I am Discouraged

[givennewname]

When a husband has backslided, he is unlikely to listen to you nor yr pastor.

[Xan]

This is why it is so important to spend time discussing these issues before marraige.

There is about a ton of truth in that statement.

The relationship between the husband and the wife is a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church. Christ loved us first, gave Himself up for us, and drew us to Him, and we are to submit to Him. Husbands, if you don't follow this example, chances are you will not have the same result.

Do you ever disagree with Christ? Do you ever question Christ? If you are ever in doubt do you turn to anyone but Christ? Then why should women be able to treat their husbands any other way but total devotion, and unwavering support. The illustration between Christ and the church is right on...but often women forget that it works both ways. Husbands are to love their wives with as much passion and dedication as Christ did for the church. On the other hand, women should submit wholly and without doubt, fear, and reservation to their husbands...just as the church does to Christ.

The whole Christ/church example goes both ways. If wives don't submit wholeheartedly, without doubt or reservation, to their husbands...chances are they won't have the same results either.

So much more emphasis has been placed on the wives without looking at the fact the men are to lead, serve, and sacrifice just as Christ has done for us. I never indicated women should not submit, but there are problems even when a wife submits and the husband abdicates his role. Also, when a man does not lead, and the wife has no one but Christ to submit to, as a result, he will be judged for that. I don't believe your above defense is warranted unless you have difficulties accepting your role. Therefore, I'm sure you agree with what has been said. What I said was only for men who expect total obedience without accepting their part in the picture of Christ and the church.

BTW, since you quoted and commented on that post; I'm sure you saw where I had stated I submitted to an ungodly man, but he could not be won over, so God took me out of that marraige. Also, since you read the post, you probably saw where I submitted to my fiance' in choosing a denomination that is in-line with his Calvinist beliefs even though I'm not a Calvinist. However, it was easy to do because I love the in depth teaching at the church we chose together, and because he is most concerned with my spiritual growth, he kept going back to a church that did not make a great first impression on him even though it did me. It was never something we argued about, but it was him who wanted to keep going back for my sake. That's leadership to put the spiritual needs of the weaker vessel above one's own. Now he likes the church as much as I do.

[drayden]

Drayden,

I do not know for sure if your husband is believing heresy or not, but your OP sounded like it. Calvinism/predestination are not heresy. However some people of our persuasion have taken predestination to an extreme to where it becomes heretical. Hypercalvinism is actually a misnomer as the hypercalvinist places the irresistability of grace in a position where it's importance is exaggerated so as to completely overshadow the rest of scripture. It is a denial of a sincere offer of the gospel to any who would repent, and some go so far as to insist that the gospel should only be preached to the elect (how one determines this is beyond me even if it were correct doctrine). True historical Calvinism does believe that the gospel should be preached to all and that it is a sincere offer to any who would accept it.

A Calvinist believes that without God's intervention man wont chose the gospel. However, any choice he makes against the gospel is voluntary and wanted based on his preferences. The resulting condemnation is also just because he honestly did not want to accept the gospel. Man's inability to choose is not something he rails against, it's not something done over and above his desires. It is his honest, earnest, completely voluntary desire to reject the gospel.

When the Holy Spirit enlightens a man, it is his honest, earnest, completely voluntary desire to accept the gospel. He wont choose anything else because his nature changed to where it makes no sense to him to do otherwise. There is no possibility of man being drug kicking and screaming into heaven or hell, man does what he wants and goes where he has chosen. God changes the 'want to' in a person by changing his nature, opening his ears, circumcising his heart not by changing man's mind for him.

Hypercalvinism takes this too far, to the point that the rejection or acceptance of the gospel is not voluntary at all. Man does not chose. It's not that he chooses that which pleases him, he makes no choice at all. God not only chooses the elect, but saves them without their consent. A Hypercalvinist

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR

2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR

3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR

4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR

5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Based on what you have presented, and the way you have worded things, it is my impression that either you do not understand your husband's beliefs well enough to explain them accurately to us or he has drifted off into hypercalvinism. The difference might seem slight to someone coming from a freewill pov, however, it is there. Before I can counsel you how to respond to his doctrine and his insistence that you follow it, I would have to know which is actually happening. Calvinism isn't everyone's bag, but it isn't heresy. Hypercalvinism is heresy.

Actually I can tell you one thing to do. I would do a complete study, a comparison study if you will, of Calvinism and Arminianism on your own. Ask your husband for materials that you understand that you can study, I'm sure he'd be glad to provide them. Then get your own and study the scriptures using both. If he gets his knickers in a twist, explain to him that you dont understand and and you want to study until you do understand. You wish to understand and agree but cant right now. etc. Once you understand true Calvinism, whether you agree with it or not, and know whether or not he is a heretic, then you have a clear path, I believe.

End the end, if he's a standard Calvinist, I have to agree with Axx, the scriptures are clear, it is the husband's job to lead. But submission does not mean that you agree with everything, it means that you allow him to lead in spite of that. You are not a robot and not expected to just nod your head and follow along like a zombie. You can ask questions, you can disagree. However, once the rubber hits the road, and you have children, it is HIS responsibility to see to their spiritual upbringing and yours to support him.

If your husband has drifted off into heresy however, you do not have to follow. You can pray for him, you can stay with him, you can continue to dialogue, but you are not to follow him into heresy.

Oh, and you said that you were a Baptist... Have you ever heard of a group of Baptists called "the Founders"? They strictly hold to the London Baptist Confession. You might want to look them up.

Thank you for your response you have completly described my husbands belief _ hyper cavalinist.I am not looking to undermine my husband but help him,Let me give some more background I have been married for 20 years and my husband has only been active in church for the last year.He game across a preacher on tv and started studying and attending his church. Now he is not at all willing to hear anything I want to discuss ,If I disagree I just dont have ears to hear.That I am being lead astray by false teachers.Now I do not want my husband to go back to his old ways, But there message is dark and dicouraging, Jesus only came for his elect.

I am only looking for some direction.

[Rick-Parker]

Drayden,

I do not know for sure if your husband is believing heresy or not, but your OP sounded like it. Calvinism/predestination are not heresy. However some people of our persuasion have taken predestination to an extreme to where it becomes heretical. Hypercalvinism is actually a misnomer as the hypercalvinist places the irresistability of grace in a position where it's importance is exaggerated so as to completely overshadow the rest of scripture. It is a denial of a sincere offer of the gospel to any who would repent, and some go so far as to insist that the gospel should only be preached to the elect (how one determines this is beyond me even if it were correct doctrine). True historical Calvinism does believe that the gospel should be preached to all and that it is a sincere offer to any who would accept it.

A Calvinist believes that without God's intervention man wont chose the gospel. However, any choice he makes against the gospel is voluntary and wanted based on his preferences. The resulting condemnation is also just because he honestly did not want to accept the gospel. Man's inability to choose is not something he rails against, it's not something done over and above his desires. It is his honest, earnest, completely voluntary desire to reject the gospel.

When the Holy Spirit enlightens a man, it is his honest, earnest, completely voluntary desire to accept the gospel. He wont choose anything else because his nature changed to where it makes no sense to him to do otherwise. There is no possibility of man being drug kicking and screaming into heaven or hell, man does what he wants and goes where he has chosen. God changes the 'want to' in a person by changing his nature, opening his ears, circumcising his heart not by changing man's mind for him.

Hypercalvinism takes this too far, to the point that the rejection or acceptance of the gospel is not voluntary at all. Man does not chose. It's not that he chooses that which pleases him, he makes no choice at all. God not only chooses the elect, but saves them without their consent. A Hypercalvinist

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR

2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR

3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR

4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR

5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Based on what you have presented, and the way you have worded things, it is my impression that either you do not understand your husband's beliefs well enough to explain them accurately to us or he has drifted off into hypercalvinism. The difference might seem slight to someone coming from a freewill pov, however, it is there. Before I can counsel you how to respond to his doctrine and his insistence that you follow it, I would have to know which is actually happening. Calvinism isn't everyone's bag, but it isn't heresy. Hypercalvinism is heresy.

Actually I can tell you one thing to do. I would do a complete study, a comparison study if you will, of Calvinism and Arminianism on your own. Ask your husband for materials that you understand that you can study, I'm sure he'd be glad to provide them. Then get your own and study the scriptures using both. If he gets his knickers in a twist, explain to him that you dont understand and and you want to study until you do understand. You wish to understand and agree but cant right now. etc. Once you understand true Calvinism, whether you agree with it or not, and know whether or not he is a heretic, then you have a clear path, I believe.

End the end, if he's a standard Calvinist, I have to agree with Axx, the scriptures are clear, it is the husband's job to lead. But submission does not mean that you agree with everything, it means that you allow him to lead in spite of that. You are not a robot and not expected to just nod your head and follow along like a zombie. You can ask questions, you can disagree. However, once the rubber hits the road, and you have children, it is HIS responsibility to see to their spiritual upbringing and yours to support him.

If your husband has drifted off into heresy however, you do not have to follow. You can pray for him, you can stay with him, you can continue to dialogue, but you are not to follow him into heresy.

Oh, and you said that you were a Baptist... Have you ever heard of a group of Baptists called "the Founders"? They strictly hold to the London Baptist Confession. You might want to look them up.

Thank you for your response you have completly described my husbands belief _ hyper cavalinist.I am not looking to undermine my husband but help him,Let me give some more background I have been married for 20 years and my husband has only been active in church for the last year.He game across a preacher on tv and started studying and attending his church. Now he is not at all willing to hear anything I want to discuss ,If I disagree I just dont have ears to hear.That I am being lead astray by false teachers.Now I do not want my husband to go back to his old ways, But there message is dark and dicouraging, Jesus only came for his elect.

I am only looking for some direction.

Go to the church you want to. If he doesn't want to go with you, let him know you are disappointed in his decision but you don't agree with his views. But be prepared for the backlash he will throw at you to try and keep you under his thumb. If you are not willing to do that, than you should acquiesce to his power over you and quit complaining. Sorry if my last statement sounds rough, but it is the truth. May the Lord bless and support you.

[LadyRaven]

Thank you for your response you have completly described my husbands belief _ hyper cavalinist.I am not looking to undermine my husband but help him,Let me give some more background I have been married for 20 years and my husband has only been active in church for the last year.He game across a preacher on tv and started studying and attending his church. Now he is not at all willing to hear anything I want to discuss ,If I disagree I just dont have ears to hear.That I am being lead astray by false teachers.Now I do not want my husband to go back to his old ways, But there message is dark and dicouraging, Jesus only came for his elect.

I am only looking for some direction.

Hypercalvinist on TV? Wow, that's news. Anyway.

I would be absolutely sure that he is actually a heretic before taking my advice. You might be misunderstanding him or he might be misunderstanding his own church and this is different. However, once you have ascertained that he is in fact heretical, you need to treat him as such. Heretics are supposed to be confronted and given a chance to repent of their error before anything else is done, this is to be done by someone in authority over him. Unfortunately if his church is heretical this might not happen. Heretics are generally regarded as being unbelievers by the church proper. Therefore you should regard him as one and treat him accordingly. I'm sure there are plenty of good websites with good biblical counsel over what you should do but here is my take on it.

You do not leave him over this issue. You submit to him as much as you can over as much as you can. However, you do not submit to his authority in spiritual matters because he has none. You are to be respectful and kind but you may go to church and sit under whichever local body you feel is correct. Get a ride if he wont give you one.

Of course he could be abusively controlling or emotionally manipulative. In this case you need to make a decision as to how to handle it and then follow through as you feel appropriate.

[Axxman]

So much more emphasis has been placed on the wives without looking at the fact the men are to lead, serve, and sacrifice just as Christ has done for us. I never indicated women should not submit, but there are problems even when a wife submits and the husband abdicates his role. Also, when a man does not lead, and the wife has no one but Christ to submit to, as a result, he will be judged for that. I don't believe your above defense is warranted unless you have difficulties accepting your role. Therefore, I'm sure you agree with what has been said. What I said was only for men who expect total obedience without accepting their part in the picture of Christ and the church.

BTW, since you quoted and commented on that post; I'm sure you saw where I had stated I submitted to an ungodly man, but he could not be won over, so God took me out of that marraige. Also, since you read the post, you probably saw where I submitted to my fiance' in choosing a denomination that is in-line with his Calvinist beliefs even though I'm not a Calvinist. However, it was easy to do because I love the in depth teaching at the church we chose together, and because he is most concerned with my spiritual growth, he kept going back to a church that did not make a great first impression on him even though it did me. It was never something we argued about, but it was him who wanted to keep going back for my sake. That's leadership to put the spiritual needs of the weaker vessel above one's own. Now he likes the church as much as I do.

XAN...just to set the record straight...I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. (Maybe I should have said that...lol) I was basically adding on to what you said. You gave the husband perspective of the Christ/church relationship...I was giving the wife perspective. I agreed with what you said. When I was asking those questions (Do you ever disagree with Christ? Do you ever question Christ? ETC...) I should have phrased them differently...I wasn't trying to say "YOU" in particular...I just meant women in general. Totally bad writing form on my part there...sorry

I also completely understand your husbands decision to go to a church that didn't quite meet his fancy. I have done the same thing for my wife. My wife is a relatively young Christian (compared to me, I was raised in it) and we attended a church that met her spiritual needs far more than they met mine initially. Over time, the church began to meet needs that I didn't realize I had and it has become a home to us. I saw it as my duty to put my wife in a situation where she would grow, even if it meant my needs took a backseat for a time.

Also...I was the ungodly man in a marriage. My wife left me because of it. So I am quite familiar with that role as well. I still feel guilt over failing my first wife. I don't cut myself ANY slack over this. I would say that the vast majority of failed Christian marriages can be laid at the feet of husbands who failed to lead spiritually. However, with that said, it is still the wife's responsibility to follow her husbands leadership if he is trying to lead, even if she disagrees, even if he is wrong.

Seems we have a bit in common...even if our male/female perspectives are different.

[speckles]

Drayden,

Hypercalvinism is heretical, yes. However, it might be a bit harsh to start treating your husband as an unbeliever right now. He just started paying attention to this stuff.

I would use the socratic method to deal with him. I use it with unbelievers all the time, but I also use it to debate, sorta...

Study, study, study until you know his side and your side inside and out. Especially concentrate on the things that make hypercalvinism different from the regular brand. Then just ask him questions. Start doing it one at a time and write the answers down. Most men would regard this as interest and an attempt to understand him at the very least and possibly even a desire to learn from him. He will not be offended if you ask him things and ask for the scriptures he uses and then write them down to study on your own.

Then research what he says and ask a related question from that, headed in a direction which will either lead you to understand him (if he's a believer) or lead him to repent of his doctrine because he will see that it is wrong (if he's not). EIther of these things would be good and peace would descend upon your household once again...er... if that's all that was wrong anyway....

[Axxman]

Surely you're not saying that a wife is never to disagree with or question her husband? A husband is NOT Christ and should not be treated as if he were. Women are to submit; not be mindless and brainless. And that's what it comes down to if women are never to question their husband's ideas and beliefs. Please tell me this is not what you're saying! BTW, if all men were as Christ-like as they are to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation!

I Peter is talking about unsaved husbands, and they are not spiritual leaders of any type. Big difference between submitting to someone who's not leading you astray, so that he might be won to Christ, and following a man who is leading you down a warped spiritual path that can do you damage (spiritually speaking). The spirit of the message is winning the unsaved to Christ, not blind submission for the sake of submitting. I'm thinking God has more love and care for women than that.

Actually...I think you got the point. Husbands and wives are not perfect. The Christ/church example is a picture of perfection...husbands and wives are not always perfect. I totally agree that if all men were perfectly Christ-like and if women treated them that way...then this would be a moot point. My ONLY point was that the Christ/church example goes both ways. Husbands fail in their leadership, and wives fail in submissiveness. Clearly, women have every right to their own thought, and they may certainly disagree with their husbands. The question is...are women allowed to ignore their husbands spiritual guidance just because they don't like it?

So you contend that 1 Peter is telling women to submit to lost unsaved husbands...but if your husband is saved, then you don't have to submit to him. I'm sorry but how does that make any sense? How much more warped does a spiritual path get than when its the unsaved path? Besides...there is no indication here that we are talking about "unsaved" husbands at all since the section is referring to both husbands and wives. He tells the wives to submit, and the husbands to be respectful.

[Floatingaxe]

As my husband's sister in Christ, I have every authority to ask my husband's spiritual leader to speak to him. I would not be a good wife if I didn't seek correction for him, and restoration of unity. I am held accountable to God for seeing error and not attempting to right it. My family comes first UNDER God. You seem to harp on the woman's submissiveness. What about the husband's ability to hear the wife and submit to Godly wisdom? There's many a comment I could make on that common problem!

Husbands are certainly supposed to hear the wise counsel of their wives. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a husband who knows and respects the wisdom of his wife. Having a wife who knows and understands the things of God is a tremendous blessing and a man would be a fool to not listen and consider the words of his wife. However, it is still the man's job to lead his wife. The biggest problem here is that you are not providing and scripture to back up your claims here. What authority do you have to speak to another man about your spiritual problems with your husband? The quickest way to restore unity in the marriage is to submit to your husbands spiritual authority...even if you think he is wrong.

You say you want husbands to listen to their wives more..well the quickest way to undermine that is to start disrespecting his God given authority as the Head of the house. The scriptures can't be more clear on this point...I'll post it again...

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;" I Peter 3:1

If your hubby isn't in the word...submit to him so they may be won by the conversation of the wives. A husband is more likely to listen to a wife who is fulfilling her Godly role.

It is NOT my intent to place all the blame on women...their are plenty that men could do to be better spiritual leaders. I'm sure there are many comments you could make in that regard. However, with the OP in mind (and I'm glad she came back to clarify a bit) she simply has no scriptural authority to go against her husband in this case. If you have any scriptures that say a women doesn't have to submit to a husband who she disagree's with...I'll be glad to read them.

I have every authority to go to my leaders about any problem! Why is that an issue with you? God places leaders in our lives for a reason--to guide us in Him.

There is the fact that men who do not lead as Christ, and so a woman is presented with a dilemma. You mustn't read into the scriptures that admonish a woman regarding submission that it was directed to every marriage--it is directed to Godly marriages.

Ephesians 5:21

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

[Xan]

So much more emphasis has been placed on the wives without looking at the fact the men are to lead, serve, and sacrifice just as Christ has done for us. I never indicated women should not submit, but there are problems even when a wife submits and the husband abdicates his role. Also, when a man does not lead, and the wife has no one but Christ to submit to, as a result, he will be judged for that. I don't believe your above defense is warranted unless you have difficulties accepting your role. Therefore, I'm sure you agree with what has been said. What I said was only for men who expect total obedience without accepting their part in the picture of Christ and the church.

BTW, since you quoted and commented on that post; I'm sure you saw where I had stated I submitted to an ungodly man, but he could not be won over, so God took me out of that marraige. Also, since you read the post, you probably saw where I submitted to my fiance' in choosing a denomination that is in-line with his Calvinist beliefs even though I'm not a Calvinist. However, it was easy to do because I love the in depth teaching at the church we chose together, and because he is most concerned with my spiritual growth, he kept going back to a church that did not make a great first impression on him even though it did me. It was never something we argued about, but it was him who wanted to keep going back for my sake. That's leadership to put the spiritual needs of the weaker vessel above one's own. Now he likes the church as much as I do.

XAN...just to set the record straight...I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. (Maybe I should have said that...lol) I was basically adding on to what you said. You gave the husband perspective of the Christ/church relationship...I was giving the wife perspective. I agreed with what you said. When I was asking those questions (Do you ever disagree with Christ? Do you ever question Christ? ETC...) I should have phrased them differently...I wasn't trying to say "YOU" in particular...I just meant women in general. Totally bad writing form on my part there...sorry

I also completely understand your husbands decision to go to a church that didn't quite meet his fancy. I have done the same thing for my wife. My wife is a relatively young Christian (compared to me, I was raised in it) and we attended a church that met her spiritual needs far more than they met mine initially. Over time, the church began to meet needs that I didn't realize I had and it has become a home to us. I saw it as my duty to put my wife in a situation where she would grow, even if it meant my needs took a backseat for a time.

Also...I was the ungodly man in a marriage. My wife left me because of it. So I am quite familiar with that role as well. I still feel guilt over failing my first wife. I don't cut myself ANY slack over this. I would say that the vast majority of failed Christian marriages can be laid at the feet of husbands who failed to lead spiritually. However, with that said, it is still the wife's responsibility to follow her husbands leadership if he is trying to lead, even if she disagrees, even if he is wrong.

Seems we have a bit in common...even if our male/female perspectives are different.

You sound like a great husband! I hope your wife appreciates that. Differing male/female perspectives are good; it's the medium we use to communicate is what makes things difficult sometimes.