Mark

Dave,

I only have a minute so just a quick comment. I can’t answer whether Grudem is seeking the truth or not, but comparing him against Kroeger what conclusion do you come to?

Did Grudem make up references? Did Grudem include AD greek references to claim for a classical greek definition of kephale? Did Grudem misquote quite badly citations?

C’mon Dave, Kroegers article was sloppy, false and somehow managed to make it into the Dictionary of Paul’s letters…what does that say about supposed Biblical Christianity?

Of course Grudem admits the ‘beginning’ can be the meaning of Kephale, no one denies that, but as the article showed (and which has been pointed out to Suzanne who follows in Kroegers footsteps) the one text is ambiguous adn can legitemately be undertood differently. Plus it’s a 5th Century AD text, hardly strong evidence for the NT.

And no, i don’t believe Grudem or I fall into the trap of making ‘source’ mean something different to beginning- egalitarians do this! It is only a more contemporary argument to combine all the meanings into one, which is of course necessary when ‘source’ isn’t legitimate. Problem is, in what sense is God the beginning of Christ? Sounds like a sub-ordination Christology. In what sense is the husband the beginning of his wife?

Let’s no be too critical of people bringing their agenda’s to the works either…we would be lying if we said no-one had an agenda. The point of Kostenbergers article is to show how difficult this verse is, which in reality makes the ‘flawless’ claim of Cheryl seem unacceptable. Was it not the false teachers in 1 Tim 1:6, 7 who Paul critiques for making confident assertions about what they taught? Let’s learn from this!

More later if i get the chance…