While there is some obvious truth in what you say it seems you are missing a great part of the puzzle in my humble opinion. For example, you stated,
"Peter submitted to truth! He submitted to the Spirit of God that he discerned speaking through Paul. He knew what Paul was speaking came from the Lord" Exactly what scripture passages are you gleaning this from? I see nothing in the text that supports this opinion at all.
Peter is not going to submit to what Paul is saying just because Paul is saying it. He recognized it was Truth and coming from the Spirit of God.
You state several times , in one form or another, that, "We always and ever do, submit to the Spirit of God that we discern is in a man, woman or child". While I would pray this to be so...it rarely is.
Ok, let me be clearer, “We always and ever SHOULD, submit to the Spirit of God that we discern is in a man, woman or child")
The problem with what you are communicating is that folks rarely (as in virtually never) can do that when it is something they disagree with. I have found fewer Christians than I have fingers in 30 years that will "discern the voice of God" in something or someone they disagree with. If you doubt that try to get those on these boards to agree with submitting to Rick Joyner... as an example. They disagree with some theology so most will brand him as a "non christian heretic". I have also seen most Arminians in general rebelled at because they simply do not find the 5 points of Calvinism to be Biblically solid. This is simply an example. One can also read from Pauls' epistles that even the believers in churches he started were often in rebellion and not submitting to him. His authority was often challenged in his absence. I am not arguing for or against Joyner or Calvinism..just examples. However, as you can imagine that will get you nowhere fast.
Look, iff it is not from God, you don’t submit to it. I respect some Calvinists but do not adhere to all their teachings. I respect some Arminians, but do not adhere to all their teachings. I would never put myself under any authority at IHOP. I flat out don’t agree with them. I will never put myself under any leadership that the Spirit of God in me does not seem to sanction or that goes against His Word. There is never anyone between me and Jesus. I do not need any other mediator and the wrong kind of submission today, creates Mediators between man and God.)
It is not submission when it is something we want to do. or agree with. That is easy. How about when you are confronted with something you do NOT agree with or want to do. It is only true submission when we crucify our desire, put our belief as secondary, and do the thing we do not want to do. Jesus in Gathsemane is of course the prime example. He said he did not want to endure the road of the cross. However... regardless of what He wanted... He would submit to the Father and do what the Father wanted... not what He wanted. "Let this cup pass from me"..."not my will but thine be done".
Jesus was submitting to the right person. Remember, the context. We are talking about WHO to submit to.
It is always true submission when God says submit. You can crucify your desire and still be wrongly submitted. Jesus was always correctly submitted to His Father. He would never submit to man. That example of yours is not in context to what we are talking about because it is not like Jesus is submitted to the wrong person, but praise God he is at least submitted to someone. No, that is wrong.
It is also hard to accept what you stated about Peter. He preached the message on Pentecost 20 years prior to Galatia that ,"the promise was to your children...those far off...as many as the Lord our God shall call". This does not even take into account the Cornelius house event and Peter's vision of the unclean animals in the sheet. Paul even states that Peter's actions were for fear of the Jews.
Years in the Lord and who you are don’t matter if you preach a false gospel. Fortunately for Peter, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, corrected him and Peter recognized this was from the Lord and received the Lord’s correction.
It is fair to say that rebellion to God's ordained authorities CAN BE rebellion at God Himself. I am sure you are aware of the account of Israel seeking a king in 1 Samuel 8. It states, "6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king".
I have never advocated rebellion to God’s ordained authorities. The key is figuring out who are ordained by God and now ordained by themeselves or other men.
David knew that Saul was still ordained by God and the Holy Spirit will witness to your spirit who is ordained by God or not. And just because Saul was ordained by God did not necessarily mean that David had to stay. Just that David should not touch God's annointed and David knew this so he took off. Saul was trying to kill him anyway. I will not sit under a Saul. David chose not to sit under a Saul. A Saul will only seek to destroy a man of the Spirit anyway as he sought to destroy David. David had no choice but to run rather than fight back at God’s anointed. We are free to flee those who walk after the flesh.
Again, it CAN be. Not that it necessarily IS. There, to me, is the balance. To take the other side and balance things out more to your statements I would submit the events with the apostles. They were beaten and told to no longer preach in the name of Jesus. In this case they rebelled at the authorities... but did so because to maintain submission to God was the greater requirement. In essence to stay submitted to God they of necessity HAD TO rebel at the leadership of the Jewish Council.
This statement is out of context. I am talking about Spiritual leaders leading God’s people, not persecution. We ought always to obey God rather than man.
As you can see I agree with much of what you shared. It does seem to me that when compared to the balance of scripture you are painting with far too broad a brush. In conclusion... let me share a brief outline that I use to determine how to respond to this issue when it happens on a practical real life situation-I am submitted to God. I do this in 3 levels.
1. I am submitted to God
2. I generally know Him and Hs will by the Word and submit to what is revealed there.
3. I submit to God's ordained structure of ministry leadership on the earth.
I follow this as long as the ordained leadership does not try to make me violate the Word or my relationship with Him. If that ever happens (and it has) then I must rebel at the lower authority and submit myself to the higher, namely God and His clearly revealed Word.
Then we are in agreement.
There are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers given as gifts to the church to equip saints until we are all built up in faith, unity, and the knowledge of God. If a man demonstrates the fruit and gifts of a Biblical apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, or evangelist I will recognize them as such. I have no problem submitting to their ministry offices in the proper context. I will continue to do so unless they violate the higher authority of Gods Word. That would be Biblical submission. Submit to leadership, each other, unless it violates the higher authority of Gods Word, then we are obligated to "Obey God rather than man".
No disagreement there. Just remember, not everyone that calls themselves apostles, prophets, evangelist, etc., necessarily are. We can and should test the spirits.
Of course the problem is that many christians get their self in a snit over this or that little unimportant issue and claim "God said to rebel at ... whoever" and in fact God said no such thing. This is merely a ruse to cover over a rebellious heart that is at its core prideful and unwilling to submit itself to anyone. This is because their heart (or they) are top dog and NO ONE is telling them anything they don't want to hear and certainly not getting them to do anything they do not want to do. That is NOT submission.
I am sure you are right in some cases but I would be careful about painting a broad brush about everyone that decides to pull out of someone’s “leadership”.
Again, submission is only proven or verified when we are willing to do something we do not want to or are not in full agreement with. Otherwise, we are still just doing what we want to.
That may prove that you can be submissive, but we are not talking about how to prove you are submissive. We are talking about who we should be submitting to. It proves nothing that you can be submissive to someone not ordained of God except that you are deceived. And that is how people are forced to submit, by telling them that unless you submit to me, you are rebellious, so to prove that you love God and His servants you need to submit to me. Sorry. You can take a flying leap in the lake (not you Solomon), I am not submitting to you. Anyone that would say anything like that to a sheep, is not from God anyway. God’s ministers are marked by humility, and a spirit of brokenness, serving not taking and not brazenly arrogant and inflated with their own self-importance.
Alas, we spend too much time obsessing about which man to submit to, instead of working on submitting to the Holy Spirit.
Hope you see where I am coming from, now. The context is Spiritual leaders, not persecution, not civil authorities, not parents and children or husbands and wives. Those are altogether another topic with their own individual details. I see a lot of abuse in those relationships, too.
I have very close and spiritually mature brothers in Christ that I fellowship with, but we don't tell each other what to do. So, now, what is your definition of submission? Enjoying the give and take, Solomon.
Mike