thatmom | Patriospeak

First, that from a corrupt and venomed fountain can spring no wholesome water. Secondarily, that no person has power to give the thing which does not justly appertain to themselves. [137]But the authority of a woman is a corrupted fountain, and therefore from her can never spring any lawful officer. She is not born to rule over men, and therefore she can appoint none by her gift, nor by her power (which she has not), to the place of a lawful magistrate; [138]and therefore, [those] who receive of a woman office or authority are adulterous and bastard officers before God. This may appear strange at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent [impartial] and equal in the cause of God as that we can be in the cause of man, the reason shall suddenly appear. The case supposed, that a tyrant by conspiracy usurped the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in the same did so establish himself, that he appointed officers, and did what he list for a time; and in this meantime the native king made strait inhibition of all his subjects, that none should adhere to this traitor, neither yet receive any dignity of him; yet, nevertheless, they would honour the same traitor as king, and become his officers in all affairs of the realm: if after the native prince did recover his just honour and possession, should he repute or esteem any man of the traitor’s appointment for a lawful magistrate, or for his friend and true subject? Or should he not rather with one sentence condemn the head with the members? And if he should do so, who is able to accuse him of rigour, much less condemn his sentence of injustice? And dare we deny the same power to God in the like case? [139]For that woman [who] reigns above man, she has obtained it by treason and conspiracy committed against God. How can it be then, that she, being criminal and guilty of treason committed against God, can appoint any officer pleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible.

Wherefore, let men that receive of women authority, honour, or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If any think, that because the realms and estates thereof have given their consents to a woman, and have established her and her authority, that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God, let the same men remember what I have said before: to wit, that God cannot approve the doing nor consent of any multitude, concluding anything against his word and ordinance; and therefore they must have a more assured defence against the wrath of God than the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of a consuming fire. That is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers, because she is a traitress and rebel against God. And finally, they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power.

http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. (On 1 Cor. 11:10, Calvin Translation Society edition of Commentaries.)

If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. And unquestionably, whenever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly. (Comments on 1 Cor. 14:34.)

Calvin was a man of clear understanding now wasn’t he?

Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highlyesteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. So God is wellpleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands. This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women. (Men, Women, and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1992], pp. 3536.)

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/govtwome.htm

For it were a great shame for us not to have that honesty at the least which nature teaches the very heathen. And if it be so, that they which know not either what God is, or what true religion means, have yet notwithstanding some kind of governance amongst them, how much more ought it to be observed amongst us? Now it is certain that women were never received to any public office. And who hath letted it, or been the stay of it, but that God only has imprinted such a knowledge in nature, that although we be not otherwise taught, yet we know that it were an unseemly thing to have women govern men? This is St. Paul’s meaning, and the meaning of the Holy Ghost which spake by his mouth. (Sermons on the Epistles of Timothy and Titus [1579; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983], p. 212; spelling modernized.)

It seems that the we aren’t the only folks on the net who do not appreciate theological modernity.

it’s not really a surprise that Don Veinot, Karen Campbell, Cynthia Gee and all the rest have sold out to liberalism. I was reminded of this Thursday night as I re-read Dr. Brian Abshires brotherly response to Veinot’s vicious slander of Abshire, Phillips, and Vision Forum.

I will make your commentary study a little easier; the quick answer is that the view that you propose here is at best about forty years old, originating in Liberal universities and mainline theological seminaries in the late 1960’s and filtering into evangelical ones in the 1970’s (because we evangelicals love to have our pastors earn degrees from prestigious academic institutions even if such institutions hate God and His Word). I know, because you see, I was there when it occurred. I was at Bethel College and Bethel Seminary in the late 1970’s when this “new view” of “mutual submission” first became popular. It was a self conscious attempt on the part of certain faculty members to “adjust” evangelical theology to make it appealing to the growing wave of feminists in the church. The fact that the term “submit” (Greek “hupotasso”) which means to be “placed under” cannot possibly be made to mean “mutual submission” was ignored; certain men wanted to adjust evangelical theology to a new generation which had a priori assumed the “truth” of feminism and therefore had to construct some kind of Biblical basis. This was little different from the Temperance movement of the 19^th century who assumed a priori that alcohol was the cause of all social ills and then created a twisted, distorted exegesis to insist that the wine in the Bible is really just grape juice; even though historically, linguistically and culturally this was pure invented nonsense. But just like the “all wine is really just grape juice” so has “we are really supposed to submit to one another so nobody, especially husbands have any authority.”

The rest of Absire’s tidy response if found on his http://www.christian-civilization.org website.

(not to be confused with ~~Slandrew~~ umm Andrew Sandlin’s Christian Culture website)

Definitions : Patriocentric

November 23, 2007 in church history, Commentaries, Don Veinot, Doug Phillips, Ephesians 5, Feminism, graceindellible, Patriarchy, patriowhat?!?!, thatmom, Vision Forum
Tags: Christianity, Commentaries, definitions, Feminism, gossip, humor, Patriarchy, religion, slander, Wagging Tongues

Patriocentrist (n)

1.) a person who believes that a “the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church” and has angered at least one evangelical feminist, usually resulting in a blog, podcast or article(s) being written to mischaracterize what the person in question has said

Patriospeak

Archive for the ‘thatmom’ Category

did John knox speak to the modern ctitics of patriarchy?

more great quotes

theological luddites part 2

other theological luddites pt 1

it’s not a suprise really

Definitions : Patriocentric

Archives

Recent Posts

The CBMW’s Gender Blog

The Incomparable Bayly Brothers

Nancy Wilson – Proverbs 31 example

Interested Onlookers

Outside the Camp

Patriocentrists

Rushing to Mischief

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing