The Instigator
Ryanemge
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The bible does not teach mutual submission

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 61861
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Ryanemge

Pro

Resolved:

The bible does not teach mutual submission

Definitions:

Submission: to get under and in the order of (hupo-tasso, Greek)

Mutual submission: When 2 people submit to each other, as in a marriage.

Bible: Original Greek/Hebrew language is final say regarding translation issues.

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttal
Round 5: Closing statements

If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinely want a great debate here.
daley

Con

I will show that the Bible teaches a marriage is a partnership of equals, not a hierarchy that puts down women beneath men. That both partners submit equally to each other, that's God's arrangement.
Debate Round No. 1
Ryanemge

Pro

To begin my argument that mutual submission is unbiblical, I will begin with Ephesions 5:21-33

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wivesas their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church"30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32 This is a profound mystery"but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

P1) POINT #1: The bible ONLY gives instructions for one person to submit to another person (of authority). In Ephesians 5:21, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ does NOT instruct everyone to submit to everyone, but rather instructs everyone to submit to another person. Now the next question is who believers are to submit to? Verse 22 begins to address who wives are to be submitted to, which leads me to my next point.

P2) POINT #2: The Bible NEVER instructs husbands to submit to their wife. But rather instructs wives four times to submit to their husband (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6), because he is the head of their family. Men are not instructed to submit to their wife, but rather instructed to love their wife (verse 25).

P3) POINT #3: The definition of submission in the greek is hupo-tasso, which means "to get under" and "in the order of". To clarify, wives are instructed to "get under" their husband and "in the order of" God. This is Gods order for a biblical family. Just as Christ is the head of the church, a husband is the head of his wife. Now by biblical Greek definition, two people cannot be submitted to each other at the same time and context, considering only one person can be under another.

I look forward to reading my opponent"s statement of support for his opposing position
-Ryan
daley

Con

It is such a travesty when the Word of God is used to discriminate against women, putting them below men, no different in principle then discriminating against blacks. In this debate, I hope to make it clear that we don't serve a God who discriminates against women, who arbitrarily (or for nonsense reasons) places women below men.

God cursed the sepent saying he could go on his belly and eat dust (Gen 3:14-15), he cursed Adam, saying he would work hard to eat bread, the ground would grow thorns, and he would die (Gen 3:17-19), and to the woman the curse was that she would have greater pain in labor and her husband would rule over her. (Gen 3:16) We must remember that husbands ruling over their wives was a curse, not a blessing, and therefore, it stands to reason that when God first created man and instituted marriage, man did not rule over the woman! It was a partnership of equals. The woman didn't have to submit to his authority any more than he had to submit to hers. This is why God made woman from a rib in the man's side, showing she would be an equal beside him, instead of from the skin under his foot, to put her beneath him. (Gen 2:21-22)

As it was in the case of Abraham and Sarah, God told Abraham to listen to his wife because in that situation she was right. (Gen 21:8-14) This shows that in marriage, its the party who is in the wrong that should give in to the other when having differences of opinion, and who is right must be decided upon by evidence, by the Word of God, by having that spiritual insight, not by trumping authority as though the man had more say than the woman. Since humans are in general imperfect and will make mistakes, the man will at times have to acknowledge the woman was right and submit to her, and at other times she will be in error and submit to the man. In this way, God becomes Captain of the ship as opposed to two captains via for control of the marriage vessel.

"The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. " (1 Corinthians 7:4) This plainly teaches mutual submission, because each member of the marriage surrenders authority of their body to the other person.

" Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) This obviously does teach mutual submission, even though I would distinguish this from simultaneous submission, but even that may be embraced in this teaching. For if this verse teaches women to submit to men, then it also teaches men to submit to women. It would be amazing, if in the rebuttal, my opponent claims that all other men in the church are to submit to the women except her husband. So I will have to wait and see since we can't rebut each others' arguments in this round.

"Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20:25-27) If each person is supposed to serve the other, that again implied men must serve women just as women must serve men. Also, while a man maybe serving a woman in one aspect, she may simultaneously be serving him in another. These verses show we must mutually submit to each other. Between a husband and wife, during the sex act the both can be serving each other simultaneously, as they both give each other pleasure, even doing so in the way desired by their partner.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-29) In this is proclaimed the equality of all men and women. Interestingly, Peter mentions the Jew or Gentile issue first, which was the current issue in his day (Acts 10:28; 21:26-30) A few hundred years later slavery became a big issue, and black people even after coming out of slavery had to fight for equal rights. All this time the church was transitioning from a place of having accepted slavery to rejecting it as immoral to own another human being a property. More and more abolitionist movements like the Quakers sprung up. Today, women are now being ordained to positions of leadership in the church more so than in the past when we had a much more male-dominated society. Thank God for the enlightenment and changes that he has wrought in the course of history.

Women may hold offices in the church to which men have to submit, just as men hold offices to which women have to submit. Deborah was a prophetess and a judge in Israel. (Judge 4:4-5) Women may edify the church by their prophetic teaching (Acts 2:15-18; 1 Cor 14:2-5), and so forth.

So yes, the Bible does teach mutual submission.
Debate Round No. 2
Ryanemge

Pro

Imagine for a moment that it is 3am and you are sleeping next to your spouse when you hear glass break at the front door. Someone has broken into your house and your family is in danger. Additionally your children are in their rooms, located on the second floor between your room and the front door. You have to do something. Do you call 911? Unfortunately you don"t own a gun either because you just haven"t gotten around to buying one or you don"t believe people should own guns because they are dangerous. You now hear the intruders coming toward the bedrooms. What do you imagine you and your spouse doing next? Pause for a moment and think about what would be the best strategy to protect your family".

Now if you imagined the man in the relationship confronting the intruders, you are a sexist guilty of discrimination according to my opponent. He is arguing that there is no difference between men and women and if someone distinguishes any differences they have a dirty heart comparable to a racist. His argument is a classic ad hominem, directing the audience of this debate away from the topic of whether the bible teaches mutual submission toward an emotional attack on my character in order to invalidate my arguments. I applaud his attempt to distract and throw in a loaded emotional argument considering he is really struggling to support his position biblically. My opponent is clearly an intelligent and seasoned debater.

Now I am going to respond the first point he made in his opening statement. He starts out stating Men and women were created equal and submission was not gods original plan. Unfortunately for my opponent, he actually supports my argument that the bible does not teach mutual submission. First, being made equal by God does NOT mean man and woman are to be interchangeable in every circumstance. To make my point, men have different heights; does this mean that they were not equal considering only the tallest can play professional basketball? What about women for that matter, are they not created equal because not a single women on the planet can make the starting roster for the LA Lakers? Equality has nothing to do with an individuals abilities or God given authority or responsibilities. My opponent seems to be struggling with this considering the acknowledgement of this fact would completely undermine his entire argument. Additionally, In the Genesis 3 scripture, God clearly discriminates between what men are cursed with and what women are cursed with. Furthermore, the Genesis scripture clearly shows the instruction by God for wives to submit to their husbands and this has been the structure of marriage ever since the fall. Why is this the case? Is this unfair or sexist of God? Look at the event that was the catalyst for the adjustment God made in marriage. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then led Adam to follow the deception. So God instructs wives to filter unbiblical ideas threw their husbands. This is for the protection of both the husband and the wife. If a family is under attack, then the husband is to take the front lines to shield his wife and children.

In his third paragraph my opponent states "It would be amazing, if in the rebuttal, my opponent claims that all other men in the church are to submit to the women except her husband. So I will have to wait and see since we can't rebut each others' arguments in this round." I really do not understand the point he is making here. Seems you have made some typos here. Please clarify.

This is all I have time to respond to at this point due to time restrictions. I will respond to his other points in my next rebuttal.
daley

Con

If someone broke into my home, who should face the attackers? Well, it depends on who is more well equipped. If the woman is a black-belt martial artist who served in the army, and I am so scared of my skin and so frail I can"t hurt a fly, it makes more sense that she be the one to spy out there and confront them. At the very least she may keep them occupied long enough for me to get the kids out. This doesn"t mean I wouldn"t want to take up a broomstick and help her beat them down, but I sure would have to follow her lead if she is the more experienced one. If your wife is a certified accountant and you are terrible at math, then who is the best person to handle the finances? It doesn"t mean you won"t get input, because it"s a partnership and your opinion counts, but in marriage, both partners need to learn how to best utilize their strengths for the benefit of the family, as opposed to an illiterate guy who can"t even add demanding that he control the money just because he is the man. This is how many families have found themselves in financial ruin. I believe the man should utilize his strengths, and the woman should utilize hers, cause we all have different gifts and talents. As long as there is no secrecy, but transparency, it will work out.

My opponent charged that I attacked his character. Well, gender discrimination is gender discrimination, and I will call a spade a spade no matter who gets offended. If he says the Bible teaches that men have rights that women don"t, or men have authority that women don"t, he is saying the word God discriminates against women. That"s all there is too it. Him being offended, and my argument appealing to your emotions, doesn"t make my argument any less factual. Surely the arguments against slavery appealed to emotions, bringing up some of the horrors of TransAtlantic slavery; did that make them not true? Surely these arguments painted the white colonial slave masters in a negative light, and attacked their character, but did that make the arguments false? No in both cases. So simply claiming that I have attacked his character to get the sympathy of the voters in no way impinges on my arguments.

Pro says, "First, being made equal by God does NOT mean man and woman are to be interchangeable in every circumstance. To make my point, men have different heights; does this mean that they were not equal considering only the tallest can play professional basketball?"

This illustration supports my point. Height is an important factor in the ability of a person to play professional basketball well, so instead of discriminating against people based on their gender, the NBA simply chooses persons according to their ability. Since a woman has just as much ability to lead, and make important decisions in family, religion, or business, as a man, she should not be discriminated against. If the woman is definitely weaker physically than the man, which is usually but not always the case, and if she isn"t skilled at fighting, then the man should be the one to face the intruders in Pro"s previous illustration. The NBA treats both men and women as equals because both are allowed to play professional basketball, so Pro"s argument is again very weak.

If a woman sees her man in a fight, is she wrong for aiding him? No. She has the RIGHT to fight for the man she loves. However, because she may not have the physical ability to fight the attacker, she may decide to use a weapon. Pro is confusing right, with ability. Both parents have an equal right and even duty to protect their children, but when their abilities are different then you"ll get different persons taking different roles in different families.

Pro aked, "What about women for that matter, are they not created equal because not a single women on the planet can make the starting roster for the LA Lakers?" Well here are teams they do make the starting rosters for http://www.google.com... There are a dozen women"s basketball teams in the NBA. http://www.google.com... Yes, a woman can play basketball too.

Pro claims that "Equality has nothing to do with an individuals " God given authority or responsibilities," and yet the husband"s rule over the wife only came about because of sin. (Gen 3:16) This clearly implies he did not rule over her before.

He says that in Genesis 3, "God clearly discriminates between what men are cursed with and what women are cursed with." Really? In Genesis 3:17-18 the cursing of the ground applied not just to Adam, but to all men and women. "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort US in the labor and painful toil of OUR hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." (Gen 5:28-29) The "us" and "our" here suffering from the curse on the ground no doubt included women, at least it included Lamech"s wife. The curse of death, applied to the man in Genesis 3:19 applied to the whole human race according to Romans 5:12-15 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. This includes women, so God did not discriminate, he applied the same curse to both. Now as for the woman"s pain of pregnancy increasing, this is simply something that cannot happen to the man because men cannot biologically get pregnant and therefore is not a case of discrimination.

Pro claims "the Genesis scripture clearly shows the instruction by God for wives to submit to their husbands and this has been the structure of marriage ever since the fall." This is flatly false on more than one count. First of all, these were curses, not instructions. God was not instructing all men to rule over their wives anymore than he was instructing men to toil up thorny ground in the sun. If Pro believes these are commands for us to follow, then every Christian must find a piece of land and toil it in the sun till he returns to the dust. No cool office work for us. God commands us to do hard farmer"s work! What"s wrong with working easy? Shouldn"t we be seeking God to get any curses on our lived lifted? Pro"s idea of marriage is life under a curse! Secondly, he does not show any Scripture outside of Genesis 3 which supports his point that this is what God DESIRES marriage to be like since the fall. The Apostles were missionaries. Did they toil in the sun the plow up a ground of thorns?

Pro says "Why is this the case? Is this unfair or sexist of God? Look at the event that was the catalyst for the adjustment God made in marriage. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then led Adam to follow the deception. So God instructs wives to filter unbiblical ideas threw their husbands. This is for the protection of both the husband and the wife. If a family is under attack, then the husband is to take the front lines to shield his wife and children."

Notice he doesn"t give a single verse of Scripture for any of these other claims. Is Pro trying to say that women are easier to deceive than men? Is this his reason for saying women should filter their false ideas through their husbands? Well, Adam was not decided (1 Tim 2:14), which means he sinned willingly, with his eyes wide open. Now which is worse? Someone who was tricked into doing wrong, or someone knew it was wrong but did it anyway? Which one of them would you pick to lead you if you had to choose? If Eve"s example shows women shouldn"t lead because they are easy to deceive, then Adam"s example shows men shouldn"t lead because they do what is wrong even without being deceived, just because they want to. What rational is this for ethics? What kind of God would build the beautiful union that is marriage on such ridiculous foundations? I don"t think my opponent fully understands what he is saying about God in all of this!

Pro do you believe ANY men at all in the church should submit to ANY women in the church? If so, which, and how?

Since he says he didn"t have time to finish his rebuttal, I"ll wait until he does so to post my further reply.
Debate Round No. 3
Ryanemge

Pro

Con said: "As it was in the case of Abraham and Sarah, God told Abraham to listen to his wife because in that situation she was right. (Gen 21:8-14) This shows that in marriage, it"s the party who is in the wrong that should give in to the other when having differences of opinion, and who is right must be decided upon by evidence, by the Word of God, by having that spiritual insight, not by trumping authority as though the man had more say than the woman." But I ask my opponent; what if both parties believe their position is what God wants them to do? What if they cannot agree and are unwilling to give in? Con seems to be fantasizing about some marriage utopia where the wrong party sees the truth of the other party"s position and then decides to submit to that truth. In reality all marriages have moments where there is complete disagreement. And when that happens scripture instructs the wife to submit (yield her will or strong contrary belief) to her husband.

Con says" "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) This obviously does teach mutual submission, even though I would distinguish this from simultaneous submission, but even that may be embraced in this teaching. For if this verse teaches women to submit to men, then it also teaches men to submit to women. How can you distinguish submission from simultaneous submission? Please explain that paradox. Additionally which verse does the bible say "then it also teaches men to submit to women"? How do you overcome the absolute fact that the bible never instructions men to submit to women? If cons position is biblical, then I would expect the bible to be clear and instruct men to submit to their wives just as wives are to submit to them. But it doesn"t. Consider all the instances where submission is instructed:
"Jesus is subject to the authority of his parents (Luke 2:51)
"demons are subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17: clearly the meaning "act in love, be considerate" cannot fit here!)
"citizens are to be subject to government authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Tit. 3:1, 1 Pet. 2:13)
"the universe is subject to Christ (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22)
"unseen spiritual powers are subject to Christ (1 Pet. 3:22)
"Christ is subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:28)
"church members are to be subject to church leaders (1 Cor. 16:15-16 [cf. 1 Clement 42:4]; 1 Pet. 5:5)
"wives are to be subject to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:5; compare Eph. 5:22, 24)
"the church is subject to Christ (Eph. 5:24)
"servants are to be subject to their masters (Tit. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18)
"Christians are subject to God (Heb. 12:9; Jas. 4:7)
Here is the point: None of these relationships are ever reversed. Husbands are never told to be subject (hypotasso) to wives, nor the government to citizens, nor masters to servants, nor the disciples to demons. Clearly parents are never told to be subject to their children! In fact, the term hypotasso is used outside the NT to describe the submission and obedience of soldiers in an army to those of superior rank (see, for example, Josephus, War 2.566, 578; 5.309; compare the adverb in 1 Clement 37:2). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon even defines hypotasso [passive] to mean "be obedient" (p. 1897).
Bottom line: there is no hard evidence to show that any first-century Greek speaker would have understood submission the way my opponent is suggesting, for the term always implies a relationship of submission to an authority. Lastly regarding this specific argument, does my opponent believe that Jesus is submitted to him?

Con Said "Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20:25-27) If each person is supposed to serve the other, that again implied men must serve women just as women must serve men. Also, while a man maybe serving a woman in one aspect, she may simultaneously be serving him in another. These verses show we must mutually submit to each other." Con seems to be misunderstanding the definition of submission. It does not mean "to serve". Mutual service can occur separate from the biblical one directional submission. Notice how my opponent is changing the biblical definition of submission to mean things like "serving", "considerateness", "thoughtfulness", and an attitude of love toward one another".
Con said" Women may hold offices in the church to which men have to submit, just as men hold offices to which women have to submit. Deborah was a prophetess and a judge in Israel. (Judge 4:4-5) Women may edify the church by their prophetic teaching (Acts 2:15-18; 1 Cor 14:2-5), and so forth." Deborah was a judge of the land, a political position, not a church leadership position. There is a difference. I agree that women are leaders in in church however their authority is over other women. 1 Timothy 2:12 says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. Women are instructed to teach other women (Titus 2:3). Regarding the female prophets, women could clearly prophesy but this example does not involve submission, because to prophesy means "to declare what God says", therefore it is not issue that would ever put men in a position where they would need to submit. Bottom line, con has yet to provide the clear instruction of the scripture for men to submit to their wife, but rather tries to cherry pick examples that appear to support his argument that there is no difference between men and women and are interchangeable at a moment"s notice in every regard. To take my opponents argument to the next step, since there is no difference between men and women then a child having two dads or 2 moms is the exact same as a child that has mother and a father.

Con said "I believe the man should utilize his strengths, and the woman should utilize hers, cause we all have different gifts and talents. As long as there is no secrecy, but transparency, it will work out." Con appears to be imaging a false utopia of a marriage where each partner"s strengths are recognized and are somehow able to see the truth in the right partners argument all the time and therefore submit to each other when the other partner is wrong. I love his optimism, but this is not reality. 50% of marriages end in divorce. People disagree passionately to the point where they can"t stand the sight of one another. What he doesn"t seem to understand, is that submission requires disagreement, and in that event one party must submit to the other party. In his example of accounting and suggestion that the better partner should be the accountant for the family, but what if both are equally good at doing the books or have different ways they prefer the accounting done? What if they both have phd"s in accounting but want their idea of how the family budget should look is completely different? What if the wife does not want to give 10% until their student loans are paid off but the husband feels strongly that they should in order to be faithful to the bible as he perceives it? What do they do now? Both believe they are 100% correct, biblical and wise in their family budget structure. My opponent"s argument of mutual submission if defined correctly by the biblical definition, to get under and in the order of god, would mean both wife and husband would have to yield to the other, and do both budget strategies, but considering that is impossible it logically follows that my opponents argument is false.
daley

Con

Pro says that when husbands and wives disagree, the wife should submit, but the Bible says "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (Acts 5:29) So when a person feels like the other party is wrong, they should seek God"s word for guidance and rely on the Holy Spirit, instead of violating their conscience, for everything not done in faith is sin. (Rom 14:23) Pro seems to think that if a wife believes her husband is asking her to do something contrary to God"s will, she should do it. Scripture disagrees. God is the supreme authority in marriage, not the husband. No, I don"t believe in a marriage utopia where couples agree on everything, but I do believe in a God utopia where if only we seek His guidance we would receive it. This is what the Bible promises at James 1:5 and Matthew 7:11.

Ephesians 5:21-33 tells wives to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. So are husbands commanded to lead their wives as Christ leads the church? No! They are commanded to LOVE their wifes THE SAME WAY Jesus loved the church. So how did Jesus love the church?

"A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you BECOME AS THE YOUNGEST, and the leader AS THE ONE WHO SERVES. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I AM AMONG YOU AS THE ONE WHO SERVES." (Luke 22:24-27) To love his wife, he serves his wife. He humbles himself to her, just as Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. "The Son of Man did not come to be served, BUT TO SERVE." (Matt 20:28) I"d like to see Pro rise to the challenge of explaining to us how serving someone is not the same as submitting to them. These are different terms for the same thing. Both parties in a relationship compromise from time to time, any husband who loves his wife certainly does. If Pro is saying that the man never compromises and lets the wife get her way, I feel sorry for any wife of his. Even God himself, though he was in the right, gave in to the desires of his servants and let them have their way from time to time. For example when he changed his mind to let Lot go to Zoar, and spared the whole city for him (Gen 19:17-22), and when he spared a generation of Israelites upon Moses" request. (Exo 32:9-14) God was right. Going to Zoar didn"t work out for Lot, and that generation of Israel still died in the wilderness anyway. (Gen 19:30; Num 14:22-23, 29, 34) If this is how God treats his people whom he views as a wife (Isa 54:1, 5; Jer 31:32), should not husbands also yield to their wives sometimes? If they want to imitate God, they are obligated to do so.

Pro makes the argument that if God is going to teach the man"s submission to the woman, it must be written the way he wants it. That"s like the Unitarians who claim that if the Trinity were Biblical the word "trinity" would be in the Bible, as well as the terms "God the Son," "God the Holy Spirit," etc. The Jehovah"s Witnesses say if the Holy Spirit were a person he would appear in the form of a person as the Father and Son do even in visions of heaven. The atheists say if God existed he would have given us better evidence, like writing his name among the stars instead of having us debate over how to interpret a 2000 year old book. All such arguments reflect Pro"s idea of telling God how he would have to say things, as if the potter can ask the clay "why did you make me this way?"

Where are men told to subject themselves to their wives? Ephesians 5:21. Pro thinks this verse means that husbands should subject themselves to every other believer EXCEPT their wives. This is not the plain sense of the text. Regardless of position or role, we must all be willing to subject ourselves to each other.

Pro says that "Husbands are never told to be subject (hypotasso) to wives," so does this mean husbands should never obey their wives? Never? He says "nor the government to citizens," and yet are they not responsible to the people who elect them? If the voice of the people is that the government be changed, does it not have to change?

He asked if Christ is subject to me. Yes. Not by me having authority over him, but by him loving me; for when you love someone, you willingly give in to their needs. Jesus himself said he would do whatsoever we ask him for in prayer. (John 14:14) Jesus said he came TO SERVE us. This is the beauty and humility of our God.

Pro doesn"t think submission means to serve. Well, Philippians 2:3-4 commands all of us, including husbands, to consider others (including their wives) to be superior to them. Both Priscilla and Aquila spoke privately to Apollos at Ephesus to correct his theology. (Acts 18:24-26) Here the man submitted to the woman. My opponent focuses on Ephesians 5:24 in a vacuum to support the subjugation of women, completely ignoring verses 28-29 where husbands are commanded to love their wives as their own bodies. Now when your body is hungry do you not feed it? When your body is sick, do you not give it medicine? To say that your body has to obey your brain, your head, but your head can ignore the desires of the body is senseless. Think about how you love yourself, and what you want for yourself, and apply that to your wife and see if you are not humbled!

Pro cited 1 Timothy 2:12 says "I do not permit a woman TO TEACH or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Is Paul saying here that a woman should not teach? Didn"t a woman teach Apollos in Acts 18:24-26? Were not women among the 72 disciples Jesus sent out to teach about the kingdom? (Luke 10:1-11) Women prophesied so the church could learn. How was this not TEACHING? "On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the churchFor you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged." (1 Cor 14:3, 4, 31 ESV) "And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17) Paul wouldn"t contradict Scripture or history.

In the context of 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul also says not to wear jewelry (1 Tim 2:9) but we know the people of God have always worn jewelry and it was not a problem. (Gen 24:47-48; 41:42; Ps 25:12; Isa 61:10; Jer 2:32; Eze 16:11-13; Luke 15:22) So Paul"s point was the EMPHASIS should not be on wearing jewelry, not that we shouldn"t wear any period, and his other point was that a woman"s emphasis should not be on trying to usurp authority over the man in that male dominated society back then. Just as God dealt with polygamy and slavery in his own time, he also would deal with women"s rights in his own time, and he did.

Now Pro makes the argument that men don"t have to submit to women when they prophesy what God says, but that depends on what God says, doesn"t it? Suppose God says through the women, an earthquake is coming, but the church will be safe if they go to such and such a place? Do they not have to submit?

A wife who is both a Christian and a professional accountant, but her husband is an unbeliever who is terrible with money. Should she submit to his bad financial decisions that would put them in financial ruin? It"s easy for Pro to tell her to obey her husband, but the kids will be affected to. A husband wants his ex-wife to come live under his roof, should his wife submit to that?

What if both parties are right? If the wife submits to him today, why can"t the man submit to her tomorrow on another issue? Not even God expected Sarah to obey everything Abraham said. (Gen 21:8-13) God didn't share Pro's view that she must submit to her husband when they disagree.
Debate Round No. 4
Ryanemge

Pro

Con begins his last rebuttal by saying "Pro says that when husbands and wives disagree, the wife should submit, but the Bible says "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (Acts 5:29) So when a person feels like the other party is wrong, they should seek God"s word for guidance and rely on the Holy Spirit, instead of violating their conscience, for everything not done in faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)" His problem seems to be with the definition of words. Our discussion is in regard to submission, not obedience. Acts 5:29, talks about obedience (peitharche!3;) not submission (hypotasso). This is a classic straw man argument, considering I have not argued that wives are to obey their husbands. Bottom line, cons statement even contradicts itself considering on one hand he is proclaiming mutual submission and then one the other hand he is claiming we should never submit/obey man but only obey God. Which one is it? Seems Con wants his cake and eat it too"

One reason I think con is so confused on this issue is because he seems to mostly view situations where only a wife submits to her husband, as being abusive. So Authority = Abusive authority in his mind or most likely scenario. With this presupposition, he interprets the bible to accommodate his position, by ignoring the verses that disagree with his view, changing or merging definitions, and cherry picking verses that have nothing to do with submission but sound related if read alone (as he did with ACTS 5:29). I agree that there have been cases where men mistreat their wife"s. I condemn those actions. Men are to love their wives like Christ loves the church. It"s a high calling to put your wife and family"s needs before your own. But what about the case where the couple disagree and the husband believes with all his heart that his position is best for his wife and family? Who should yield their will? My opponent says anything that is not of faith is of sin, so the wife shouldn"t be forced to do something against her conscience. Unfortunately this is not supported by the definition of faith, which is the substance of things not seen, in other words, faith involves things you haven"t totally wrapped your mind around or understand. So a wife that doesn"t see her husband"s point of view and her husband has assured her that he loves her and believes his position is what is best spiritually for their family then God is instructing her to submit to her husband; thus she puts her faith in God by doing so. But what if the husband position is clearly unbiblical, should she still submit? She then can take recourse by meeting with the man her husband is submitted to, like their pastor for guidance. If the pastor disagrees with the husband then he must submit to him. God is not asking women to be in an abusive relationship alone and at the mercy of her husband"s dominance over her life. Rather, God instructs men to love their wives, and to sacrifice their life for them. He is to treat his wife like Christ treats the church. The biblical instructions for husband and wife are to protect their marriage and future. Con said "I"d like to see Pro rise to the challenge of explaining to us how serving someone is not the same as submitting to them. These are different terms for the same thing." Now con is redefining submission to mean serving someone. It"s incredibly to me that repeatedly redefines submission to mean anything other than submission. To serve someone you look for or ask what they need and then you provide it for them. When a husband serves his wife he doesn"t submit to her, because submission requires disagreement (what wife is going to disagree with her husband doing everything she wants). But in the case where the husband sees something that his wife needs and she doesn"t see it as something that would benefit her, then submission comes into play. Con makes another point and says couples must compromise from time to time and he would feel sorry for any wife whos husband wouldn"t compromise. Compromise and submission are different things. A compromise is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. Submission on the other hand comes into play when they cannot compromise.

Con says" He asked if Christ is subject to me. Yes. Not by me having authority over him, but by him loving me; for when you love someone, you willingly give in to their needs. Jesus himself said he would do whatsoever we ask him for in prayer. (John 14:14) Jesus said he came TO SERVE us. This is the beauty and humility of our God." This is just silly. When you love someone you give in to their needs? What if your wife is addicted to alcohol, shall the husband give in to her needs finance her alcohol addiction? What if your children want ice-cream for dinner every night, do you give in in order to love them? Not only does my opponent not understand what it means to submit, he also does not fully understand what it meant to love. Jesus serves by doing what is best for us not always what we think we want or what we think is best. Also as a side note, God does not do whatsoever we ask him for in prayer. What if my opponent and I ask God for help to win this debate? Will he make it so we both win? What if I ask God for a trillion dollars, will he give it to me? Ok I made my point, that scripture is obviously taken out of context.

Considering my opponent gets the last word in this debate I will ask him the following questions that he has yet to address.
1.Why have you yet to address the fact that the bibles calls for submission are always one directional? How do you justify overlooking this fact? Recall wives are instructed 4x to submit to their husbands, but husbands are not one time instructed to submit to their wife? If your position is correct, why would God allow such confusion and at least one time instruct husbands to submit to their wives? He took 4 moments to instruct women, all he had to do is just say it one time for men. One time!! Don"t you wish God took one moment out of those 4 to instruct men to submit to their wives?
2.Why do you repeatedly redefine submission by redirecting the debate to other words such as "serving", or "obedience". Do you disagree with the biblical definition as being under and in the order of?
3.Do you disagree that submission requires disagreement? If so then how do you justify that given the biblical definition?
daley

Con

I cited Acts 5:29 to show that God is the supreme authority in marriage, not the husband, so if a wife believes her husband is truly wrong in the eyes of God, she is not obligated to obey him at the expense of disobeying God. Now I have no clue how my opponent is able to distinguish submission from obedience when he himself argued that submission is a military word. When soldiers submit to the authority of their superiors, are they not "obeying" their superiors?

Submission is simply about yielding to, or complying with, the desires of another person, even if that person has no authority over you. Its defined as "the state of being obedient : "the condition of being submissive, humble, or compliant." http://www.merriam-webster.com... The Bible says "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER HIS OWN BODY but YIELDS IT TO HIS WIFE." (1 Cor 7:4 NIV) This is clearly showing the wife has just as much say over him as he does over her, mutual submission, yielding, just as defined in the dictionary.

Pro then claims "I have not argued that wives are to OBEY their husbands." Now how is it they have to SUBMIT to the authority of their husbands but they don"t have to OBEY? How can a disobedient wife be submissive?

Pro himself said "It"s a high calling to put your wife and family"s needs BEFORE YOUR OWN." So if a wife says she needs something, and the husband has a high calling from God to put her needs before his own, does that not obligate him to submit to (obey) her request?

Pro says that when the husband wants the wife to do something unbiblical, she must go to her pastor and her husband must submit to him. What if her husband is the pastor? I know many small churches that only have one pastor in my area. Should she then suffer in silence? What if the pastor who she goes to sides with her husband, what then? Should this woman disobey God because these two men say so? The Bible allows divorce on the grounds of fornication. (Matt 19:9) If her husband is cheating, and both he and her pastor are against divorce on any grounds, must she stay with him and possibly get AIDS, or obey God?

Pro keeps saying that submission requires disagreement. So when the commander of the army gives a command, the soldiers beneath him have to disagree with the rightness of that command in order to submit to it? Where does the Bible say that submission requires disagreement? Pro gave no Scripture to show this, and his only Lexicon citation didn't say anything about disagreement. It supported by argument that to submit is to obey. Pro is the one inventing his own definitions, not me. In fact, notice how in his last round he said in the very first paragraph:

"Our discussion is in regard to submission, not obedience. Acts 5:29, talks about obedience (peitharche!3;) not submission (hypotasso). This is a classic straw man argument, considering I have not argued that wives are to obey their husbands." Here he claims submission doesn"t mean obedience. Now compare this to the source he cited in round 4, paragraph 2, to explain that submission means obedience. He siad "The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon even defines hypotasso [passive] to mean "be obedient" (p. 1897)." So there you have it! Does submit mean to obey, or not? Who is really the one contradicting himself here?

Now, here are the definitions of the Greek word for submit as they appear in The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon:
1.to arrange under, to subordinate
2.to subject, put in subjection
3.to subject one's self, OBEY
4.to submit to one's control
5.to YIELD TO ONE'S ADMONITION OR ADVICE
6.TO OBEY, be subject
A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in amilitary fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assumingresponsibility, and carrying a burden".

Notice definition 3 is to OBEY, which is the very thing Pro says in his last round submission does not mean. Notice definition 5 is simply to "yield to one"s admonition of advice." If you believe a husband should EVER yield to the advice of his wife, vote Con. Surely they will be times she will be right and he will be wrong, and they will be times they will be both right but her idea is simply a better idea. At those times, he should, if he has a lick of sense, accept her advice. In doing so, he will indeed be serving her. Pro wants you to believe that obeying someone is not the same as serving them. If you know better, vote Con.

Pro redefines compromise to mean it must happen on both ends, but one person can compromise without the other also doing it. This is why I said each partner will compromise on different occasions.

What if your wife is addicted to alcohol, shall the husband give in to her needs finance her alcohol addiction? No, this is why I said God is the supreme authority in marriage, not the husband or wife. Truth is what matters. If the wife is wrong, in this case she is, she should submit to the husband when he tells her to take steps to deal with that bad habit. If he was the alcoholic, he should submit to her advice when she says the same.

What if my opponent and I ask God for help to win this debate? I might win seeing that you are simply wrong, but I wouldn"t ask God to interfere with anyone"s freewill to make them vote for me. The fact is that if God is going to do the right thing, and wants us to be like him, the question becomes, not who has the authority in marriage, but what is the right thing when making decisions that affect that marriage? Just as God won"t always do whatever I want when I"m wrong, a wife doesn"t have to submit to her husband when he is wrong and vice versa. But God does answer our prayers, he surely does answer mine. If this hasn"t been Pro"s experience I pity him. He has given me plenty that I wanted. And I stand on his promises. Pro says I took the Scripture out of context, so did he ever explain the context to us? No!

Let deal with his list of questions:

1.Why have you yet to address the fact that the bibles calls for submission are always one directional? Answer: Eph 5:21 is not one directional. It says submit to EACH OTHER. 1 Cor 7:4 isn"t one directional, the wife has the same authority the husband has. Man"s rule over woman was a curse (Gen 2:16) but God doesn"t want Christians to live a cursed life. He wants us to be free. Pro is arguing that we should be under the curse. If you want to be free, vote Con.

Don"t you wish God took one moment out of those 4 to instruct men to submit to their wives? Answer: He did command them to submit to their wives even more forcefully than he told the wives to submit to them. Wives are not told to love their husbands, not even ONCE, let alone love them AS THEIR OWN BODIES. (Eph 5:28)? Does this mean because the Bible isn"t written that way that wives DON"T have to love their husbands?

2.Why do you repeatedly redefine submission by redirecting the debate to other words such as "serving", or "obedience". Do you disagree with the biblical definition as being under and in the order of? Answer: I cited your own Lexicon for the definition "obedience." I also showed why serving involves submission to needs, desires, requests of another person.

3.Do you disagree that submission requires disagreement? If so then how do you justify that given the biblical definition? Answer: None of the sources you cited, either dictionaries or Bible verses say anything about disagreement being involved in submission. That was just your opinion.

Concluding, notice Pro couldn't even tackle the clear example I gave of Sarah disagreeing with Abraham, clearly fitting his requirement as a case where submission is required, and yet she doesn't yield to his opinion. In fact, God tells him to obey her. Obviously proof the man at times must submit to the wife when she is clearly right.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lucasjcole 2 years ago
lucasjcole
@jonbonbon - hilarious.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The bible does say that the wife is to submit to the husband AS HE submits to the wisdom of the word of God. If he goes off on a tangent to the word, then she does not have to follow.
Posted by Ryanemge 2 years ago
Ryanemge
GoOrDin, doesn't sound like you understand the definition of submission. Furthermore, the bible does not tell men to submit to their wife. Additionally giving is different than submission.

Are you a Christian Socialist?

-R
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Correction Ryan.
two people can submit to eachother in the same context.
if I marry my wife, as the bible says I must in order to be acceptable socially and personally in a relationship then we are both submitting ourselves to eachother.

I am required to give up everything for my wife, and my wife is required to give up everything for me, but both of us are required to restrain what God would want restrained from the other individual so that he can b glad of us.

my money is for the security and well being of my wife,
and my wife's money is for the prosperity of our relationship. Even if that means providing clothing for herself or the house so that she can be satisfied and pleased, which from graduating and going through highschool I am sure you are aware confidence is a necessity in the success of people and communication.

if both parties are not submitted to one another, then they have not unified themselves through God and are not factually married, because in their vows they secretly denied their spouse their due.

the bible does not teach much Mr. ryan. but it is truth. and submission is a requirement of faith regardless of the historical context of the Bible.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol, cheyenne. Mission isn't a Latin or Greek root. Sub does mean under, but the root you're looking for is "mit" which if you want to take in English, then you're underneath a glove, and I don't think that's what it's supposed to mean. You can't just take words apart in a way that looks like it could possibly be right.
Posted by Ryanemge 2 years ago
Ryanemge
Doomswatter, thanks for the welcome and pointers.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
Welcome to the site. You should define "mutual submission" in your opening to avoid confusion. Also, I recommend specifying which bible you're consulting, and whether your opponent should only accept the debate in the first round, or begin arguments in the first round and pass the last round. Specifying a structure prevents one opponent from having more rounds at their disposal than the other.
Posted by Ryanemge 2 years ago
Ryanemge
The definitions are defined by the greek not english. Submit in the greek is defined to get under and in the order of (hupo-tasso). Therefore, when we are called to submit one to another, we are to get under another person which is in the order of God. 2 people cannot by definition be under each other at the same time and in the same context. When you talk about a couple sharing a mission, that is a separate subject. submission on the other hand requires disagreement, and in that case the one who is submitted to the other yields their will.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Stretch ,how.I just put correct definitions to the word. The word does say, submit one to another. How can you argue that?Forget debate. Just tell us your thinking on it.This is not about winning or losing a debate. It is about life.Submission does not mean to have ones foot on another persons neck.
Posted by Ryanemge 2 years ago
Ryanemge
Cheyennebodie, disagree with your argument. your definition is really a stretch and messy.

If you have studied this issue extensively then lets debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
RyanemgedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con offered more biblical evidence, so sources to con. Pro admitted to not responding to con's arguments immediately, so he drops those points. Therefore, arguments to con
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
RyanemgedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO used arguements based on the bible while CON's arguements were based on interpreations of the bible done either by himself or somebody else who thinks in the way CON thinks. Majority if not all of arguements of CON was either red herring or offtopic. Such as: "acts 5:29 says god is the supreme authority in marriage" the best thing this arguement can be in this debate is: offtopic. The debate resolution was not "men is the ultimate authority in marriage" other arguements of CON was also in this way. 2. Almost none of the arguements of PRO is replied, let alone refuted. When we read tne arguements of PRO, he quotes bible verses which directly say woman to submit to husband(e.g round 2), or to be under husband. On the other hand, what CON did was: to interprete some passages in the way as if it states they are equal. for ex: cor 7:4 says to yield your body to your wife as she did to you, PRO asserts that it means husband also needs to submit, but it is his opinion/interpretation. To