In a court of law, it is. I learned in the military that, although I may not have received an order directly from the commander, I was still under the obligation to obey--or else. No reading in beyond common logic. This is basic rightly dividing of the word here.
Yes. So wouldn't you agree that those younger women are then obligated to obey that command? Assuming you agree this far, I then ask where the command originated from? You see, wives indeed ARE commanded to love their husbands.
I can't really argue with most of your practical advice. I'm sure I can do a better job showing her love. My problem still is that you haven't really given me a scriptural basis for the problem claim. You have to have a text that proves cause and effect: if the husband does his part right, the wife will submit, or whatever other thing she's not doing. Part of my issue here is that this claim has the effect of subtly giving the wife a pass for bad behavior on the basis of "he's not _________ , so that is my excuse."
I have a couple things. First, I want to rebuke all those who make any emphasis on the "Bible doesn't command women to love their husbands." Heartstrings pointed out how this is bogus based on Titus 2:4, but I want to go further. It is sort of like those who use Ephesians 5:21 to counter those who bring up (or in any way discuss) Ephesians 5:22. To make any kind of point out of it is to corrupt the word of God by watering down its teachings. It is dishonest.
Second, I hear a lot of mention of women who treat their husbands poorly and by manipulation usurp the position of authority. I've heard pastoral counsel that basically amounts to "it takes 2 to tango, fix your half--give 100%." This to me is a cop-out. It does not deal with the specifics. What advice can be given to a man in such a case? I personally believe it is improper to try to tell a man that if he does his part, she'll come around. What is the scriptural basis for this?
Amen. You doubters would find fault with the apostle Paul and the other NT writers because the frequently faulted and rebuked groups of people (see Titus 1:13 and context). Those that send their kids to public school and claim to be Christians ought to be rebuked sharply. I love what the author of one article said to the question of why we don't hear Christian leaders lifting up their voices over this issue: "The No. 1 reason appears to be fear. These weak-kneed Christian leaders avoid speaking the truth because they are afraid of losing support and money from people like you and me."
Read more: Is it a sin to send our kids to public school?
I still disagree about the media bias. As to the double standard, I do think you are right. Thus, it is a sin across the board rich or poor.
Now the only thing I'm having doubts about is Annie's post. I think there might be an exception made if the parent is convinced that his/her child is established in the faith and is going with sort of a ministry-minded approach. I think this would probably only ever be in the way upper grades and less than 1% of professing Christians that age would even qualify. Maturity like that would be about the same level as being comfortable with them leaving the house and being out on their own, so it really doesn't have to apply to our discussion. Except, you will probably respond by saying this is a double standard. I would just say that if you have raised a child to that point, you've earned a "well done" as far as I'm concerned.
They do not have to both be apples. The comparison works because they are both Bible issues. My point is that one (the sin of sending kids to public schools) is easier to prove Biblically than the other. If you are a baptist, you would ostensibly be holding to a teaching that is weaker than the one in question. I may have failed to convince you, but then it's not my job.
If you could use something a bit more apples to apples, think of it like this. I'm guessing you wouldn't send your kids to a school where they were forced to smoke cigarettes. Cigs are physically harmful--most Bible believers would agree. Well, evolution and humanism are spiritually harmful. I would think that would be more important by far.
For you and the others that refuse to see it as sin, I just say this. Be consistent. I think if you will look, the case I've made that it is sin is stronger than the case that can be made for one of the key baptist distinctives. The first S in the acronym Baptist is "saved, baptized church membership." I believe in that distinctive, and I believe the Bible teaches it. But, I bet I'd have an easier time convincing a rational person that sending your kids to public school is a sin than convincing him that baptism is absolutely required before church "membership."
OK. I'll give you the goes without saying part in not valid. I disagree about media bias being instruction. You are way off there. Really seems like you are trying to get out of the obvious interpretation. Is that possible?
If it is believing it that is the problem, why does it even have to be said? Seems like it would go without saying that you should believe the Bible. News is not instruction, by the way. You are mistreating that word.