, that doesn't mean my view of scripture leads to wife-beating. I'm not concerned with your characterizing Ruth Tucker's ex-husband's view of scripture as certain way. I'm concerned with your painting my view of scripture and the interpretation of multitudes of Christians from the first century to this day as leading to wife-beating.
A man may twist the Bible and justify abuse to himself. I'm sure that happens. But that doesn't mean that those of us who hold to the traditional, historical, straightforward view, without any modern re-definitions of the Greek language, have beliefs that lead to spousal abuse.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 9:19 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Is your source scholarly, using legitimate methods of data collection?
We might ask the same of the broken link you posted on p. 2 which you claimed said that the number of cases of domestic violence involving women toward men was 40%. Also, do you agree with the way they defined domestic violence in this study? In other words, if in your way of saying it, 'a one-off time' a woman calls her husband a black-hearted buzzard--did the study count that 'name calling' as domestic violence?
(The reason I ask is because once before you cited such a study, and it did indeed have questions such as, "In the last 6 months, have you called your intimate partner a name?") |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 9:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Is your source scholarly, using legitimate methods of data collection?
We might ask the same of the broken link you posted on p. 2 which you claimed said that the number of cases of domestic violence involving women toward men was 40%. Also, do you agree with the way they defined domestic violence in this study? In other words, if in your way of saying it, 'a one-off time' a woman calls her husband a black-hearted buzzard--did the study count that 'name calling' as domestic violence?
(The reason I ask is because once before you cited such a study, and it did indeed have questions such as, "In the last 6 months, have you called your intimate partner a name?") |
Fair enough, but I'm not sitting in a counseling session telling a couple to break up for some incident two weeks ago, either.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 9:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, you keep saying that I have painted your view as leading to wife beating, but that is not what I have actually said, either!!!!
However, I do believe that you have the black and white view of Ephesians 5:24, and I believe that black and white view is what Tucker is talking about in her title.
And when you said I was misrepresenting your view, you were specifically responding to what I said your view of Tucker was.
But as to your view, I can only gather from what you said, that if a man said, "No, you may not take little Junior to see his grandmother tomorrow because you were 5 minutes late with supper. So I'm taking your keys. And no you can't call your mother either because I'm taking your phone. And if you start sniveling about it, I will take them for three more days," and this continued as a pattern, your view, would it not, would mean the man does indeed have the authority to do that (even though, you will protest, he really shouldn't exercise his authority that way) and that the proper and ONLY BIBLICAL RESPONSE FOR THE WOMAN IS TO SUBMIT.
I can imagine you would want to do like Piper did and suggest actual words for this poor woman to say, such as, "Dear, I hardly think you are being reasonable here...," etc., etc., but the bottom line is that even if he will not heed her demure (and her Biblical role dictates they must be demure!) appeals, SHE MUST SUBMIT!
Is that about it?
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Honestly, Link, I feel like I'm try to nail Jello to the wall in trying to figure out where you stand. You just said,
| Link wrote: | | My concern is the insinuation people who believe that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands (call them complementarians or whatever) have beliefs that lead to wife beating. |
Yet, earlier in this thread, I said,
| bonnie wrote: | | Link seems very concerned that Ruth Tucker has made the suggestion that her ex-husband's view of headship was somehow connected to the way the relationship eroded to the point of threats and violence. |
you responded with this
| Link wrote: | | You are misrepresenting my view here. |
|
Look at the details carefully Bonnie. If a wife-beater's view of scripture led to wife-beating, that doesn't mean my view of scripture leads to wife-beating. I'm not concerned with your characterizing Ruth Tucker's ex-husband's view of scripture as certain way. I'm concerned with your painting my view of scripture and the interpretation of multitudes of Christians from the first century to this day as leading to wife-beating.
A man may twist the Bible and justify abuse to himself. I'm sure that happens. But that doesn't mean that those of us who hold to the traditional, historical, straightforward view, without any modern re-definitions of the Greek language, have beliefs that lead to spousal abuse. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 9:43 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
And how would you advise the couple? "The onus is on the wife to submit," perhaps?
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Is your source scholarly, using legitimate methods of data collection?
We might ask the same of the broken link you posted on p. 2 which you claimed said that the number of cases of domestic violence involving women toward men was 40%. Also, do you agree with the way they defined domestic violence in this study? In other words, if in your way of saying it, 'a one-off time' a woman calls her husband a black-hearted buzzard--did the study count that 'name calling' as domestic violence?
(The reason I ask is because once before you cited such a study, and it did indeed have questions such as, "In the last 6 months, have you called your intimate partner a name?") |
Fair enough, but I'm not sitting in a counseling session telling a couple to break up for some incident two weeks ago, either. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 9:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Link, you keep saying that I have painted your view as leading to wife beating, but that is not what I have actually said, either!!!!
However, I do believe that you have the black and white view of Ephesians 5:24, and I believe that black and white view is what Tucker is talking about in her title. |
And you think that view is what lead Tucker to allegedly engage in spousal abuse?
| Quote: |
And when you said I was misrepresenting your view, you were specifically responding to what I said your view of Tucker was.
|
My interpretation of Ephesians 5, and the interpretation of multitudes of other Christians, male and female, from the time the epistles were written until now, does not lead to wife beating.
I don't mind if you think a wife-beating preachers view of Ephesians 5 leads to wife-beating if that is the case. But mine doesn't and I don't want it presented that way.
| Quote: |
But as to your view, I can only gather from what you said, that if a man said, "No, you may not take little Junior to see his grandmother tomorrow because you were 5 minutes late with supper. So I'm taking your keys. And no you can't call your mother either because I'm taking your phone. And if you start sniveling about it, I will take them for three more days," and this continued as a pattern, your view, would it not, would mean the man does indeed have the authority to do that (even though, you will protest, he really shouldn't exercise his authority that way) and that the proper and ONLY BIBLICAL RESPONSE FOR THE WOMAN IS TO SUBMIT. |
I give examples of a husband asking his wife for the keys or cell phone if she is not in a normal mental or emotional state or asking for the cell phone if she's texting her old boyfriend, and from that you conclude the above, taking the keys so junior can't see grandma.
As far as the question goes, the husband in this scenario really does seem like quite a tool, doesn't he? Based on what you've presented, that doesn't seem very loving to the wife or junior or respectful to elders (grandma), either, does it.
I could just as easily conclude, based on what youv'e written, that you think the wife should say, "No, I'm not going to submit to you", then dropkick her husband in the head, take his keys and drive the truck he just waxed through the mud to grandma's house through the muddy path instead of on the highway with little Johnny in the car. (That last paragraph is tongue-in-cheek. I'm just pointing out the unreasonable scenario you presented me with.)
Should a wife submit to her husband in this scenario? What does the Bible say? The Bible says for wives to submit in everything. If there weren't room for disagreement, there wouldn't be a need for submission. Husbands and wives would always make the same decision. The husband isn't asking his wife to sin. Maybe if he never let the poor kid see grandma, then it would become an issue of sin.
Which would be a better way to handle this, for the wife to say, "I'm not going to listen to you, you controlling blowhard", argue with him, grab the keys, and drive off, or let the guy feel guilty about it the next day when little Johnny is moping around talking about wanting to see his grandma.
Peter mentioned wives submitting to their husbands as a means through which husbands who did not obey the word might be won to the faith.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 10:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
