Dave

Mark,
To just use Pinklight as an example, yes, she has asked you why you have an issue with believing that the salvation of the woman might be conditional on her husband. I do not have a problem with this. It is, after all, a conditional clause that we have been talking about. The issue is whether or not the conditional clause limits this to be the only way that she can be saved. I believe we have been united in saying to you that, no, it does not dictate the only way she can be saved.

Now, despite all your claims to the contrary you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for saying that the conditional clause means this is the only way she will be saved. For the conditional clause to say this we have to insert more information. Please show evidence for why the conditional clause becomes exclusive. I have provided info to the contrary, especially in the light of the fact that you now do not seem to mind the order of the main clause and the conditional clause.

So, I believe there is agreement from Pinklight, TL, Craig and myself. I hope the others correct me if this is not so. The fact that you think we are not suggests to me that either you do not understand Cheryl’s exegesis, or you simply do not want to try to. Cheryl’s exegesis does explain the verse. You keep saying it ignores the grammar there, but I assume that is because you want the conditional clause to say something it is not.

With regards to your response to Colossians, all I can say is you have to be joking! How do you explain Jesus being the source of all authority in one verse and then only the authority over all authority in the following chapter? How do you explain Jesus being the authority over all authorities? That does not even make sense! You said, “Dave you need to show proof that your translation of ‘kephale’ is an acceptable one before you try to argue for it in the context.” Oh, well that is not fair(!) because Grudem has not shown proof of his translation being acceptable and all I have done is give proof that it is not acceptable. This is exactly what you claim to have done to Cheryl’s exegesis, my fine young gander!

With regards to Romans 10, I offered more than simply the grammatical construction. We have the context for both verses, and Romans was written to a church. It is therefore in a very different genre to the letter to Timothy. Paul was writing hoping that all the Roman Christians would understand where he was coming from. I believe he was writing about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it’s power to save through faith. Are you denying this? If this is the case then don’t we take the verse in Romans 10 in the context of all that Paul has said in Romans 1-9?
In Timothy though we have a letter written to one man. We do know from the context that Paul is helping Timothy with a few things, false teachers etc. But do we know exactly what is happening with this situation between one woman and another party? Nope. So we put it together as best we can. Are you denying that the verses are regarding one woman and another party? If so then prove you case.

You said, “You offered un-similar examples and then totally reject a direct parallel discussing the same outcome of a condition being met.” You must be joking! You have NEVER EVER proved that my examples were un-similar and the one you have offered is un-similar in exactly the same way! Not only that, your direct parallel does not prove your point. To go back to your original question regarding Romans 10, “Is Paul suggesting that this is the only way you can be saved?” In that verse alone, no he is not. As I answered before, thankfully we have the rest of Romans to explain how it is that we are ONLY saved. Do you have a problem with this?

You have had enough eh? Enough of trying to bluff your way through? I guess it can be tiring!

Blessings!