The bible does not teach mutual submission

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.