The bible does not teach mutual submission

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.