Moving on.

I tend to agree with the idea that “feminine” language and metaphors used to represent God is more significant than it is being given credit for on this thread. Metaphors are our primary (perhaps even only) ways of experiencing and interpreting God (especially what texts, in this case the scriptures, say about God).

If God is “like” something, such as a mother, God must actually share characteristics that define and separate mothers from other humans (qualities such as nurture, femininity, maternal love). Such is the nature of metaphor and analogy.

Arguing that God cannot be substantially “feminine,” while having substantially “masculine” qualities, also implies that women are less God-like than men, and that they do not share in the imago dei to the same extent that women do (because they lack masculinity, an active characteristic of God).

However, if both men and women – at Creation – are equal (if separate) representations of the imago dei, then women, and femininity by extension, are equal representations of God’s qualities alongside men and masculinity.

To say that there IS an order (gender hierarchy ordained by God) is the fallacy to begin with, and then it is born out by husbands having to be told or taught that they Should not treat their equal partners as children. Only the immature need to be told or taught such.

‘God ordains government, we are to submit. I certainly don’t feel like a child there.’

Goverenment is not a partnership of marriage. No comparison there. It is not in the marriage bed, nor does it live under the same roof.

‘God ordains that we submit to leaders within the church. I don’t find that akin to be a child, either.’

Yes, he does, and also it is explicitly said that all are to submit one to another per Paul, Eph 5:21, and elsewhere in the bible, which is why no one would feel like they are a child becasue all are on equal ground since afterall we ARE ALL spiritual CHILDREN OF GOD as EXPLICITLY WRITTEN. Children do not rule over other children. Bogus.

‘In a similar manner that you see comps as “claiming superiority”, I see an egalitarian claim of “someone doesn’t get what they want”.’

It is the comp view that ensures that the immature husband can get what he wants because the comp view CANNOT have it any other way, it CANNOT have ‘the husband doesn’t get what he wants’ (because he MUST have final say at the very least in belief). The egal position on the other hand claims mutuality for both partners, neither having final say to ‘get what they want’ so to correct your perspective, BOTH husband and wife just simply do not get ‘what they want’. Only that you view from the comp position do you say ‘I see an egalitarian claim of “someone doesn’t get what they want”.’ You have to view from the egal point in order to actualy see that BOTH do not get what they want because neither are striving for power over the other or the final descsion over a marital disagreement.

And you should have added (even coming from the comp perspective) to ‘I see an egalitarian claim of “someone doesn’t get what they want”’ but someone DOES get what they want, the husband.’

‘God gives gifts to each of us. To take an example, the gift of tongues is given (sorry, cessationists), but there are specific confines of how that gift is used (only an interpreter present, etc.). God does not say use your gifts however you see fit, however it pleases you. No, it’s how it pleases God, it’s how He sees fit.’

What does this have to do with anything? The egal position agrees to order just not hierarchal order. The order of peace is not a gender hierarchal order. Peace is not gender.

‘He has specifically spoken on teaching (and holding authority with) the church body (congregation) and what is seen as “fit”. He doesn’t say not to use a gift of teaching, but it is revealed that teaching the congregation is not to everyone.’

Authority only resides in the truth that one teaches, it does not reside in the flesh, it does not reside in a Y chromosome, it does not reside in a tounge of the flesh, it resides in God’s Truths.

You said it is ‘revealed’ that teaching the congregation is not to everyone. You meant to say that teaching the congregation is revealed to be not a gift given to WOMEN. There is a big difference. And I must say that to claim it is ‘revealed’ is pretty weak, because your word choice shows that it is only a matter of interpretation. There is nothing explicitly said that ‘women’ (!!) are not to teach a congregation or correct doctrine.

Thank you for the comment.

ESV 1Co 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

says.

LITV 1Co 14:26 Then what is it, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, he has a teaching, he has a language, he has a revelation, he has an interpretation. Let all things be for building up.

Of course, brothers is inclusive, as are the he’s in the above.

Salvation by faith is an example of a Biblical doctrine.

You point out how a biblical doctrine (complementarianism) can be applied in a sinful manner. As husbands, we should never treat our wives as we do children. However to take that and say that means there cannot be an order is a fallacy. God ordains government, we are to submit. I certainly don’t feel like a child there. God ordains that we submit to leaders within the church. I don’t find that akin to be a child, either. In a similar manner that you see comps as “claiming superiority”, I see an egalitarian claim of “someone doesn’t get what they want”. God gives gifts to each of us. To take an example, the gift of tongues is given (sorry, cessationists), but there are specific confines of how that gift is used (only an interpreter present, etc.). God does not say use your gifts however you see fit, however it pleases you. No, it’s how it pleases God, it’s how He sees fit. He has specifically spoken on teaching (and holding authority with) the church body (congregation) and what is seen as “fit”. He doesn’t say not to use a gift of teaching, but it is revealed that teaching the congregation is not to everyone.

On John 1:1-5 what you are doing in retrojecting English concepts of gender back into the Greek, which is never a good idea. What needs to be done is use the Greek concepts for gender as used in the inspired Scripture and try to describe those in English.

The reason masculine pronouns are used in that section is because the “logos” is a GRAMMATICAL masculine noun. In Greek or Hebrew (and many other languages) nouns are assigned a (grammatical)gender, but this has no required relationship to any actual physical gender. This is not the way things are in English.

All descriptions of God are metaphors, except *perhaps* holy? What about loving? Just? Angry with the wicked? I’m sorry– I don’t buy the postmodern hermeneutic that would have the titles of the three Person of the Trinity to be only “metaphors.”

Yes, God is infinite and we cannot *exhaustively* understand Him, but He reveals Himself to us in Scripture. One of the things that He reveals in John 1:1-5 is that the Word is described as a “he.” It’s simply a cop-out to say that this is just a metaphor. You are not dealing with the text. What do you do with John 1:1-5? You have previously said that “the Word” is beyond gender. Then why does John refer to the Word specifically as a “he”?

Don, the “husband as loving leader” concept (a Biblical concept) is *anything but* a power grab, because it means that men are to lay down their lives (emotionally and physically) for their wives, in a radically self-sacrificial way, as Christ did for the church. Where is the “power grab” in that scenario? Was Christ grabbing for power when He died for us?

If you see the whole counsel of

I see the whole counsel of Scripture teaching marriage as a partnership. Yes, in a patriarchal society God was bringing people into the kingdom step by step.

I think the male-only loving leader concept is a power grab by males, who CHOOSE to interpret a few verses out of context and add a blue tint to the Bible that is not even there. I do not recommend interpreting the Bible to give oneself an advantage over other adults.